Dirt Bike Helmets Are Designed to Paralyze You?

[turbo dan]

Now its not just helmets but capitalism that is bad.  This thread is really retarded.

I think helmet laws and seat belt laws are stupid personally.  I wear a helmet every time I ride, dirt or street, and I buckle up every time I get in a car, but laws requiring that exist simply to issue fines.  Its not about safety, its all about money.  Odd that Mr. Conspiracy doesn't see it that way.

[suppresst]

1 minute ago, ckny said:

There is still no conclusive evidence that neck braces prevent spinal injuries. We can argue about this all day. If you feel comfortable wearing one, go for it. If not go for it. 

There does seem to be a research trend showing that lighter, smaller helmets, in particular ECE rated helmets are more affective in slow speed offroad type crashes and impacts. I personally only buy ECE rated helmets. While no two crashes are the same I have only had concussions so far with SNELL rated helmets that weighed over 3lbs like Shoei, Fox, etc.

Right now I’m running Suomy, Just 1 and Airoh composite helmets. 

Okay NOW we are getting somewhere? Please, what is an ECE rated helmet? Also, can you provide links to some of the helmet models you suggest or are using?

[suppresst]

2 minutes ago, turbo dan said:

Now its not just helmets but capitalism that is bad.  This thread is really retarded.

I think helmet laws and seat belt laws are stupid personally.  I wear a helmet every time I ride, dirt or street, and I buckle up every time I get in a car, but laws requiring that exist simply to issue fines.  Its not about safety, its all about money.  Odd that Mr. Conspiracy doesn't see it that way.

No capitalism isn't bad, people are. Capitalism is the best system yet designed by man to keep men's selfishness channeled for the common good. It's a system of controlled self-interest. Helmet manufacturers are in it for profit, not to spread the Gospel. 

[ckny]

Just now, suppresst said:

Okay NOW we are getting somewhere? Please, what is an ECE rated helmet? Also, can you provide links to some of the helmet models you suggest or are using?

Regarding the testing and research on ECE vs SNELL I would have to look it up. I had 3 pretty bad concussions along with whiplash in the span of a year. My neck has some issues and I’m still recovering from post concussion syndrome over 5 years later. For me I need a light helmet. With a pack on for woods riding I can handle a neck brace, loads my neck up too much and I get dizzy. For sprint races and rides or MX I will run an Atlas brace without a hydration pack. 

Just look up ECE certification, lots of info there. LS2 America has some info they have been testing lately. They are a Euro helmet company. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ljl8co191yqwizz/AAANA20Z4_0Gdy9nmgbdnEKVa?dl=0

Some light Euro helmet companies are Just 1, LS2, Airoh, Suomy. Leatt is also building some lighter helmets as well. 

[William1]

13 minutes ago, suppresst said:

Well, allow me to perfect my point. It's not just the question, Are helmets designed to protect spine? They probably aren't. My question from the get-go is, Are they designed in such a way, with protruding chin piece, that they actually enhance chances of spine injury? That is the WHOLE question I am posing here. 

Silly question. A helmet protects the head. The more that is covered, the safer it gets. It does not protect the spine, thigh, toes, hands or emotional injuries.  It is patently absurd to infer that helmets are designed to 'enhance spinal injuries'.

Crashing enhances spinal injuries. Nothing prevents all injuries other than staying in bed.

I strongly recommend you study physics and read all the papers written on this subject for the last fifty+ years.

In a nutshell, you make a best effort to protect the driver/rider/. Nothing is failsafe. When I was a kid, it was common at the average F1 race for a driver to die. Advances have been made that have reduced that to incredibly infrequent. As one issue has been isolated and resolved, another popped up garnering attention. It will never be 100% safe unless they never race.

 

Study this:https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/death-dying/15-most-common-causes-of-death-in-the-world.htm

[William1]

14 minutes ago, suppresst said:

Okay NOW we are getting somewhere? Please, what is an ECE rated helmet? Also, can you provide links to some of the helmet models you suggest or are using?

The lighter the helmet, the better (again, you never asked this question). Lightness, like speed, costs money. How much protection do you want to buy? No one is forcing you to buy a cheap helmet or an expensive one. It is all up to you. When I was a kid, the local cycle shop had a sign. "If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet". Nothing is 100% in life.

[Rob Reffner]

There was a good segment during supercross last night interviewing a member of the Alpinestars medical team, discussing recent advancements and design enhancements in helmets to reduce injury. While less than what would be without a helmet, there are injuries incurred from helmet impact, and they address that in the segment. Might be worth a watch.

