Full-faced vs half-helmet - Safety stats

Does anyone know where I can look for safety statistics that quantify the two styles with regard to brain trauma? I'm just trying to figure out if a brain injury is any more likely on one than the other. I'm not trying to identify which is safer for facial impact or any of the rest of it - just brain injury.

Thanks.

Cameron

Cameron,
You might want to look up the Snell Foundation and see if they have something. From all the reports I have read, none targeted only brain injuries. As for injury, the safest is a full helmet, next is the modular (although the more expensive ones like Schuberth and Nolan are as good as a full face) An open face is comfortable and great in hot weather, but is not as safe. The 3/4 helmets seem popular with cruisers as well as the "Beanie". With the beanie, you have as much protection as if you wore a baseball hat.

I have a Nolan N-103, an HJC modular, and an HJC open face. I alternate between the two modulars giving them time to dry out, etc. I will probably get s Nolan N-104 this summer and retire the HJC Modular. Wife will probably use it as a hanging planter like she does with my worn out bicycle helmets.

It depends on what you mean by 'not as safe'. If you mean prevents death or severe brain damage then I'd bet the 3/4 is just 'as safe' as any full face or modular.

If you mean it prevents injury to face and brain, then yes, the FF would be much better.

Snell and others have had an ongoing battle over what constitutes a safe helmet. Snell went off in one direction. At least one of their engineers quit over the arguement and wrote some pretty aggressive reports about the dangers of using those Snell standards (2005 Standards if I remember right). Snell changed their standard in 2010, but, I am not sure if they changed much in their previous specs. Basically the arguement was two fold. 1) how much G force is 'safe' and 2) does the helmet need to withstand two impacts to the same part of the helmet.

I pretty much like the European standard better.

I don't care if a helmet has a DOT sticker since any mfg can put that sticker on their helmet, whether it meets the DOT standard or not.

In my MSF class that I took in 2006, our instructor claimed that in many accidents half helmets would fall off leaving the head with no protection at all.

Half helmets, IMHO are dangerous. The edge of the helmet creates a shear point which will encourage cracking of the skull.

Cameron,

I don't know if this will help any but the attached diagram is a distribution of impact locations on helmets based on a study by Dietmar Otte. It is hard not to notice most of the impacts are in the chin. And having your jaw bone shoved up in to your brain probably qualifies as brain trauma... So if 35% of impacts are in the jaw area, per the diagram, I would say a full face is much more likely to prevent a brain injury than a 1/2 coverage skid lid or even a 3/4 coverage helmet....

Wayne, Glad you found that link. I saw it a few years ago and have only worn my open face a couple of times -- on super hot days in town.

I take helmets very seriously--especially when I saw that guy get killed during an anti helmet rally in Syracuse NY. He was doing all of 15 MPH with no helmet on a H-D. I was only about ten feet away. He was dead real quick.

Nothing formal, but I have 2 personal statistics. My wife and I. We both were wearing el cheapo 3/4 helmets from JC Whitney/Warshawsky about 22 years ago. when we got rear-ended at a traffic light. Both of us were thrown off the bike and landed on the side of our head. No brain injuries. Problem was since we both landed on the side of our head, the helmet flexed, because there was no chin bar. Unfortunately neither of our jaws flexed; they both broke. However, after tearing the helmets apart and examining the styrofoam, I would say they did their job.

[...our instructor claimed that in many accidents half helmets would fall off leaving the head with no protection at all...]

In the early-2000s, there were a few deaths in MSF courses related to students wearing half-helmets that fell off before they ever impacted the ground. I ran a Honda Rider Education Center in OH for 16 years and I would not allow students
to wear half-helmets for that very reason. There is also a high incidence of half-helmets that sport the "DOT" certification sticker but they're fake. All of my instructors but one, applauded my decision to outlaw half helmets because it took them out of the loop of determining if a student's half helmet was truly DOT-certified. The one guy was mad because he was the Safety Weenie for a HOG chapter and my rule meant they couldn't have their own class at my place. Oh well, I didn't like their loud pipes anyway so I also outlawed non-standard mufflers! There was a convalescent home across the street and the last thing I needed was the city to stomp on me because of noise complaints so outlawing the non-standard mufflers was easy. Yup, it also meant the HOG chapter had to go elsewhere.

