I've been riding motorcycles a long time and have a lot of hours riding with both full face and 3/4 helmets. After years of riding with full face I've finally gone back to 3/4 and the main reasons are the simplicity and visibility. For me personally I think comfort, simplicity and the ability to see things and avoid trouble before I crash trumps any extra protection I get from riding with a full face helmet. That said I'm not immune to the power of media and pretty much daily you see articles on motorcycle websites and in other media claiming that open faced helmets are not safe and only the latest full face technology will do. so I did some reading on the subject. Looks like the most definitive study involving 3/4 helmets was motorcycle accident study done by USC in Southern California in 1981 where almost 60% of the riders in that study were wearing what they then called call Full but what we now call 3/4 helmets when they crashed. Published by The Traffic Safety Center of University of Southern California Los Angeles, for the Department Of Transportation. "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures" (the Hurt study) dispels some of the current mythology about helmet safety and it's a interesting read. Here's the link to that USC DOT helmet analysis. It's actually pretty mind blowing. 400+ pages but the interesting stuff starts in the mid to late 200s. http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf Myth one: Everyone takes it on the chin... I've seen articles in riding magazines that suggest that up to 35% of motorcycle accidents result in a face plant where a full face helmet is necessary for safety. Keep in mind these magazines and websites are dependent on advertisers like Bell, Shoei and other helmet manufacturers to make money and stay in business. Well.... As you can see in the Hurt study the percentage of helmet strikes to the chin was closer to 3.5% but that was only in wrecks where the helmet actually hit something and in the vast majority of normal accidents (lowsiding etc) the helmet never hits anything. It's important though to realize that this study was done before sportbikes and superbikes became popular, but then again I do not ride sportbikes either. Myth two: Expensive high-tech construction is needed for protection..... This is simply not true. The researchers for the USC study were actually amazed at how almost any helmet offered some degree of protection, and found that the standard fiberglass/Styrofoam construction was more then adequate protection in anything but the most extreme accidents. I'm looking for the actual quote in the report but that was their findings. Myth three: You drop your helmet you have to replace it....... Being someone that has worked with fiberglass I always thought this was total bullshit and my instincts were right. Actual quote from the USC report: "......precrash condition of the motorcycle rider helmets: As shown with these data, 25.0% of the accident-involved helmets showed evidence of significant damage in advance of the accident. The damage to the fiberglass shell helmets was innocuous and did not affect accident performance. Damage to the fiberglass shell consisted mainly of superficial abrasions and chipping of the gelcoat and small delaminations at the vertex of the shell (from handling and dropping the helmet)..." So previous wear and damage (like from dropping) had no effect on performance. These are scientific findings, from a local scientific study based on real accident data from thousands of accidents obtained locally and actual on site investigations of almost a thousand accidents where researchers went to the sites and collected detailed information right down to the riders clothing, glasses, riding history and what they had been doing that day. It is 30+ years old but then again I ride vintage bikes upright much like they did 30+ years ago.