Posts
182
Joined
4/27/2017
Location
Summerville, SC
US
Edited Date/Time
12/15/2018 3:12pm
I wanted to share this link for those of you that are on the fence about a neck brace.
Some clips for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing:
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 239 recorded cases of Critical Cervical Spine injuries without a neck brace, and 26 with a neck brace.
- Death is 69%+* more likely (due to Cervical Spine Injury) without a neck brace
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 702 recorded cases of Non-Critical Cervical Spine injuries without a neck brace, and just 109 with a neck brace.
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 443 recorded Clavicle fractures without a neck brace, and 291 with a neck brace.
Ride safe.
Some clips for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing:
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 239 recorded cases of Critical Cervical Spine injuries without a neck brace, and 26 with a neck brace.
- Death is 69%+* more likely (due to Cervical Spine Injury) without a neck brace
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 702 recorded cases of Non-Critical Cervical Spine injuries without a neck brace, and just 109 with a neck brace.
- Over the course of the 10-year study, there were 443 recorded Clavicle fractures without a neck brace, and 291 with a neck brace.
Ride safe.
Numbers for argument sake. 265 total Critical Cervical Spine Injuries. 90.5% without a brace. 9.5% with a brace.
If only 10% of riders wear a neck brace, then this study has to be deemed inconclusive.
Now lets say 10% is the amount of riders wearing a neck brace. There were 5 recorded deaths. 4 without a brace, 1 with. That means 20% of deaths were with a brace and only 10% of riders wear a brace. Wouldn’t that suggest that death is MORE likely if you wear a neck brace?
I could be way off base here but its just something to consider. In my opinion, The only weary for a conclusive test, if for 50% of the riders to be wearing a neck brace.
The Shop
You're throwing in an unnecessary variable and it's distorting the data.
QUOTE: "Of the 8529 recorded patients, 4726 of them were toggled as “NO” which indicates neck protection was not in place at the time of injury and when the record was created. 3803 were toggled “YES” which indicates neck protection was in place at the time of injury and when the record was created."
I still give more credit to the French study from a few years back though, as it was written by true scientists.
All I know is if a neck brace can prevent cerivical spine injuries I’m wearing one. Have been for years.
If you wear one great, if you don't great it won't bother me either way.
I did not wear one for the longest time and after a while I decided to wear one. My sole reason is if i got an injury without one i would always somewhat blame myself for not wearing one and wonder "what if".
We lab test for drilled down hyper controlled situations, reducing enough variables to conduct repeatable tests and gauge results accurately. That same scenario is not possible in the real world. Real world accidents are unpredictable, each rider is not rigged with sensors, and no accident happens the same way. Long term data does a fantastic job of correcting for all of the potential variables, leaving you with an unbiased result at the end - in this case, hugely in favour of neck braces. Do you feel 10 years and nearly 10,000 injuries is not an adequate sample size?
Like anything, of course you can still get hurt regardless of what you wear (or don't wear), but like seatbelts and airbags, if they are likely to be better a huge percentage of the time (in this case, 80%+), then it is better to follow the rule, not the exceptions.
I am not against safety. My sons used to wear the braces when then first came to market. Out of over eight thousand riders only a tiny fraction experienced a spinal cord injury overall. There is nothing in that report that states what caused the injury and what may have prevented the injury. We do not know if the bike caused the injury or did the brace cause the injury. Yes, we know the person was riding dirtbikes. But, was it speed, was it size of a jump, was the person landed on, was the rider not wearing the brace correctly etc....
It could be argued that you have less than a 8.4% chance of ever sustaining a spinal chord injury based on that data set. We live close to a rider who was wearing a Leatt brace and the extension on the brace caused the severing of the spine. Wheres the information on the the prevalence of injury caused by the brace itself? I am not against safety, I am against flawed reports.
All I am saying is they are real world statistics. Statistics that show over time, it appears that neck braces must be helping to reduce certain injuries (mainly the ones they are designed for).
We have repeatable lab data showing drastic reductions in forces (as do at least 2 other manufacturers showing similar results), and now a 10 year real world data set also showing a drastic drop in cervical spine injuries among neck brace wearers to back up the lab data and show how those reductions translate to real world accidents. It's no coincidence injuries among the neck brace wearers were reduced - 10 years and 10,000 people is plenty big to correct for coincidences, and as I said it backs up what we see in a lab, and what others see in a lab.
Your counter argument is 1 accident with a flawed (and old) design, and squabbles about how the data was presented...
I’m an engineer by trade, and while it’s pretty obvious this report was not written with the scientific community in mind, the raw data is still very telling. When a company is set to bring a new product to market, do they rely only on lab testing or engineering calculations? No, not if they’re in the least bit competent, they would perform extensive real world testing to ensure that any variables and influences not present in the lab don’t effect the product in a negative way or produce unwanted results. Same goes for neck braces, lab testing is the best way for the companies themselves to test products before releasing them and to gather data, but what matters in the end is real world results. We now have an extensive amount of real world data that paints a clear trend, that’s all you can ask for at this point. Lab testing may have predicted that this would be the result, but now it’s known for sure.
Pit Row
http://ibrc.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Abstract_2016_Sathyanara…
That's at least 3 companies, 1 University, and a 10 year real world data set all showing neck braces work as intended.
FWIW, all products need "more research", nothing is ever finished... but it doesn't mean what we have isn't good.
introducing the standard brace showed negligible brace to helmet interaction prior to onset of the predicted neck injury,and resulted in an insignificant reduction in injury risk
The ineffectiveness of the neck brace was attributed to the standoff distance between the brace and the helmet (~50mm) being greater than the amount of neck compression at the time of injury.
Real world injury numbers over time paint the picture you are looking for, and they show a net benefit.
If (for example) you found a way to extrapolate that on a moderate sunny day, at a speed of 32.3mph, over a jump less than 15 feet in height, but greater than 4 feet in height, and no loner than 60 feet, if your body angle relative to the motorcycle is +10 degrees, you weigh between 150, and 163 LBS, and you crash in some specific way with your head at a particular angle, with a mid-high end helmet, that a certain neck brace will make the situation worse for your 3rd rib on the right side - will you not wear one?
You are looking for an exception to show it doesn't work, but it's the rule that matters, and the rule (thus far) says that it works.
Post a reply to: New conclusive data on Neck Braces