| Motorcyclist
Attitudes
Rider Education &
Training
Licensing
Crash Avoidance Skills
Motorcyclist Alcohol
& Other Impairment
Personal Protective Equipment
|
|
| ISSUE
STATEMENT |
The protective apparel worn by a motorcyclist provides the only
defense against injury in a crash. This apparel includes a Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218 compliant helmet,
heavy-duty jacket and pants, boots, gloves, and eye protection.
Because of changes in technology and use of protective equipment,
additional research in this area is needed.
|
| WHERE
WE ARE |
Motorcyclists usually separate from the motorcycle at some time
during a crash. It stands to reason that protective apparel is far
more likely to be effective than protective equipment attached to
the motorcycle (Ouellet,
1990). In the event of a crash, no existing strategy
or safety equipment offers protection comparable to a FMVSS 218
compliant helmet. There are no compelling medical arguments against
helmet use. Detailed analysis of 900 crashes found that “helmeted
riders show significantly lower injury frequency in all types of
lesions” (Hurt,
1981). A recent analysis from the Crash Outcomes Data
Evaluation Systems (CODES)
from six states demonstrated that helmets were 35 percent effective
in preventing death and 67 percent effective in preventing brain
injuries (NHTSA,
1996, 1998). In other words, unhelmeted injured motorcyclists
are three times as likely to suffer a brain injury compared to helmeted
injured motorcyclists. Motorcyclists who do sustain fatal injuries
while wearing FMVSS 218 compliant helmets typically have one or
more additional fatal injuries, so that the limit of the helmet
to protect them is rarely an issue (Ouellet,
1990). Head impacts that would otherwise cause death
or permanent injury can often be attenuated with little or no injury
to a motorcyclist wearing an FMVSS 218 compliant helmet.
FMVSS 218 compliant helmets do not contribute to crash causation
(Hurt,
1981). However, it is proven by research (Hurt,
1981) that increased coverage, particularly increased
coverage of the expanded polystyrene liner, increases protection
from injury. Helmet use has not been shown to increase the risk
of spinal injuries (Orsay,
1994, Thom, 1995).
Mandatory helmet-use laws have proven an effective strategy in
increasing helmet use (Peek-Asa,
1999, Kraus, 1995), and in reducing head injuries
and fatalities (McSwain,
1984, Kraus, 1994). However, mandatory helmet-use
laws are controversial with some motorcyclists. Research shows
the number of motorcyclists wearing non-compliant helmets is increasing
in states with mandatory helmet use laws (Peek-Asa,
1999). Recent research has found that as many as
40 percent of motorcyclists in Florida, which at the time the
research was conducted had a mandatory helmet-use law for all
riders, wore non-compliant helmets (Turner,
2000).
Recently, a number of states have modified helmet laws to permit
motorcyclists to ride without a helmet if they carry specific
health insurance coverage or pass a rider training course (see
Appendix I). Other “partial”
helmet-use laws, such as those requiring only certain age groups
to use helmets, have unknown effectiveness because of enforcement
issues. These approaches dilute the original reasons for the law
and may raise confusion about the usefulness and role of helmets.
FMVSS 218, also called “the DOT standard“ was promulgated
in 1974 and was revised in 1980 and 1988. Helmets sold for motorcycle
use in the United States are required by law to meet the minimum
performance requirements set forth in FMVSS 218. Helmets qualified
to other standards, such as the Snell Memorial Foundation or American
National Standards Institute must also meet FMVSS 218. NHTSA is
evaluating several issues including:
• Increased test impact velocity to improve impact absorption
of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets
• Retention system positional stability tests to ensure
helmet retention in crashes
• Improved labeling so motorcyclists will know more about
the qualification and care of their helmets and so law enforcement
can identify non-compliant helmets
• Revised pass/fail test criteria for harmonization with
international helmet standards
• Chin bar test performance qualification for full-facial
coverage helmets
• Eye protection test qualification for helmets so equipped
|
|
|
| Eye protection plays a dual role: first, eye protection
significantly reduces crash involvement (Hurt,
1981a, 1984) because it prevents vision degradation caused
by wind blast and foreign objects in the eyes. Eye protection also
reduces eye injury, both while riding and in crashes (Hurt,
1984). The Vehicle Equipment Safety Standard No. 8 (VESC-8)
for motorcyclist eye protection is widely referenced and applied
by the 36 states with motorcyclist eye protection-use laws (see
Appendix I).