[Dwrizzol]

1 hour ago, cjjeepercreeper said:

WEAR A FRIGGING NECK BRACE DAMMIT!

I finally broke down and bought a neck brace thanks to your dedicated promotion of them. I am still going to break my wrists with my wrap around handguards though... ?

Edited February 4, 2018 by Dwrizzol

[Confederate]

It puts the lotion on!

[suppresst]

41 minutes ago, William1 said:

Silly question. A helmet protects the head. The more that is covered, the safer it gets. It does not protect the spine, thigh, toes, hands or emotional injuries.  It is patently absurd to infer that helmets are designed to 'enhance spinal injuries'.

 

For a "moderator" you are sometimes not very moderate. I clearly spell out, a few posts ago, that I am not really suggesting anyone is designing helmet to create spinal injuries (yes I phrased it a little that in title of the thread). I am suggesting that the notion of creating a breathing space up front has the unfortunate effect of enhancing a neck injury. In other words, when they put the chin beak in to create breathing space, did they factor in what the projecting chin design would do if you actually impact a stationary object head on? 1/3 of the participants here suggest the solution is not to crash, which is silly. I watch pro enduro and motocross all the time and see all manner of crashes.

What I am finding difficult to believe is that nobody, at the consumer end, seems to have examined the question of what the consequence of the protruding chin is for the spine. I tipped over into a tree going about walking speed (3 - to 5 mph) and got whip lash because that chin piece whipped my head back. I'm not convinced that I would have got whiplash if the chin protector was molded closer to the chin. 

Try it. Put on your helmet and bump gently up against a wall with the chin projectile on helmet. It creates an unnatural strain on the neck and spine.

[suppresst]

51 minutes ago, Rob Reffner said:

There was a good segment during supercross last night interviewing a member of the Alpinestars medical team, discussing recent advancements and design enhancements in helmets to reduce injury. While less than what would be without a helmet, there are injuries incurred from helmet impact, and they address that in the segment. Might be worth a watch.

You got a link to that video?

[gitenby]

56 minutes ago, William1 said:

 "If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet". Nothing is 100% in life.

I remember that saying when I was a kid and dad got me a $25 helmet 

[Jason76]

1 hour ago, turbo dan said:

Now its not just helmets but capitalism that is bad.  This thread is really retarded.

I think helmet laws and seat belt laws are stupid personally.  I wear a helmet every time I ride, dirt or street, and I buckle up every time I get in a car, but laws requiring that exist simply to issue fines.  Its not about safety, its all about money.  Odd that Mr. Conspiracy doesn't see it that way.

Depends, I think it’s more about insurance premiums.  If seatbelts, airbags, motorcycle helmets reduce injuries it keeps insurance premiums lower.  If people are constantly being ejected from their vehicles or serious head and spine injuries from their heads smashing into what’s in front of them, then your premiums will start to rise. 

Taxation is the real theft, but that’s a topic for another time

[busted bones]

2 hours ago, Husquire said:

The only way you would have avoided whiplash would have been if the tree would not have contacted you at all if the helmet werent there. For example if you fell and stopped with the tree just 1/2 inch from your face.

Helmets are designed to absorb and in effect transfer energy away from your brain in a crash. Some of the energy is absorbed i to the lining of the helmet (btwn 60-100 jewels, about the same as being hit with a punch) the rest is distributed around the helmet frame and shell. A hit to the head from a tree in your scenario would happen with any helmet, at the physics remain the same. A break away visor may absorb 10-15 more jewels but the tree will then continue and hit your forehead still resulting in whiplash. (Frame of reference crashes can easily produce 1000+ jewels of energy).

The shell and frame of helmet transfer some energy thats then absorbed by the neck, this would also happen without a helmet as your skull would transfer that energy( unless its crushed and mushed into tree) neck braces then transfer the energy from the neck to the chest, back and shoulders which are far more capable of absorbing this energy then just your neck.

No helmet will be able to prevent whiplash, the only thing that will help is a good helmet\ neck brace combo.

I personally like the extended front face of the helmet, because if I crash into a tree it gives me more distance from my face to the tree brach nubs that stick out that may impale my face.

It's joules, not jewels. 

 

As for the OP, are you looking for a get rich quick lawsuit? Your language with the bs terminology of "whiplash" instead of the medical term neck strain and asking if the helmets are designed to break your neck seems fishy. If you don't want to break your neck, get good at riding instead. 

