Back Protectors Advice
Discussion
Yeah, it's that freedom of choice thing again, I wouldn't want to stop someone riding around like the fat git in the above picture, I'd mutter under my breath about what an idiot he was, but it's his choice to do it and the less restrictions put in place by the government the better in my view.
The chance of injuring a bodypart in a motorcycle accident decreases as you go up the body. Statistically you're actually very unlikely to need a back protector, and they might not help a great deal if you're wearing one.
This article includes a discussion with Dr Rod Woods, who basically invented the CE standard for protective motorcycle gear. A pertinent excerpt is:
The Good Doctor tells me that, statistically speaking, you want to protect yourself from the feet up. He tells me about this idea of a rating of the frequency with which an injury occurs (over, say the UK in a year) and the dehabilitation caused by the injury. Turn the statistics into betting odds, and we're talking about your chances of not being able to walk after a crash. Now, the Good Doctor says that this rating DECREASES as you go up the body, ie.fewer people are dehabilitated from chest injuries or back injuries than from foot injuries. Yes, I found it hard to believe too, but he's got the st atistics ! That means, protect your feet first, then your legs, then your body. He admits that there's a peak at the head, ie. the head causes more dehabilitation than the body, but from there down, this rule holds.
I openly admit that this all came as news to me. I told him all sorts of scenarios - chest injuries from upper body impact : ruptured kidneys from back impact : broken back from back impact - he told me that statistically speaking, they just don't happen. Back injuries seldom happen to bikers - and those that do would not be prevented by back protectors. "How so ?", I ask him. Well, statistically speaking, all back injuries in bikers (and they're few and far between) involve bending or twisting of the back - like when you r shoulder or chin hits the ground hard, with resultant detrimental effects on your back. Back protector won't help there, pal. He tells me that broken ankles are the most common injury you can imagine. Compare them to broken backs and you're talking mountains and molehills. Surprising stuff. Time to revise my ideas on protection.
A doctor who provides medical support for road races in Ireland posts on the Performance Bikes Forum as DocJohn. He reckons that the hard type of back protectors restrict movement so as to prevent the spine from being bent badly out of shape, and have been very helpful in the sort of back injuries that Dr Woods highlighted in the quote above.
That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
This article includes a discussion with Dr Rod Woods, who basically invented the CE standard for protective motorcycle gear. A pertinent excerpt is:
The Good Doctor tells me that, statistically speaking, you want to protect yourself from the feet up. He tells me about this idea of a rating of the frequency with which an injury occurs (over, say the UK in a year) and the dehabilitation caused by the injury. Turn the statistics into betting odds, and we're talking about your chances of not being able to walk after a crash. Now, the Good Doctor says that this rating DECREASES as you go up the body, ie.fewer people are dehabilitated from chest injuries or back injuries than from foot injuries. Yes, I found it hard to believe too, but he's got the st atistics ! That means, protect your feet first, then your legs, then your body. He admits that there's a peak at the head, ie. the head causes more dehabilitation than the body, but from there down, this rule holds.
I openly admit that this all came as news to me. I told him all sorts of scenarios - chest injuries from upper body impact : ruptured kidneys from back impact : broken back from back impact - he told me that statistically speaking, they just don't happen. Back injuries seldom happen to bikers - and those that do would not be prevented by back protectors. "How so ?", I ask him. Well, statistically speaking, all back injuries in bikers (and they're few and far between) involve bending or twisting of the back - like when you r shoulder or chin hits the ground hard, with resultant detrimental effects on your back. Back protector won't help there, pal. He tells me that broken ankles are the most common injury you can imagine. Compare them to broken backs and you're talking mountains and molehills. Surprising stuff. Time to revise my ideas on protection.
A doctor who provides medical support for road races in Ireland posts on the Performance Bikes Forum as DocJohn. He reckons that the hard type of back protectors restrict movement so as to prevent the spine from being bent badly out of shape, and have been very helpful in the sort of back injuries that Dr Woods highlighted in the quote above.
That said, a back protector isn't a heavy, expensive or uncomfortable piece of kit, so it won't hurt to wear one.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff