View Single Post
Old 01-24-2014, 04:33 PM   #33
Idle
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Northern California
Oddometer: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwoodward View Post
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857

Results
Crash related injuries occurred mainly in urban zones with 50 km/h speed limit (66%), during the day (63%), and in fine weather (72%). After adjustment for potential confounders, drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk. Three quarters of motorcycle riders had their headlight turned on during the day, and this was associated with a 27% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.73, 0.53 to 1.00). No association occurred between risk and the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle. If these odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18% for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and 7% for no daytime headlight operation.

Conclusions

Low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.
That study may have not factored in the fact that riders who choose to wear dark helmets and clothing may not ride nearly as cautious and have more accidents than those who wear ATHVGATT.

Sorry if that was mentioned already, I didn't read the whole thread. (on break right now)
Idle is offline   Reply With Quote