[keeperkid11]

I guess I would like to know where you the tree hit your helmet. If it hit along the bottom of the chin guard then I can see your point. However, if the tree hit the chin guard straight on, then the chin guard is rendered obsolete when it comes to causing whiplash. Chin guard, no chin guard, or even no helmet, the body of your head is still going to contact the tree and force it backwards, causing the injury. At that point the only way to prevent that injury would be to saw your head off, but by then I think you would have more serious problems to worry about than whiplash...

In all seriousness would love for someone to find out if a chin guard amplifies the force of your head snapping back, I can see that being a factor suppresst. Nevertheless I have never thought of helmets possibly causing more harm than good in some situations, so this question makes sense OP even though it seems to me like a conspiracy theory against helmet manufacturers ?

Edit: Spelling is a thing

Edited February 4, 2018 by keeperkid11

[William1]

28 minutes ago, suppresst said:

For a "moderator" you are sometimes not very moderate. I clearly spell out, a few posts ago, that I am not really suggesting anyone is designing helmet to create spinal injuries (yes I phrased it a little that in title of the thread). I am suggesting that the notion of creating a breathing space up front has the unfortunate effect of enhancing a neck injury. In other words, when they put the chin beak in to create breathing space, did they factor in what the projecting chin design would do if you actually impact a stationary object head on? 1/3 of the participants here suggest the solution is not to crash, which is silly. I watch pro enduro and motocross all the time and see all manner of crashes.

What I am finding difficult to believe is that nobody, at the consumer end, seems to have examined the question of what the consequence of the protruding chin is for the spine. I tipped over into a tree going about walking speed (3 - to 5 mph) and got whip lash because that chin piece whipped my head back. I'm not convinced that I would have got whiplash if the chin protector was molded closer to the chin. 

Try it. Put on your helmet and bump gently up against a wall with the chin projectile on helmet. It creates an unnatural strain on the neck and spine.

You do not understand what a moderator does. As a moderator, I ensure that posts conform to forum rules and standards of conduct. That is all.

As a forum member, we are all free to share out knowledge, experience an expertise. We are also free to ignore anyone's comments that we choose. A forum moderator and a forum member have zero cross over.

That chin piece had ZERO to do with your 'injury'. Had it not been the chin piece, your chin would of done the same thing, only you may of also gotten a broken jaw. You were told not to crash because your comments begged that response.

Try this. Walk into a wall with no protection. Then try it again with a helmet with minimal chin protection. Make sure to smack it with the chin area. See how hard it is to do that.. Now do the same thing and run tin to the wall, once with no helmet, once with. Let us know your results. Since group wisdom and 50+ years of motorsports experience does not 'sell you on it', the best thing you can do is your own tests.

[busted bones]

2 hours ago, suppresst said:

Very well, that makes some sense. However, that begs the question - when the industry began to design in the chin projection did anyone ever do the science of what impact that would have on injuries in a crash?  A friend told me when he recently shopped for helmet they are now offering helmets that sort of collapse on impact to lessen the blunt force of the blow (I suppose they are like those collapsing barriers they use on highways now). If that is the case, then a solid/inflexible chin projection seems to be disastrous design element. I'd rather have a broken jaw than a severed spine. (You will notice built into my posts a tendency to NOT trust that helmet manufacturers have thought, or care about, what I am concerned about here. Perhaps all their emphasis is on protecting the cranium/brain). Of course I can contact helmet manufacturers directly, but I'm starting here in case someone can save me the trouble. Here we see the way they used to design helmets.

You realize it's in helmet manufacturers best interest to make repeat customers right? You know what paralyzed people don't do? Ride motorcycles and wear helmets. Lay off the paranoia and take a deep breath. The world isnt out to get you. 

[Into the sunset]

Guys, in the last 3 hours the OP gotten over 50 responses to his ridiculously titled toll thread. Some of you have been pulled into the debate. Stop biting.

[kdxyardsale]

If you are worried about being paralyzed riding a motorcycle, I suggest you ride moto on your couch via PlayStation, or stop wearing these dangerous helmets and we wont have to hear these ridiculous conspiracy theories anymore...

[William1]

1 minute ago, Dklassen said:

Guys, in the last 3 hours the OP gotten over 50 responses to his ridiculously titled toll thread. Some of you have been pulled into the debate. Stop biting.

I do not think it is a troll thread, I think it is a n00b rider who got hurt and is trying to blame it on his gear (...my helmets fault...) and not take the responsibility himself (...I was only going 3 to 5 mph...) as his parents might take the bike away. We get these kinds of people every few months.

We all know not wearing a helmet at all improves hearing and if there is a bear in the woods, you can be aware of its' presence.