Click photo to enlarge.

The neck brace revolution has certainly taken us a long way in a short time.

Almost overnight this new form of protection has turned into a multi-million-dollar industry, its momentum furthered by more and more companies developing new products and accessories. It seems the vast majority is effectively convinced of the need for neck protection, but with so many choices, conflicting ideas of protection and facts clouded up by too much hearsay, it’s hard to know what to believe.

In the first half of this feature, four current makers of neck protection systems (Leatt, Alpinestars, EVS and SixSixOne) talked about their products, how they work, why they’re unique and/or ideal, where the inspiration came from and what kind of research and development went behind their products.

After hearing what they each had to say, we will now explore some of the surrounding criticisms and misconceptions. Do we fully understand what they are and are not designed to protect us from? Could these systems be causing more harm than good? Are they giving us a false sense of security? Are we shielding ourselves from catastrophic injury, or just the fear of it?

Representatives from each company responded to these questions and also shed some light on many other controversial topics such as patents, knock-offs, potentially misleading statements and the growing competition.

We end with a discussion on whether or not there should be an industry standard on neck protection systems. Helmets, have them in the form of DOT and SNELL – should we hold neck braces to a comparable standard? If so, how do we come up with a standard? How can we, as consumers, impose some form of control, and protect ourselves from the protection revolution?

Common Criticisms

As wide spread and well-accepted as neck protection has become, there are still plenty of riders – from casual weekenders all the way to the top Pros – who are not on board with the revolution. Aside from the obvious issue of cost, or the question of rider comfort, there are still those who don’t believe the safety benefits of wearing a brace go much further than preventing you from licking your stitches. In fact, some will go as far as saying that a neck brace can be cause for additional injury in the event of a crash.

By virtue of being first on the scene, and thereby having had the most time on the market place, the Leatt Brace has had its share of criticisms in this area, which Geoff Patterson talked about.

“The first and foremost criticism of the Leatt brace that I can see is that it breaks collarbones. I’ve been hearing that for two and a half years,” Patterson said. “We’ve tried to acknowledge it. Chris [Leatt] has acknowledged it. It is the Leatt Corporation’s position that it does not break collarbones.

“We haven’t gotten any official data, but of the collarbones that were broken in 2007 in AMA Supercross and Motocross, just by the ones I counted, were 13. Seven of which I believe were with the Leatt Brace and six without. That would tell you that you’re less likely to break your collarbone with the Leatt on because more people were wearing the brace while riding than not. So if it’s almost 50-50 collarbones being broken, but 60 percent of the riders were wearing the Leatt Brace, you’d think that it would break more. It hasn’t.”

“Way back when Sean Borkenhagen was hurt, he broke his collarbone and it severed a nerve in his arm,” Patterson said. “His arm went numb, and the whole world said, ‘Leatt Brace broke his collarbone! My God! It’s terrible!’ Three months later we saw photographs of his crash and you can see that he didn’t go head-in. He went on his side – there’s a series of four pictures and you can see that he never landed directly on his head. So it’s very difficult to make those statements if you didn’t see the accident or it’s not on video.”

Another well-known accident was that of desert racer Chris Blais. After a high-speed crash that resulted in a T7 injury, Blais was left paralyzed from the waist down. Blais was wearing a Leatt Brace in the accident.

“From what we were told, from what I was told, the bike hit him,” Patterson said. “Chris Blais believes that the brace saved his life. The statements that I’ve heard say that he broke his back from the brace. Well, Johnny Campbell was riding right behind him when it happened and he said, ‘No, the bike drilled him.’ If a 250-pound bike’s going to drill you at 100 miles per hour, things are going to happen.”

Either way, the fact remains that Blais didn’t fracture or damage his C section – the only area the Leatt Brace is designed to protect.

“Chris Leatt has never said the neck brace protects from all injuries,” Patterson commented. “We can’t cover every aspect. [Dr. Leatt’s] design was to protect the cervical spine – in the C section: C1 through C7/8.”

“We’ve heard about many riders that have broken their back or compressed their spine and they blame it instantly on the brace,” Patterson said. “But then you hear a week or two later that there was a guy riding behind him who said, ‘No, no, that’s not what happened. The bike drilled him in the back,’ or, ‘He went over the hay bale and bent backwards.’ Unless you’ve seen it or there’s video of it or a photograph of it, it’s very difficult to make those statements.

“We all take an inherent risk when we get on a motorcycle and ride it. It’s not the neck brace’s fault that you were involved in an accident. But it’s trying to help reduce catastrophic neck injury.

“What most doctors will say is if you’re going to be paralyzed from an accident, it’s much better to be paralyzed further down your back,” Patterson continued. “Would you rather be able to push your wheelchair, or would you rather be on a ventilator because you couldn’t breathe?”

Photo right: Many riders still elect not to ride with a neck brace, such as Ricky Carmichael, shown here at the 2009 X Games.

Alpinestars’ representatives have reported hearing similar criticisms about their Bionic Neck Support. Tim Collins explained how the dense foam material of the BNS is designed to compress and/or break away, putting to bed any rumors of the neck brace intending to transfer shock to the collarbone area.

“The idea is that it’s not completely rigid so that it’s going to cause additional injury if you were to have an impact against the body. It’s not designed to break the collarbone – it’s designed to prevent breaking the collarbone because it’s lifted above the area. So you could say that’s one of the myths busted by Alpinestars’ product. It’s not necessary to break a collarbone to save your neck or your spine.”

Beyond these types of rumors, to some, there remains a general aversion to the very idea of wrapping a rigid collar around your neck and getting on a motorcycle.

“I’ve run into a few people who have said they’re not completely sold on the concept,” Collins said. “Maybe they’d be better off without it or something. It’s introducing such a new safety mechanism that it’s going to take people a little while to embrace it. I think it’s similar to seatbelts or helmets. When I was growing up, it was like, ‘Oh, well I don’t need to wear a seatbelt. I’m safer being able to duck out of the way of something.’ Statistically, that’s not the case. Is there going to be a person that may have suffered an injury with or without it? Possibly... it’s hard to say. But statistically, like seatbelts or helmets, ultimately in the long run, you’re better off wearing some type of protective system based on the inherent risk of the sport.”

“It’s pretty obvious that now with the bikes going so fast and jumping so far and just the level of speed they go, it’s gotten pretty scary,” Eddie Cole of SixSixOne commented. “When I grew up racing motocross in the ‘70s and ‘80s, we didn’t go fast enough to really see the things that we’re seeing today. We’ve seen an awful lot of riders get seriously hurt.”

The resistance to trusting the new technology is quite an exasperating topic for many of the people behind the development of neck protection, such as Guido Rietdyk, president of EVS.

“In the face of facts that something helps you to protect yourself, there’s still people who choose not to,” said Rietdyk. “If you look at the development of the bikes and the tracks and the sport, it’s become faster and bigger and longer and better, but our bodies have stayed the same as they were 20 years ago. That gapping of equipment and body is somewhat of a concern. Our protective equipment ought to be staying in step with trying to fill this gap.”