Originally Posted by
MinnMan
OK, I don't want to reignite the helmet/no helmet debate - I'm sure your injury would have been worse w/o a helmet, but at zero MPH from a recumbent, shouldn't a standard issue helmet be good enough to prevent a concussion?
It seems to me that helmet safety technology is stagnant. When you go to buy a helmet, you are always told that all the helmets are equally safe because they all meet the same testing standards. The manufacturers do not want to claim more than this because they would then open themselves up to liability against said claims. So they also have no motivation to improve unless stricter standards are set. Thus, all helmets offer some amount of protection, but they could be doing better....
It's a balancing act. Any more expensive or intrusive and people will not wear them. Too light and too comfortable and they no longer do their job. The task is to simply trade distance (crush of the foam) for a lower acceleration level to the head. Too little crush distance and time and the g load to the brain is too high Too much and it runs out before the impact event ends and suddenly the g load is too high. As with all other bike components, more money buys lighter weight.
Helmets are pretty remarkable for the price and inconvenience paid for the safety imparted. They work best for just the sort of accident in the OP. They are a one shot insurance policy that
Might help when needed. They are nothing more than another layer of less than perfect protection between you and disaster.
If you want to buy total protection, you may not enjoy what you get. Anyone seen the going price on an Indy Car drivers helmet lately?