Assessing the performance of motorcyclists’ impact protectors in simulated ATD knee and shoulder impacts

L. Meredith, B. Albanese, Tom Whyte, T. Gibson, Michael Fitzharris, M. Baldock, Julie Brown

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Objective: Fractures are a common injury among motorcycle riders and can have serious health implications. Impact protection (IP) has been designed to help prevent fractures, yet there are conflicting opinions as to whether this IP does in fact help prevent fractures in real-world crashes. This work aimed to (1) use simulated dummy impacts to examine whether existing types of IP could reduce the force transferred to the underlying bone to below fracture tolerance levels and (2) investigate whether current European Standard (EN 1621-1) test procedures for impact protectors designed for motorcyclists are sufficient to ensure fracture protection. Method: Twenty-three shoulder and 7 knee IP specimens were tested using a 23-kg impactor contacting axially along the clavicle and femur of an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) at an energy level corresponding to the fracture tolerance of these bones. Sixteen IP specimens were the same as those worn by motorcycle riders involved in crashes where injury outcome was known (knee: n = 3; shoulder: n = 13) and the IP had been previously tested to EN 1621-1. Other IP tested represented a wide range of IP available for purchase at a motorcycle accessory store. Double and triple layers of IP were also tested. Energy attenuated during the dummy impacts was compared to energy attenuated when tested to EN 1621-1. Results: Of the 23 shoulder IP tested, the average percentage reduction of transferred force to the shoulder from the baseline test was 7.6 ± 4.8%. The percentage reduction of transferred force to the knee from the baseline was 43.9 ± 7.5%. The entire group of knee IP tested reduced the transferred force to the knee to below the 10-kN injury threshold for the femur. There was a positive but nonsignificant correlation between the ATD test and the EN 1621-1 impact test performance, suggesting that the European standard test method likely provides a good indication of IP performance. However, given the low correlation coefficient, the relationship between IP performance in the European standard test method and injury protection remains unclear. Conclusion: Though the energy attenuation test method in the European standard may be an appropriate approach, distinct differences in injury protection performance observed between knee and shoulder IP indicate that there may be a need for different performance criteria for IP designated to protect different body regions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)169-173
Number of pages5
JournalTraffic Injury Prevention
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Keywords

  • energy attenuation
  • impact protection
  • Motorcyclists

Cite this

Meredith, L. ; Albanese, B. ; Whyte, Tom ; Gibson, T. ; Fitzharris, Michael ; Baldock, M. ; Brown, Julie. / Assessing the performance of motorcyclists’ impact protectors in simulated ATD knee and shoulder impacts. In: Traffic Injury Prevention. 2019 ; Vol. 20, No. 2. pp. 169-173.
@article{ecea4d6a39d1489c97b1a946f4303f83,
title = "Assessing the performance of motorcyclists’ impact protectors in simulated ATD knee and shoulder impacts",
abstract = "Objective: Fractures are a common injury among motorcycle riders and can have serious health implications. Impact protection (IP) has been designed to help prevent fractures, yet there are conflicting opinions as to whether this IP does in fact help prevent fractures in real-world crashes. This work aimed to (1) use simulated dummy impacts to examine whether existing types of IP could reduce the force transferred to the underlying bone to below fracture tolerance levels and (2) investigate whether current European Standard (EN 1621-1) test procedures for impact protectors designed for motorcyclists are sufficient to ensure fracture protection. Method: Twenty-three shoulder and 7 knee IP specimens were tested using a 23-kg impactor contacting axially along the clavicle and femur of an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) at an energy level corresponding to the fracture tolerance of these bones. Sixteen IP specimens were the same as those worn by motorcycle riders involved in crashes where injury outcome was known (knee: n = 3; shoulder: n = 13) and the IP had been previously tested to EN 1621-1. Other IP tested represented a wide range of IP available for purchase at a motorcycle accessory store. Double and triple layers of IP were also tested. Energy attenuated during the dummy impacts was compared to energy attenuated when tested to EN 1621-1. Results: Of the 23 shoulder IP tested, the average percentage reduction of transferred force to the shoulder from the baseline test was 7.6 ± 4.8{\%}. The percentage reduction of transferred force to the knee from the baseline was 43.9 ± 7.5{\%}. The entire group of knee IP tested reduced the transferred force to the knee to below the 10-kN injury threshold for the femur. There was a positive but nonsignificant correlation between the ATD test and the EN 1621-1 impact test performance, suggesting that the European standard test method likely provides a good indication of IP performance. However, given the low correlation coefficient, the relationship between IP performance in the European standard test method and injury protection remains unclear. Conclusion: Though the energy attenuation test method in the European standard may be an appropriate approach, distinct differences in injury protection performance observed between knee and shoulder IP indicate that there may be a need for different performance criteria for IP designated to protect different body regions.",
keywords = "energy attenuation, impact protection, Motorcyclists",
author = "L. Meredith and B. Albanese and Tom Whyte and T. Gibson and Michael Fitzharris and M. Baldock and Julie Brown",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/15389588.2018.1540867",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "169--173",
journal = "Traffic Injury Prevention",
issn = "1538-9588",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "2",

}

Assessing the performance of motorcyclists’ impact protectors in simulated ATD knee and shoulder impacts. / Meredith, L.; Albanese, B.; Whyte, Tom; Gibson, T.; Fitzharris, Michael; Baldock, M.; Brown, Julie.

In: Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2019, p. 169-173.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the performance of motorcyclists’ impact protectors in simulated ATD knee and shoulder impacts

AU - Meredith, L.

AU - Albanese, B.

AU - Whyte, Tom

AU - Gibson, T.

AU - Fitzharris, Michael

AU - Baldock, M.

AU - Brown, Julie

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Objective: Fractures are a common injury among motorcycle riders and can have serious health implications. Impact protection (IP) has been designed to help prevent fractures, yet there are conflicting opinions as to whether this IP does in fact help prevent fractures in real-world crashes. This work aimed to (1) use simulated dummy impacts to examine whether existing types of IP could reduce the force transferred to the underlying bone to below fracture tolerance levels and (2) investigate whether current European Standard (EN 1621-1) test procedures for impact protectors designed for motorcyclists are sufficient to ensure fracture protection. Method: Twenty-three shoulder and 7 knee IP specimens were tested using a 23-kg impactor contacting axially along the clavicle and femur of an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) at an energy level corresponding to the fracture tolerance of these bones. Sixteen IP specimens were the same as those worn by motorcycle riders involved in crashes where injury outcome was known (knee: n = 3; shoulder: n = 13) and the IP had been previously tested to EN 1621-1. Other IP tested represented a wide range of IP available for purchase at a motorcycle accessory store. Double and triple layers of IP were also tested. Energy attenuated during the dummy impacts was compared to energy attenuated when tested to EN 1621-1. Results: Of the 23 shoulder IP tested, the average percentage reduction of transferred force to the shoulder from the baseline test was 7.6 ± 4.8%. The percentage reduction of transferred force to the knee from the baseline was 43.9 ± 7.5%. The entire group of knee IP tested reduced the transferred force to the knee to below the 10-kN injury threshold for the femur. There was a positive but nonsignificant correlation between the ATD test and the EN 1621-1 impact test performance, suggesting that the European standard test method likely provides a good indication of IP performance. However, given the low correlation coefficient, the relationship between IP performance in the European standard test method and injury protection remains unclear. Conclusion: Though the energy attenuation test method in the European standard may be an appropriate approach, distinct differences in injury protection performance observed between knee and shoulder IP indicate that there may be a need for different performance criteria for IP designated to protect different body regions.

AB - Objective: Fractures are a common injury among motorcycle riders and can have serious health implications. Impact protection (IP) has been designed to help prevent fractures, yet there are conflicting opinions as to whether this IP does in fact help prevent fractures in real-world crashes. This work aimed to (1) use simulated dummy impacts to examine whether existing types of IP could reduce the force transferred to the underlying bone to below fracture tolerance levels and (2) investigate whether current European Standard (EN 1621-1) test procedures for impact protectors designed for motorcyclists are sufficient to ensure fracture protection. Method: Twenty-three shoulder and 7 knee IP specimens were tested using a 23-kg impactor contacting axially along the clavicle and femur of an anthropomorphic test device (ATD) at an energy level corresponding to the fracture tolerance of these bones. Sixteen IP specimens were the same as those worn by motorcycle riders involved in crashes where injury outcome was known (knee: n = 3; shoulder: n = 13) and the IP had been previously tested to EN 1621-1. Other IP tested represented a wide range of IP available for purchase at a motorcycle accessory store. Double and triple layers of IP were also tested. Energy attenuated during the dummy impacts was compared to energy attenuated when tested to EN 1621-1. Results: Of the 23 shoulder IP tested, the average percentage reduction of transferred force to the shoulder from the baseline test was 7.6 ± 4.8%. The percentage reduction of transferred force to the knee from the baseline was 43.9 ± 7.5%. The entire group of knee IP tested reduced the transferred force to the knee to below the 10-kN injury threshold for the femur. There was a positive but nonsignificant correlation between the ATD test and the EN 1621-1 impact test performance, suggesting that the European standard test method likely provides a good indication of IP performance. However, given the low correlation coefficient, the relationship between IP performance in the European standard test method and injury protection remains unclear. Conclusion: Though the energy attenuation test method in the European standard may be an appropriate approach, distinct differences in injury protection performance observed between knee and shoulder IP indicate that there may be a need for different performance criteria for IP designated to protect different body regions.

KW - energy attenuation

KW - impact protection

KW - Motorcyclists

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063099372&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2018.1540867

DO - 10.1080/15389588.2018.1540867

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 169

EP - 173

JO - Traffic Injury Prevention

JF - Traffic Injury Prevention

SN - 1538-9588

IS - 2

ER -