Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
You need to simplify what you're saying here. I said you don't do safety by feelings, you disagree?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21297006/#:~:text=Significantly%20highe….
you could argue that the conclusions in this are completely inconclusive using silly rationale ‘per 1000 riding hours’ while not clearly stating the specific incidence of a total of 87 knee injuries (2.7% of riders) — you could either take this as — data is inconclusive so therefore MUST NOT WEAR KNEE BRACES — data is inconclusive but suggest a higher level of safety so probably should wear knee braces.
the response to the data is emotions and feelings, so we do do safety based on feelings.
Choosing to go against the inference of the known data is choosing safety via feelings.
it’s the choice between choosing something supported by some data that can not ever be conclusive given the variances of off road riding or deciding that because it isn’t conclusive it MUST be wrong.
So while you may want simplified to ‘yes or no’ answer to appease a pre determined ‘feeling,’ I won’t stoop to that level of ignorance.
sorry.
This straight up shows that doing stuff just because a study or “science” says so is also flawed logic.
“…our practice is mainly a result of the historical influence of poor evidence.”
It’s an endless game of half truths funded by people who want to sell you stuff.
Do your homework, trust your gut, and accept the consequences of your decisions when getting on a motorcycle.
Neck braces ain’t coming back. I can’t count how many diehard neck brace Pros have stopped wearing them. Gajser is probably the only world class rider to wear one these days.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Most of the spinal injuries in moto are from compression not usually from hyperextension/hyperflexion, unless you have a really short neck your neck is going to have to move 3" down before it even thinks about preventing compression.
With neck braces preventing hyperflexion of your neck also means you cant effectively tuck your neck into your chest if you go over the bars which could result in a compression spinal injury.
I have 3 fused vertebrae in my upper T spine from a bad compression injury when I was 15 and when I got back into riding at 24 I tried a neck brace but they all had the back plate resting on my spinal fusion which seemed like a bad place for it to transfer that energy so I didn't wear it and now don't wear it for many reasons.
Imagine entering a Slapping contest wearing a neck brace.
From what I recall, Andrew MacFarlane was allegedly wearing one when he crashed and subsequently passed away. Around that time Chad Reed (Andrew's friend) began beating the anti-neck brace drum. OK, that's not the hard evidence you were looking for but thought it was worth sharing because I think that's where some of the neck brace backlash comes from. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Fair but that’s how the science of medicine works… and well the science of science.
Decision are made based off available evidence, and practice evolves through new studies and changes in technology. This meta study does not anywhere conclude that at the time of introduction of collars they were not the best know method… it conclude that, based on the studies, newer methods are likely better…
Just like modern A star boots are better than old 70s leather riding boots… times change, things improv, we work with what we have and what we know at the time we have and know it…
Im sure this meta study has already changed practices. As it should. But their wasn’t a meta study at the time of the invention and implementation of the neck collar in EMS response practices… just as there is not a meta study of knee braces, body armor or neck braces…
So while I mildly agree with your conclusion, deciding to go against the current evidence because of ‘feelings’ and softly softly encouraging others to do the same is quite silly
Yea, let's be honest, this is motocross. People in large part aren't wearing them anymore because it's not "cool" anymore.
Thanks for sharing this study, found serious flaws in their analysis.
First, the study only looks at the number of injuries for each group and draws incorrect conclusions on the probabilities of outcomes. To find any risk reduction they should look at the each groups' rate of injury per crash, not total number of injury events. (example below)
Second, the study includes many different types of motorsports. (Flat track, Sno-cross, ISOC ((What is that?)) Are flat track crashes the same as motocross? No, Those guys do 100mph.
Example of incorrect statistics
Their statistics are misleading and/or wrong.
They claim 89% less likely to be injured while in a brace. The real number is probably 2.3%.
The bar graph is listing total number of injury events, not proportion. 26 vs 239 (920% increase!!!) 89% increase from 26 is only 49.
Here are some made up numbers that match their 89% claim.(the have not shared the real data so this is the best we can do)
1000 crashes of people wearing Neck Braces (Group 1), 26 injuries
4900 crashes of people not wearing Neck Braces(Group 2), 239 injuries.
26/1000 = .026% neck injury rate Group 1
239/4900 = .0487% neck injury rate Group 2
This shows a 89% increase in neck injury rate from Group 1 to Group 2!
The 89% increase from Group 1 (26 injuries/1000 crashes) comes out to 49 injuries/1000 crashes in Group 2.
This "study" needs to evaluate all crashes to determine a somewhat accurate risk rate, this isn't possible by only looking at the outcomes.
However if we look at the outcomes as they are, we see 26/1000 (2.6%) vs 49/1000 (4.9%) as the risk rates. Meaning Group 2 is 2.3% more likely than Group 1! 89% my ass!
Broke my C6/C7 years ago. They are fused together now. I can't tell you if its safer wearing one or not, but I don't ride without one because mentally it helps.
The age old debate.
People will choose to wear them, or not.
Not all crashes involve the neck. I choose to take my chances in lieu of comfort. As a tall person, neck braces are simply a deal-breaker for me. They are prohibitive and uncomfortable, for me.
You have drawn the same conclusions as I. It is a terrible study. Here's the critical question. If you and I can figure out the study is not worthy calling itself one, why are Leatt citing it on their website?
If you are going to try to argue that the study is flawed, and use your own math to argue how it is flawed, at least start with looking credible when you use your own made up numbers. For example, 26/1000 is not 0.026%, and 239/4900 is not 0.0487%...
You are trying to argue their math is flawed, yet your own example is flawed.
2.6 x 1.885 = 4.901
So this shows almost twice as likely to have had a critical cervical spine injury for those not wearing a neck brace as opposed to those who were. Granted, the overall percentages are small, but the Group 2 is not 2.3% more likely, it is almost twice as likely.
Their math is deeply flawed because it's a selection bias. You can't draw conclusions they do from the data they have because without the baseline of the exact % of riders who actually wore a brace during the time they were providing the ambulance service, then you literally can't draw conclusions about associated risks. And that's ignoring all the other very important variables.
The 'study' is worthless.
It doesn't show that.
All it shows is that during a 10 year period the ambulance service treated 26 patients with a cervical spine injury who wore a brace, and 239 that weren't wearing one. It says nothing about associated risks. The fact they published their study and it is citing by Leatt is astonishing to me.
You are incorrect. The study is based on riders that had crashed badly enough they needed EMS attention. They provide plenty of numbers for anyone with a modicum of math skill to figure out overall percentage, but that really has nothing to do with the study. The study is comparative of those who wore and those who did not, and the resulting injuries.
You're conclusion it is selection bias is incorrect. A more correct critique would be - during this study, were the riders who wore neck braces more cautious riders and more likely to wear more safety gear and ride with less risk than those who did not wear.the braces.
Pit Row
Yes, it actually does show that. Please review you grade school math book.
No, you don't need math skill to figure out the percentage is a nonsense number.Their % increase risk number can not be ascertained with the data they supply. No where near close.
They state, in black and white that "1. A Critical Cervical Spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace"
That conclusion is impossible to be reached without first knowing the baseline percentage of riders who wear a neck brace when they go ride. You can't select your data from those who visit the ambulance and conclude anything from that. This is not even mentioning a whole host of other equally important factors, but for simplicity let's stick with the baseline.
If over ten years of the 'study' 10% of riders wore a brace (all else being equal for arguments sake), then first the likelihood you'll see the ambulance is WAY higher than those who don't wear one (as we can extrapolate with he similar number of riders who visit the ambulance service), and the likelihood the rider would have a cervical spine injury would be the same as someone who doesn't wear one ( with 26 being roughly 10% of 239).
The point here is that a simple data point addition completely changes the conclusions. You don't need to know math to understand this.
You're certainly proving you don't need to know math to argue incoherently about this study.
You think it's possible to ascertain risk of injury without knowing the baseline percentage of riders who wear or don't wear braces?
Thanks for catching the typo, I didn't proof read.
The purpose of the study was not to obtain overall risk of injury. The purpose was to compare neck brace effectiveness for cervical spine injury and clavicle injury.
You are trying to make the scope of the study broader than it was intended in order to argue inane points.
And for a little math help (made up statistics to show how math works):
People who get hit crossing the street at night wearing yellow: 1 of 100
People who get hit crossing the street at night wearing black: 50 of 100
So from above, the people wearing black are not 49% more likely to get hit, they are 50 times (5000%) more likely to get hit.
Oh boy!
You say out of a 100 people who cross the street wearing yellow 1 gets hit. Out of a 100 wearing black 50 get hit. That's fine, except the EMS study doesn't give us the 'out of a 100' bit.
You're literally ADDING the missing baseline number component from the EMS study.
With the EMS study we don't know the 'out of' number. What they give us is the number of people who were 'run over', but they don't say how many were 'crossing the road at night'. Thus you can't extract risk conclusions. We don't know HOW MANY riders wear braces, and how many don't. We just know the number of people that got 'hit'.
Please refrain from accusing people of not understanding math.
So you're comparing my made up statistics with the actual study, which does give a total number of those involved in the study, as well as the purpose
The purpose of the study was not to obtain overall risk of injury. The purpose was to compare neck brace effectiveness for cervical spine injury and clavicle injury.
Therefore, the 'out of' in this study only involves those who did have an injury. It is NOT an overall risk study. The baseline is the number of those injured.
Perhaps before you criticize a study you should fully understand the scope of said study.
On another note, I remember a fellow local expert wearing every piece of safety equipment made, including elbow guards. Gave zero f's about the look, was dressing for an unlikely crash and wanted to minimize any injury.
I'm on my second neck brace; first gen was bulky, latest isn't noticeable.
They state in black and white
"A Critical Cervical Spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace" and that " neck braces are an exponential improvement in rider safety."
They can't state that from the data they provide and the study isn't able to "compare neck brace effectiveness for cervical spine injury and clavicle injury" either.
The conclusions they provide are without any value. The 'out of' number is absolutely vital to be able to draw ANY kind of conclusion, and even then it's limited. The fact it's not included highlights the pointlessness of their study.
Based on the scope of the study, and the data collected, they absolutely can state that.
Once again, the 'out of' number it stated within the study.
You keep trying to make this study something it isn't to fit some odd argument you want to make.
If you are against wearing a neck brace, then don't wear one. But don't misrepresent a study to try to prove your choice as right, if that is indeed your choice.
Is this "study" ya'll are arguing about the one the EMT did?
Post a reply to: Return of Neck Braces?