bikesnbones wrote:fatnfast wrote:I will dig out a nice picture of someones foot that had hit a barrier (wearing trainers) if we are not to squimish:
Funny you should say that.
I have a picture, way too grotesque to post here, of the remains of a rider mashed up with his Dainese race leathers,
Let's be realistic.
If you come off your bike on the road, gravel rash is going to be the least of your problems.
Nasty though these injuries are, they are rarely if ever life threatening.
What does the really serious damage, is impact with a solid object such as a lamp post, stone wall, or another vehicle.
Things that the best leather and CE approved armour is not going to withstand.
We've all see the utter carnage caused to a car in a low speed crash.
Steel is twisted and mangled rendering the vehicle unrecognisable.
So with that in mind, ask yourself what difference 1.5 mm of leather and a few plastic coated polysterene inserts are going to make.
That's not to say that protective clothing isn't a good idea, but far better to put your faith in sound defensive riding skills.
I doubt Laws regarding attire will not make any difference to the injury / death stats
Then ride around in a t-shirt and flip flops and dont waste your money on leathers or boots. Maybe WSB and MotoGP riders should switch to lightweight shell suits?
Not every accident results in death or mangled bones/bodies. Sure, a high speed head on with a truck will likely result in death regardless of clothing but the majority will be slides/low impact accidents where protective clothing would save you a lot of pain and hassle as well as stop people clogging up our overstretched Doctors and Hospitals.
lets be realistic about that?
In the many years I have been doing bike training many of the students share stories of gravel rash down to the claimed 'bone' that could have been prevented.
I certainly agree that advanced training would help, but the biggest problem is getting the 'at risk' groups to come forward and undertake this. Take up for the DSA scheme for riders below 25 years of age, for me, is virtually zero.
or, we could look at an NHS study on protective clothing:
Evidence
• Many studies confirm the value of protective clothing in reducing the frequency and extent of abrasions and lacerations of the skin and soft tissue in motorcycle crashes6
• After adjustment for confounders, drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk than other drivers (a significant difference). Drivers wearing white helmets compared to a black helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk. Voluntary use of daytime headlights was associated with a 27% lower risk. There was no association between the colour of the bike and risk. Also, the protective association for high visibility clothing strengthened with falling light conditions seems to provide additional support for the validity of the findings according to the authors2.
• Impact protectors may reduce the severity of an injury. They work by slowing down the rate of transfer of the forces in an impact to a less damaging or non-damaging level (impact attenuation). For example, a rider may still sustain a broken leg, but it is more likely to be a simple fracture that is easier to treat compared to a complex fracture. Impact protectors may also prevent some apparently minor injuries such as chipped elbow, shoulder or knee bones, which can be more debilitating and require longer rehabilitation than fractures. In order to be effective however, it is essential that impact protectors are fitted and held in place so that they will not move during a crash7.
• The same study also found that riders without protective clothing sustained injuries in collisions at lower speeds (80% at <50km/h compared to 80% at <60km/h for riders with protective clothing). Findings also pointed to riders wearing protective clothing sustaining fewer leg injuries in crashes at the same relative speed (40% vs 29% injury free at speeds between 31-50km/h) and a significant benefit in reduction of foot injuries in riders wearing high boots7
• Injured motorcyclists who were wearing protective leather clothing were hospitalised for an average of seven days less than those not wearing appropriate clothing. In addition, protected motorcyclists were able to return to work on average 20 days earlier and were 40% less likely to suffer permanent physical defect than their unprotected counterparts8
• In addition to cuts and abrasions, protective clothing can prevent or reduce many serious injuries including pipe burns, friction burns, the stripping away of skin and muscle, reduction in the rate of infection from wound contamination and consequent complications in healing of severe injuries7
• There is a limit to benefits however, especially for high impact crashes, where Otte et al (2002) found almost no difference in the distribution of MAIS (Maximum Injury Severity) grades between injured motorcyclists with and without protective clothing
• There is ample evidence that wearing a helmet, either full or open faced, reduces the risk of fatality by about half. Despite this, fatal head injuries occur in 80% of helmeted motorcyclists who die in road accidents, and although there are fatal injuries to other body areas in a proportion of these cases, many die from the head injuries alone9
• Protective clothing cannot, as far as is known, significantly mitigate9:
- severe bending, crushing and torsional forces to the lower limbs
- massive penetrating injuries to any part of the body
- high energy impacts on the chest or abdomen causing injuries through shock waves; and severe bending forces such as when the torso strikes an upright post
So properly tested and certified clothing/boots will help protect you within the limitations of the severity of the accident. Thats fact and clearly proven. Should it be made compulsory, no.
Is it an intelligent act to wear it when appropiate? I think so, dont you?
