I know from personal experience wearing gear lessens injuries and potentially increases life spans. But, thought I would try to find scientific evidence to back it up. If anyone wants a whole article about something PM me and I will try to get it! I will add more as I come across them.
Mary

Motorcycle protective clothing: protection from injury or just the weather?Abstract:Background: Apart from helmets, little is known about the effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing in reducing injuries in crashes. The study aimed to quantify the association between usage of motorcycle clothing and injury in crashes.
Methods and Findings: Cross-sectional analytic study. Crashed motorcyclists (n=212, 71% of identified eligible cases) were recruited through hospitals and motorcycle repair services. Data was obtained through structured face-to-face interviews. The main outcome was hospitalization and motorcycle crash-related injury. Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals for injury adjusting for potential confounders.
Results: Motorcyclists were significantly less likely to be admitted to hospital if they crashed wearing motorcycle jackets (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.91), pants (RR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.25-0.94), or gloves (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.66). When garments included fitted body armour there was a significantly reduced risk of injury to the upper body (RR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.89), hands and wrists (RR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.81), legs (RR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.90), feet and ankles (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.83). Non-motorcycle boots were also associated with a reduced risk of injury compared to shoes or joggers (RR=0.46, 95% CI: 0.28-0.75). No association between use of body armour and risk of fracture injuries was detected. A substantial proportion of motorcycle designed gloves (25.7%), jackets (29.7%) and pants (28.1%) were assessed to have failed due to material damage in the crash.
Conclusions: Motorcycle protective clothing is associated with reduced risk and severity of crash related injury and hospitalization, particularly when fitted with body armour. The proportion of clothing items that failed under crash conditions indicates a need for improved quality control. While mandating usage of protective clothing is not recommended, consideration could be given to providing incentives for usage of protective clothing, such as tax exemptions for safety gear, health insurance premium reductions and rebates.

Novice riders and the predictors of riding without motorcycle protective clothing.
Abstract:Background: While helmet usage is often mandated, few motorcycle and scooter riders make full use of protection for the rest of the body. Little is known about the factors associated with riders' usage or non-usage of protective clothing.
Methods: Novice riders were surveyed prior to their provisional licence test in NSW, Australia. Questions related to usage and beliefs about protective clothing, riding experience and exposure, risk taking and demographic details. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to identify factors associated with two measures of usage, comparing those who sometimes vs rarely/never rode unprotected and who usually wore non-motorcycle pants vs motorcycle pants.
Results: Ninety-four percent of eligible riders participated and usable data was obtained from 66% (n=776). Factors significantly associated with riding unprotected were: youth (17-25 years) (RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.50-2.65), not seeking protective clothing information (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07-1.56), non-usage in hot weather (RR = 3.01, 95% CI: 2.38-3.82), awareness of social pressure to wear more protection (RR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.12-1.95), scepticism about protective benefits (RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.22-3.28) and riding a scooter vs any type of motorcycle. A similar cluster of factors including youth (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.32), social pressure (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.50), hot weather (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.19-1.41) and scooter vs motorcycles were also associated with wearing non-motorcycle pants. There was no evidence of an association between use of protective clothing and other indicators of risk taking behaviour.
Conclusions: Factors strongly associated with non-use of protective clothing include not having sought information about protective clothing and not believing in its injury reduction value. Interventions to increase use may therefore need to focus on development of credible information sources about crash risk and the benefits of protective clothing. Further work is required to develop motorcycle protective clothing suitable for hot climates.

Dang, we's gettin' all collegiate like n' stuff up in here.

J/K, I am still in school. I hate reading these type of research documents. Even worse when I have to write them. However, great subject matter to research. Kudos.

John

Whole lotta % symbols in there,....sorry that's about all I saw as my eyes blurred and I skipped to tmtmtl666's post.

What I gathered from these numbers...

1. All types of gear play some role in reducing injury in an accident (surprise surprise).
2. Other than a helmet, a jacket (preferably with body armor) is most likely to reduce injury in an accident. -> Make this your first priority (after a helmet) when buying gear
3. It has been found that some materials have failed in an accident. -> Look for good quality gear with quality material
4. The biggest reason for people not wearing protective gear is heat. -> Look for gear that doesn't make you so uncomfortable that you won't wear it.

This is my attempt to make this information as applicable as possible.  Please let me know if there are any other thoughts.  These points are what I'm taking from the article since I'll be looking for gear this spring/summer.  Thanks for posting this up Mary!

Guess, I've been reading so many research articles the past couple of semesters that it looks normal to me LOL. But, Bombsquad hit it on the head. The whole articles make more sense but I'm not allowed to post them up copy right issues. Hence, why I asked if anyone wanted it I would send it.

mary

On bombsquads last point. I find that spending a little extra on gear is worth it. Not only for the protection, but for the comfort.

Alot of the more expensive gear offers the same protection as something cheaper, but it tends to be much better made, with careful attention to the little details, thus making it more comfortable and therefore easier to wear.

My Shoei helmet is a good example. I could have purchased another helmet for cheaper, and one offering the same "certs" safety wise, but the RF1000 is like it was made for me, so comfortable i dont mind wearing it for long periods of time.

Sorry, mary, but I didnt read all that.

All I can say. is every piece of carbon fiber, plastic, and padding between me and the road defiantly can't hurt the situation.

If you in the position to snap a femur, its going to snap unless your wearing an exo-skeleton.

But, if you low side over some gravel at 50mph in a turn, and bounce into some brush, your gunna wish you wearing that padding.

My 2 cents.

Absolutely, Xune I remember in the past some people would say that there is no proof on the helmets helping vs hurting. So, I thought I'd put a thread up with scholarly material on gear. At first I was just going to put up for. But, if anything comes up on the against side to I will put it up to be fair. Also, gives me a place to store it in case I decide to do a paper my lit review would already be done!

Mary

I really wish one of the governments (it won't be US, maybe AUS or GB) would standardize crash testing for motorcycle gear as is done in the automotive industry for car bodies. Something like the "5-star crash rating" that NHTSA put together.

I realize MC accidents have different and less repeatable dynamics, but really, there should be some standardization possible... people can argue about its meaning later, as they do with DOT vs Snell vs ECE currently.

No no no!!!  Government standardization leads to government regulation.  If someone wants to ride in a speedo that is their right.  I ride ATGATT but I feel that it should be a choice.  Like wearing a seatbelt (which I do 100% of the time) should be a choice.  If you feel better with no helmet, no pads etc then that is how you should ride.

No need for the government to get involved in this.  Could testing of motorcycle gear could be funded by insurance companies, NFPs, etc?

Quote from: bombsquad83 on February 21, 2012, 09:40:15 AM
No need for the government to get involved in this.  Could testing of motorcycle gear could be funded by insurance companies, NFPs, etc?

Before you know it, it'll b regulated, taxed, and be dis-allowed to sell cause it don't have a proper stamp, dont meet a certain raiting, or whatever.

The slide down visor in my is-16 isnt dot approved, because in a crash it can come off and cut you.

But, I love it, its the best feature bout my helmet, and if the chance in 1 in 10,000 it'll cut my nose, so be it for all the sun kept out of my eyes.

Would be terrible if it got taken away by the gov, or getting ticketed cause it isnt certified.

Just money making schemes, all these government programs are.

Like, seriously, NYS Safety and emissions testing.... If the cars older then 10 years old, they'll up the limit or something so you can't legally register your car.

I drove a great 1986 civic, last year for carborated, with the 1.5 motor, 40+ MPG...
Had to go to a crooked shop and pay extra to get an emissions pass cause it let out too much NOX

I agree, that's why I said no need for the government to get involved.

Quote from: xunedeinx on February 21, 2012, 06:55:11 PM



Before you know it, it'll b regulated, taxed, and be dis-allowed to sell cause it don't have a proper stamp, dont meet a certain raiting, or whatever.