Research and new technologies are continually bringing new types
of protective gear to the user, although their actual capabilities
need to be researched. The environmental extremes confronted by
motorcyclists are also addressed by protective apparel, making
riding more comfortable in extreme temperatures and inclement
weather. There is a variety of apparel offering various degrees
of protection for motorcyclists involved in a crash.
The most frequent injury to the crash-involved motorcyclist is
abrasion. A wide range of apparel provides proven protection from
abrasion (Hurt,
1981a). Leather, used in garments to cover virtually
all of a motorcyclist’s body, can prevent abrasion including
serious deep abrasions, has a traditional appeal to many motorcyclists
and is currently fashionable. A variety of leather grades, construction,
and styles is available, and many leather garments offer extensive
features to accommodate motorcyclists’ needs. Not all leather
garments, even all of those styled in a manner that suggests motorcycle
use, are sturdy enough to provide significant abrasion protection
(Woods,
1994a, 1994b). Various types of effective synthetic
materials have been offered in recent years.
A variety of approaches is being taken to provide motorcyclists
with impact protection for body areas besides the head. These
involve some type of impact resistant material, or armor,
incorporated into jackets, suits and even gloves and boots. Armor
is being designed in an attempt to protect the motorcyclist from
everything from bruising and fractures of the extremities, to
averting life-threatening injuries to the torso, and reducing
spinal injuries. The European Union has devised testing standards:
CE EN 1621-1 for elbow, shoulder and knee armor and CE EN 1621-2
for spinal armor. No such standards exist in the United States,
and there are no armor standards for the torso area, which is
critical for protection from life-threatening injuries.
|
| WHERE
WE WANT TO BE |
All motorcyclists should choose to wear protective apparel because
they understand that such apparel can reduce injuries in a crash.
All motorcyclists should want to wear FMVSS 218 compliant helmets
while riding to reduce head trauma resulting from a crash. Motorcyclists
should understand the critical nature of apparel and how it provides
comfort, in addition to protection, while riding. Their choices
in apparel should be based on promotion from all motorcycle safety
organizations, groups, clubs, other stakeholders, and the motorcycle
industry. In states where there are helmet laws, law enforcement
personnel should know how to identify FMVSS 218 compliant helmets.
|
| HOW
TO GET THERE |
A wide-reaching platform or forum is needed from which motorcyclists
can be informed about the benefits of protective gear and provided
with information about various available technologies (see Conveying
Research Information to Users, page 13). At these forums,
motorcyclists would gather information about new technologies and
their effectiveness to aid in making informed apparel choices. This
is an area where the technology is changing rapidly.
The motorcycle community and other stakeholders need to create
more education programs for motorcyclists to understand the benefits
of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. This information should also include
facts to repudiate misinformation about unfounded dangers of helmet
use. Stakeholders should find ways to more effectively communicate
the benefits of helmet use and work toward making voluntary use
of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets more widely accepted. The dangers
of non-compliant helmets should also be communicated by similar
means.
Mandatory helmet-use laws should specify the use of FMVSS 218
compliant helmets. Motorcyclists and traffic law enforcement officials
should be educated in how to determine if a helmet meets FMVSS
218. Revisions to FMVSS 218 should aid in identification of FMVSS
218 compliant helmets and elimination of non-compliant helmets.
Additional research is needed into all of these issues. Standards
should be developed based on research to help consumers make informed
choices. The effectiveness of personal protective equipment would
be investigated as part of any crash research.
|
|
