Originally Posted by
skye
Let me see if I can break this down into bite-sized pieces for you:
1.Fail to crush = increased concussion risk. This is the statement that the BHSI made.
I added two more steps, reflecting the anecdotal data so often posted on this thread:
2.A helmet that has cracked has failed to crush.
3.Therefore a cracked helmet is one that has failed to reduce concussion risk.
Serious logic fail.
It's not necessarily binary. That is, crushing and cracking could both be occurring.
Cracking might not be good but that doesn't that it's worse than no helmet.
Also, the fact that the helmet is there to (possibly) crack in some situations means it's there to (possibly) crush in others.
Originally Posted by
skye
My comment was not regarding the outcome of the test, you moron. It was regarding the failure criteria.
Really, nobody will think worse of you if you move your lips while reading.
Good job on the name calling!
You are the person who
incorrectly said that closetbiker didn't engage in name calling!
It appears you really have no idea what name calling is.
Hilarious! Ironic!