Like in Australia where all helmets have to have a sticker on them stating that they meet a certain standard. If the sticker is not there even your Shoei helmet is classed as illegal.

Guess, I'm the odd ball on that. I really don't want to buy a product that isn't going to do it's job. After all it's only my brain, spinal cord, and thoracic cavity. Whenever I can My MC gear will have CE standard back, elbow, shoulder, and knee protection. Snell for the head.
While I guess a piece of foam rubber is better than nothing I don't want to pay the same price as I would a CE back protector. And I've seen some places like that. Touting that they have back protection in the jacket and the cost is 3Xs other jackets with CE protection. At least if some organization (maybe the AMA could sponsor a code) like SNELL or DOT  had standards in the U.S for armor in jackets and pants I'd feel more comfortable and make it easier to know I've got the right protection. Sometimes it can be a krap shoot! I mean I have an awesome set of upper body armor that is CE certified that I got off Ebay for $40 that I can throw a regular leather jacket on and be more protected than 70% of the advertised jackets like my AGV one that if I bought it resale would have been for $350 and the protection in those is little foam pads! BTW anyone know where I can get some CE armor for it?

Just my .02 cents.

Mary

Here is another article looks like they are really picking up on the need for MC gear usable in the heat.
Novice riders and the predictors of riding without motorcycle protective clothing.

Abstract: Background: While helmet usage is often mandated, few motorcycle and scooter riders make full use of protection for the rest of the body. Little is known about the factors associated with riders' usage or non-usage of protective clothing.
Methods: Novice riders were surveyed prior to their provisional licence test in NSW, Australia. Questions related to usage and beliefs about protective clothing, riding experience and exposure, risk taking and demographic details. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to identify factors associated with two measures of usage, comparing those who sometimes vs rarely/never rode unprotected and who usually wore non-motorcycle pants vs motorcycle pants.
Results: Ninety-four percent of eligible riders participated and usable data was obtained from 66% (n=776). Factors significantly associated with riding unprotected were: youth (17-25 years) (RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.50-2.65), not seeking protective clothing information (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.07-1.56), non-usage in hot weather (RR = 3.01, 95% CI: 2.38-3.82), awareness of social pressure to wear more protection (RR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.12-1.95), scepticism about protective benefits (RR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.22-3.28) and riding a scooter vs any type of motorcycle. A similar cluster of factors including youth (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.32), social pressure (RR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.50), hot weather (RR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.19-1.41) and scooter vs motorcycles were also associated with wearing non-motorcycle pants. There was no evidence of an association between use of protective clothing and other indicators of risk taking behaviour.
Conclusions: Factors strongly associated with non-use of protective clothing include not having sought information about protective clothing and not believing in its injury reduction value. Interventions to increase use may therefore need to focus on development of credible information sources about crash risk and the benefits of protective clothing. Further work is required to develop motorcycle protective clothing suitable for hot climates.
(Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

One more Ugh, I've got to sleep!
Effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing: Riders' health outcomes in the six months following a crash

Introduction Road traffic crashes are recognised as a major public health challenge and are predicted to become the third most common cause of disability worldwide by 2020.1,2 As survival rates improve, particularly in high income countries, increasing attention is being paid to the high rates of impairment and disability associated with non-fatal injuries.3 Motorcyclists represent a significant propor-tion of road traffic casualties globally4 and are seen to be over represented in crashes in high income countries5,6 and amongst road casualties with high levels of disability.7–9 The need to design and evaluate countermeasures for motorcyclists is clear. Whilst the benefits of motorcycle helmets in reducing head injury and death are well documented,10 other forms of motorcycle protective clothing have not been regarded as a significant safety measure for riders, largely because they have been assumed to have minimal effect in preventing serious injuries.11,12 Whilst there are limits to the extent that clothing can prevent injury in a high impact crash, it is in low impact crashes that protective Injury, clothing is thought to offer the greatest injury reduction.13There is also evidence that many motorcycle crashes do not involve high impacts and a substantial proportion of riders sustain only relatively minor injuries in crashes.11,14 Such assumptions are also contrary to the evidence of a number of early studies, which documented significant injury reductions associated with use of motorcycle clothing.15–18 Indeed, Schuller reported that injured riders, who had worn protective clothing, returned to work sooner and were less likely to have permanent physical defects two years after the crash, compared to unprotect-ed riders.19 The evidence generated by these early studies inspired research into the mechanics of protective clothing for motorcy-clists, leading to the development of standards for motorcycle personal protective equipment (PPE) in Europe.20 This in turn has led to new technologies and the development of a new generation of protective clothing products. However to date the effectiveness of these products in reducing crash injuries has yet to be established. 'The Gear Study' aimed to examine the association between use of motorcycle protective clothing and injury, subsequent impairment and disability in a sample of crashed riders. The results of the first stage, documented elsewhere, demonstrated a significant protective effect on injury for riders wearing motor- cycle clothing and particularly, when clothing was fitted with body armour.21 This paper aims to describe associations between use of protective clothing and subsequent impairment and disability. Method The Gear Study was a 12-month prospective cohort study of motorcyclists who crashed in the Australian Capital Territory between June 2008 and June 2009. Eligible motorcyclists included riders and passengers aged 17–70 years who were residents of the study area and involved in road crashes causing injury or motorcycle damage. Participants were volunteers recruited through the two hospitals and 13 motorcycle repair service in the study area. Motorcyclists were excluded if they had scored <13 on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) or sustained severe head (AIS 3+) or spinal injuries, (AIS 4+) on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS),22,23 or were otherwise unable to provide informed consent. Baseline interviews were conducted face-face in participants' homes or in hospital approximately two weeks after their crash. Follow-up surveys were conducted by mail approximately two months and six months later. At baseline, participants completed questionnaires about their general health and functional ability prior to the crash. These were repeated in the follow-up surveys to monitor the longer term consequences of the crash with the reference period being the time since the crash, or 'over the past four weeks'. At the baseline interview, information was collected about the crash, clothing worn, injury details and basic demographics. Details of the baseline study have been reported elsewhere.21 Injury reports were completed at the interview and corroborated with hospital records for independent scoring on the AIS scale by a trained assessor. The current paper is an analysis of the two and six month follow-up data comparing riders' levels of protection with their recovery progress. The main exposure was usage of motorcycle protective clothing defined as clothing designed to provide protection from injury in motorcycle crashes. Motorcycle clothing designed for other purposes (e.g. wet weather protection) was not classified as protective. Three levels of protection were defined: Full – helmet, motorcycle jacket and motorcycle pants, Partial – helmet and motorcycle jacket but non-motorcycle pants, Unpro-tected – helmet but no motorcycle jacket or pants. Riders without helmets were excluded from this analysis. Gloves and boots were not counted when assigning levels of protection. The main outcomes were: days hospitalised; injury severity; self reported treatment and recovery progress; quality of life and return to work and residual pain. The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36, Version 1),24 and the Functional Disability Index (FDI) from the Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI)25 were also used. Data on days hospitalised and injury severity were obtained from medical records. Questions on treatment, recovery progress, quality of life and return to work were adapted from previous studies.

Too much reading for me..

To sum it up, I think...

A Harley guy once explained to me why he don't wear a helmet...

"If I wear a helmet, and I crash at 70mph, and I snap my back, rip off a leg or an arm, or have to pee into a bag and have someone wipe my ass for the rest of my life, why would I WANT to wear a helmet? I would rather smach my skull and be gone"

Well, if you wear a helmet, and nothing else, the possibility of that happening is real.

At least with good chest/back/shoulder protection, a good jacket and pants, foot and hand protection, you minimize that risk to large broken bones (femur/tibia/fibia) due to the awkwardness of trying to wear armor for those portions.

I can live if I snap my leg in half and long as its still attached to my body, Ill heal in a few months. If I dont wear protection and hit the same pole/tree/fence/bench/whatever, my leg may NOT be attached to me anymore, and than, im legless.

The version for nimwits like me.