Seems like you'd want the half-pots broken down into two categories.
- Where the half-pot is a "real" helmet, with foam padding and such.
- Where it's one of those "Helmet Law Protester" helmets seemingly worn only by H-D riders that are like using a salad bowl for a helmet. Before anyone takes umbrage, not all H-D riders wear these silly things, but I've never seen one on a non-H-D rider.

Helmet laws, where they exist, aren't all consistent. I've seen states with helmet laws where wearing a hard-hat was good enough and others where there was a safety inspection of vehicles (including motorcycles) where they checked to see if the helmet you were wearing (on that day, anyway) was on the "approved" list. And some states where helmets are mandated for under-21 (or maybe it was 18) and not once you were an adult.

That said, I'm not particularly an advocate of helmet laws, but neither am I a rabid opponent. After all, it takes a much longer time to clean up the smears and debris from the highway so I can pass after some idiot offs himself because he was riding down the road in nothing more than a pair of shorts and flip-flops and could not stay in control of his bike. At least if the fool isn't dead, it doesn't take as long to clean up.

(pardon me, I'm in a mood...)

Sorry, but that diagram is misleading. It doesn't say that 35% of the brain injuries are from the chin area, it just says 35% of the injuries are in that area. Or are the original statistics different. Would help to know what they actually represent.

Yes, I believe 35% or even 50% of the head injuries are to the face area (if you include the visor area). Several guys I know have scars on their faces from sliding on the pavement wearing a 3/4 helmet. But, there was no brain damage. And they still wear 3/4 helmets.

And yes, a torque to the jaw will transmit to the spine, just as it will with a full face helmet. If you don't believe that try getting hit with full headgear The headgear keeps the jaw from being broken, but, it doesn't stop the "bell ringing"

The flexing of the 3/4 helmet is why Snell won't apply their standard to one, and, they aren't approved for racing.

There could be very specific crashes, like penetration of an object, eg, a pipe, from the front through the back, that the 3/4 won't protect against. But, with the larger viewing ares of the newer FF helmets they are approaching the level of protection of the 3/4 with that regard.

Having said all this, the FF helmet is definitely safer all around. My dissent is over the statement that a FF protects the brain better in real world crashes. I don't think it does. It does do a great job of protecting the rest of the head. But, just about any instance I can see of brain injury in a real crash would be protected by a 3/4 as well as a FF.

FWIW, you can always find instances where a FF is worse than a 3/4 and vice versa. Same with the helmet vs no helmet. Examples, chin bar gets caught on something and snaps the neck. Helmet is caught at top of visor at an angle that forces it to rotate and break the neck. Body is hit just below the neck, extra weight of helmet cause over extension of the neck. Yes, these are conjecture. You can come up with a way to get killed on a bike no matter what you wear or don't wear and individual proofs of why one is better than another.

I support FF helmets, but, would like them to allow more side vision. One of the times I almost got killed was because of blocked side vision by my FF helmet. And in that case the FF helmet (or the rest of my gear) would not have saved my body from being crushed between a pickup and a bus.

There are pros and cons to helmets. Just be sure to choose knowing what all the consequences of your decision are.

I once overheard a H-D rider pontificating about how wearing a helmet in hot weather would cause your brain to overheat and "explode". I'm not making this up. I figure you guys in Nevada and Arizona and such hear about this all the time. Unless the government is covering it all up, like all the failures of ABS systems I've also had occasion to have described to me. (Alert: In case it's not obvious, this is sarcasm.)

Brain explosions would explain a lot in some cases.

You might want to look up the HURT report. While dated it is still of significance. Took me a while to find it but I remembered that it said that full face helmets made a big difference in the extent of facial injuries. I think it is item 52 on their list.

charlie b said:

Sorry, but that diagram is misleading. It doesn't say that 35% of the brain injuries are from the chin area, it just says 35% of the injuries are in that area. Or are the original statistics different. Would help to know what they actually represent.

Click to expand...

The diagram per se is not misleading as it is only meant to show impact areas and does not claim to associate any brain injuries. I made the comment "So if 35% of impacts are in the jaw area, per the diagram, I would say a full face is much more likely to prevent a brain injury than a 1/2 coverage skid lid or even a 3/4 coverage helmet...." which is my interpretation of the impact data and odds...which may be misleading...

charlie b said:

The flexing of the 3/4 helmet is why Snell won't apply their standard to one, and, they aren't approved for racing.

Click to expand...

This is also one of the reasons modular helmets aren't approved by Snell. Chin bar retention testing is another...

Another excellent source for helmet testing information is the Sharp site run by the UK government DOT equivalent. Not all helmets available here are available their, and vice versa, but it is another resource for researching helmets. EDIT: It also the only resource I have seen that tests chin bar retention on modular helmets.

Police departments have been using half helmets since LEO's were provided helmets instead of hats. Does that one data point make half helmets safe or unsafe? Using it I could argue that the decreased vision and hearing of a full face helmet makes it much less safe than a half helmet. However, there is a reason LEO's wear half helmets, and it has nothing to do with maximizing their protection. It does have everything to do with being able to perform their other duties. So a "trade off" to support different requirements was made...

Every one should read all the available data and make their own informed choice on which style helmet to utilize... And like the old Bell advertisement said: "If you have a $10 head, wear a $10 helmet"..." But I suggest you make that $150 after being adjusted for inflation since that ad was run...

In Duluth I saw something really weird. People riding in Aerostich suits (sourced locally!) and no helmets. It looked really odd to me!

When I shop for helmets I assume that all helmets that meet a particular standard are equally safe. I pay more for things like ventilation, weight, face shield optics, ease of cleaning, style, and most importantly, how well they fit my specific head. These are all things that I can judge for myself. The best case scenario doesn't involve crashing, but even in that best case scenario I will have this helmet pressed against my face for more of my waking hours than anything else in my life. So I'm picky and I'll spend the big bucks as needed.

I also own some helmets purchased for my occasional passengers. It's good to have a variety of sizes, and for the helmet to not be too old, because those are safety items. No one person is likely to ever spend more than a few hours in one of these helmets, and most of them will never be used enough for the new to wear off before they age out. It's not worth worrying about all those personal preference features. As long as they have the same safety certs I look for in my own helmets they will serve this purpose just fine. So I shop those based on price.

Here at the Pia Zadora Memorial Golden Buckeye Retirement Home and Assisted Living Center, we always extend a caveat to those discussing data-based conclusions:
Beware of the post hoc fallacy.

Always ride safely and keep your airspeed under control.

TW

I am fairly informed concerning bicycle helmets, and what Katherine said is very true. A $10.00 Bell helmet from Wal Mart meets the same standard that a $110.00 Louis Garneau meets. The difference is comfort, weight, and ventilation. I have had six crashes of various severity (I race--part of the sport) I have worn a wide variety of helmets in different price ranges--including the $10.00 model. All of the helmets got trashed and my noggin stayed intact. Sometimes barring a headache, and once, blurred vision, I was OK.

I use the same parameters for MC helmets. Currently I like the Nolan N-103. I also like the HJC modular that has the same features as the Nolan. I will probably get both because I like to alternate helmets (or they get sweaty)

Sitting here at home drinking Glenmorangie Lasanta, Single Malt Scotch Whisky (with additional aging in sherry casks) and reading these posts, I feel compelled to comment. However, carefully considered the merits of my post based on the information that I've provided you.

I think it's a fallacy to think that safety is the only consideration when it comes to helmet prices. For example, a Shoei Qwest helmet can cost $492.99 or $362.99 (prices from the Shoei website). The two helmets are exactly the same with respect to safety, ventilation, weight, etc. The only difference is the way they're painted. So for some people a graphic design is worth $130.

I think Katherine is onto something. DOT and Snell test helmets and certify that they exceed specific standards. These have to be available somewhere. Did I look online? See sentence one and you make the call. What we don't know is if the barely exceed the standard, or if they greatly exceed the standard. Would it be useful to more? Absolutely. We do know a little more. Snell standards are more rigorous than DOT as some helmets pass DOT but not Snell.

Anyway I've bored myself and I'm going to pour another Glenmorangie!!!!!

Happy Easter to you all.