Discussion
Not sure where you are, but if you are anywhere near the NW, then Ghostbikes in Preston was where we went, they really don't want you to go away with the wrong one, and there were times I thought I had found the right lid, but the sales guy did some movement 'tests' and told me it was wrong, he was determined to get us both the right one and not just send us away with anything just to get the sale. They generally are trained to make sure you get the right one.
What's right for one person isn't always going to be good for someone else, as you can no doubt see from the answers you have been given.
What's right for one person isn't always going to be good for someone else, as you can no doubt see from the answers you have been given.
speedchick said:
Not sure where you are, but if you are anywhere near the NW, then Ghostbikes in Preston was where we went, they really don't want you to go away with the wrong one, and there were times I thought I had found the right lid, but the sales guy did some movement 'tests' and told me it was wrong, he was determined to get us both the right one and not just send us away with anything just to get the sale. They generally are trained to make sure you get the right one.
What's right for one person isn't always going to be good for someone else, as you can no doubt see from the answers you have been given.
That's very reassuring - TBH asking where a trusted sales team are would have been a better direction to take so thank you!What's right for one person isn't always going to be good for someone else, as you can no doubt see from the answers you have been given.
Schuberth. They're comfy. The built-in sunvisor is awesome. They're quiet. There's plenty of room between your face and the front of the helmet, which i found wasn't the case with the Arai's/etc that i tried.
This is what happened to my Schuberth S1 after i went for a dive over the back of a Porsche a few years ago...
I swear by these lids.
This is what happened to my Schuberth S1 after i went for a dive over the back of a Porsche a few years ago...
I swear by these lids.
BMJ is of course one of the world's premiere medical journals but they didn't state the confound of self-selection. That is the people who choose to wear gear based on the colour and perceived safety are more likely to be mature safe riders anyway and probably dont ride like loons. Of course they'll crash every once in a while but their crashes will (presumably) be less serious than others'.
Anyway, both Arai and Shoei have been making lids for 50+ years. As a Shoei man (they fit me and my spectacles the best) I don't understand why Arai is always regarded as the "best" helmet though Shoeis are the same price basically and have the same research put into them. Is it because Arai also makes car lids and people think the research transfers over???
Oh and OP, wear earplugs on the motorway if you can. Hearing damage starts to occur after about 30 min of continuous motorway riding
Anyway, both Arai and Shoei have been making lids for 50+ years. As a Shoei man (they fit me and my spectacles the best) I don't understand why Arai is always regarded as the "best" helmet though Shoeis are the same price basically and have the same research put into them. Is it because Arai also makes car lids and people think the research transfers over???
Oh and OP, wear earplugs on the motorway if you can. Hearing damage starts to occur after about 30 min of continuous motorway riding
dapearson said:
Schuberth. They're comfy. The built-in sunvisor is awesome. They're quiet. There's plenty of room between your face and the front of the helmet, which i found wasn't the case with the Arai's/etc that i tried.
This is what happened to my Schuberth S1 after i went for a dive over the back of a Porsche a few years ago...
I swear by these lids.
Another vote for Schuberth and its visor system. Before that I'd had 20 years of Arais.This is what happened to my Schuberth S1 after i went for a dive over the back of a Porsche a few years ago...
I swear by these lids.
SS7
BlackPrince said:
BMJ is of course one of the world's premiere medical journals but they didn't state the confound of self-selection. That is the people who choose to wear gear based on the colour and perceived safety are more likely to be mature safe riders anyway and probably dont ride like loons. Of course they'll crash every once in a while but their crashes will (presumably) be less serious than others'.
From BMJ article:The validity of our findings depends on the ability to control for confounding. In this study a wide range of potential confounders were measured and modelled in the multivariate analyses. Riders wearing high visibility clothing and white helmets are likely to be more safety conscious than other riders. However, we were able to adjust for sociodemographic variables, the propensity for risk taking behaviour (such as younger age, alcohol consumption, licence status, and motorcycle riding experience) and environmental characteristics (such as light conditions, weather, and speed limit zones).
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but the line "we were able to adjust for... the propensity for risk taking behaviour" should cover the choice of helmet/its colour. N'est-ce pas?
Very impressive piece of research, but I still can't begin to fathom how you remove all of the other influencing factors to arrive at a valid confusion. I mean, surely things like:
- road positioning
- whether there is any left to right movement in the lane on the approach to the SMIDSY
- other clothing
- type/style of bike
- speed
- headlight
- riding style
Will all influence the outcome. Then you have to factor in that one rider may have safe clothes and an unsafe riding style, and another rider could have unsafe clothes and a safe riding style. While I appreciate that the experiment has been peer reviewed and signed off, and therefore must be seen to be correct I just can't see how you can get meaningful data coming out.
Does it say how many riders they surveyed/reviewed to get their result?
- road positioning
- whether there is any left to right movement in the lane on the approach to the SMIDSY
- other clothing
- type/style of bike
- speed
- headlight
- riding style
Will all influence the outcome. Then you have to factor in that one rider may have safe clothes and an unsafe riding style, and another rider could have unsafe clothes and a safe riding style. While I appreciate that the experiment has been peer reviewed and signed off, and therefore must be seen to be correct I just can't see how you can get meaningful data coming out.
Does it say how many riders they surveyed/reviewed to get their result?
I have a matt black helmet, a gloss black helmet and a white helmet, all worn on a variety of bikes.
The only common factor for SMIDSY's is that if I'm on my scooter - every
pulls out in front of you.
In my 20 years road experience I would say the only consistents I've found around SMIDSYs I've seen are that having a headlight on greatly improves your chances and to a lesser extent a loud bike also helps (tactical throttle blips if you watch their face and they've looked 'through' you, have helped draw attention). In fact my SMIDSY in 1994 resulted in the bloke saying "Well you didn't have your headlight on so what do you expect?". "I expect you not to pull out in front of me is what I expect"
The only common factor for SMIDSY's is that if I'm on my scooter - every
pulls out in front of you.In my 20 years road experience I would say the only consistents I've found around SMIDSYs I've seen are that having a headlight on greatly improves your chances and to a lesser extent a loud bike also helps (tactical throttle blips if you watch their face and they've looked 'through' you, have helped draw attention). In fact my SMIDSY in 1994 resulted in the bloke saying "Well you didn't have your headlight on so what do you expect?". "I expect you not to pull out in front of me is what I expect"
I'm not sure that the study is specifically looking at SMIDSY as they do not include any data taken from residential roads. Now, depending on what they mean by 'residential road' that could include a large chunk o fly commute in Edinburgh. Which is where most of the risk of people pulling out on me exists.
N Dentressangle said:
creampuff said:
Here it is:
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857
Although it seems it is a 19% lower risk, not the 30% I quoted.
That's excellent - thanks. And a proper respected peer reviewed journal and everything! Here's the 'Results' part of the abstract, if anyone's interested:http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857
Although it seems it is a 19% lower risk, not the 30% I quoted.
BMJ article said:
Crash related injuries occurred mainly in urban zones
with 50 km/h speed limit (66%), during the day (63%), and in
fine weather (72%). After adjustment for potential confounders,
drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37%
lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval
0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black
helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower
risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported
light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was
associated with a 19% lower risk. Three quarters of motorcycle
riders had their headlight turned on during the day, and this
was associated with a 27% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio
0.73, 0.53 to 1.00). No association occurred between risk and
the frontal colour of drivers’ clothing or motorcycle. If these
odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks
are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18%
for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and
7% for no daytime headlight operation.
with 50 km/h speed limit (66%), during the day (63%), and in
fine weather (72%). After adjustment for potential confounders,
drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37%
lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval
0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black
helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower
risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported
light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was
associated with a 19% lower risk. Three quarters of motorcycle
riders had their headlight turned on during the day, and this
was associated with a 27% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio
0.73, 0.53 to 1.00). No association occurred between risk and
the frontal colour of drivers’ clothing or motorcycle. If these
odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks
are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18%
for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and
7% for no daytime headlight operation.
A sample size of 463 also seems very small to me. It's really not enough to conclusively prove anything beyond what we already know is common sense.
Anyway... As mentioned, get the lid that fits without bankrupting yourself. I've still yet to see any reliable evidence to suggest an expensive lid is any better at protecting you beyond the SHARP, ACU and EC etc. standards.
The simple fact is Joe Bloggs on here who survived a horrific crash doesn't actually know it was because of his lid. He just thinks he knows it and understandably is then loyal to the brand.
Dare2Fail said:
Very impressive piece of research, but I still can't begin to fathom how you remove all of the other influencing factors to arrive at a valid confusion.
I mean, surely things like:
- road positioning
- whether there is any left to right movement in the lane on the approach to the SMIDSY
- other clothing
- type/style of bike
- speed
- headlight
- riding style
Will all influence the outcome. Then you have to factor in that one rider may have safe clothes and an unsafe riding style, and another rider could have unsafe clothes and a safe riding style. While I appreciate that the experiment has been peer reviewed and signed off, and therefore must be seen to be correct I just can't see how you can get meaningful data coming out.
The phrase you're looking for is "correlation does not imply causation". Unless you're bloody crafty, it is not possible to isolate the variables to a sufficient degree to carry out quantitative research. I mean, surely things like:
- road positioning
- whether there is any left to right movement in the lane on the approach to the SMIDSY
- other clothing
- type/style of bike
- speed
- headlight
- riding style
Will all influence the outcome. Then you have to factor in that one rider may have safe clothes and an unsafe riding style, and another rider could have unsafe clothes and a safe riding style. While I appreciate that the experiment has been peer reviewed and signed off, and therefore must be seen to be correct I just can't see how you can get meaningful data coming out.
So you end up with qualitative research like this. I.e. We went around A&E with a clipboard and 1 in 10 motorcyclists got knocked off his bike and had his lights off. (Incidentally they may have been lying for their insurance/pride etc. which I don't see factored in).
I really should go away and read the full thing... [Insert disclaimer apologising for not having done so entirely here].
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff