1 / 17

Motorcycle protective clothing: physiological and perceptual barriers to its summer use

This study examines the physiological and perceptual barriers to the summer use of motorcycle protective clothing, with a focus on heat discomfort and its potential impact on crash risk. The study includes laboratory tests of clothing's thermal resistance and abrasion resistance, as well as evaluations of physiological and perceptual comfort in real-world riding conditions. The results show that there is significant potential for physiological strain in hot conditions, and that variations in clothing's thermal management performance are key factors. This research aims to improve the design and construction of motorcycle protective clothing to enhance rider safety.

castrod
Download Presentation

Motorcycle protective clothing: physiological and perceptual barriers to its summer use

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Motorcycle protective clothing: physiological and perceptual barriers to its summer use Liz de Rome 2015 Road Safety Conference 15 October

  2. Background Motorcycle Personal Protective clothing (PPE) worn in crashes: • Reduced risk and severity of injury and post-crash disability However, 25-30% PPE failed (holed) during crash & only 32% crashed riders wearing full PPE. (de Rome et al, 2011, 2012)

  3. Heat discomfort – key reason for non-usage Evidence from other industries of heat discomfort and errors associated with PPE (e.g. fire fighting, military & hazardous materials). Is there potential for crash risk associated with heat discomfort ? (Robertson & Porter, 1987, EEVC, 1993)

  4. Study program • Laboratory tests of PPE • thermal resistance ( physiological comfort) • abrasion resistance (injury protection) • Physiological impact of PPE in controlled heat conditions • Physiological & perceptual comfort in real world riding conditions

  5. Study 1A - RMIT • 10 all-season motorcycle jackets and pants (helmets, gloves & boots) • Thermal sweating manikin • 1. Thermal resistance ReT(dry heat) • 2. Vapour resistance IT (moisture) • Relative vapour permeability index (Im= (K.IT / ReT)) • 0 ______________________1 • Non- permeable Im Completely permeable • Skin temp – 35°C • Climate controlled chamber • Winter liners removed • Zippered ventilation ports closed

  6. Thermal results Study 1A

  7. Study 1B – EU PPE Standards Test, Deakin U. Suit No. : F=Fabric, L=Leather, D=Denim jeans(reinforced)

  8. Abrasion vs. thermal performance

  9. Study 2 . Climate controlled chamber - Wollongong U • Repeated measures design, 4 * 90min trials • 12 volunteers – Cycling slowly • 25 min. riding + Fan simulating wind speed, • 5 min. rest – Fan turned off • Control - 25°C - Street clothes (jeans & shirt) • 3 * Trials - 25°C, 30°C, 35°C & Study 1 PPE • Notes: Relative humidity 40% , helmets, gloves & boots in all trials

  10. Climate controlled chamber - Wollongong U Objective measures Heart rate Body core temperature (auditory canal) Skin temperature (chest , upper arm, thigh & calf) Whole body sweat rate Clothing moisture retention and evaporation rates (mass pre and post trial) Subjective measures Pre - Post ride & rest stop. Rating scale of skin temperature & wetness. • Sensation ( 1-13) • Discomfort (1-5) (Gaggeet al., 1967)

  11. Results Study 2 - Skin temperature °C (mean)

  12. Results Study 2 - Body core temperature °C (mean)

  13. Results Study 2 - Heart rate over time

  14. Study 3 –Thermal impact of PPE in real-world riding conditions 22 volunteer riders , own PPE, 90 min. randomly assigned to urban (Canberra) or rural route (ACT /NSW region). • Objective measures: I-buttons monitoring skin temperature & humidity inside clothing Pre - Post ride & at 2 rest stop. Subjective thermal comfort ratings (Gaggeet al., 1967) Pre & Post ride measures: Cognitive performance (CamCog), Fatigue (NASA_TLX) & mood (VAMS)

  15. Study 3 Results Cool weather. (21°C – relative humidity 37%.) • Skin temperature decreased 7.5°C (33.2°C to 25.7°C ,P<.0001) BUT humidity inside clothing increased 5.0% (35.4% to 40.4% (P<.0001). Urban versus rural riders: • Warmer & wetter (25.7°C versus 25.5°C, P=0.005), and on completion reported • Higher workload (fatigue) (3.5 versus 2.4, P<.0001), • Less alert (37.4 versus 26.0, P<0.05), and • Less contented (19.3 versus 13.8, P<0.05).

  16. Conclusions in relation to motorcycle PPE • Significant potential for physiological strain in hot conditions - Critical threshold when air exceeds skin temperature • No inherent conflict between abrasion resistance & thermal management. • Wide variations in PPE thermal management performance - Vapour permeability is the key factor Ongoing work • Association between thermal discomfort & cognitive performance, fatigue and rider safety. • Design and construction features including materials and the location and effectiveness of ventilation ports.

  17. Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge and thank my co-researchers: Nigel Taylor, UoW Rodney Croft, UoW Olga Troynikov, RMIT Chris Hurren, Deakin U. Michael Fitzharris, Monash Julie Brown, Neura Research associates: Nazia Nawaz, Chris Watson (RMIT) Elizabeth Taylor (UOW) Judy Perry and Mae Edenborough And the study participants

More Related