Originally Posted by
mconlonx
First: you have no idea if his helmet had any effect. A split in the shell can occur after foam compression occurs, after some energy has been dissipated.
Second: You make an assumption that the bike shop guy said the helmet prevented a concussion, when the accident victim claimed no such thing.
Third: Some current helmets are designed to mitigate rotational injury. And since measure of such is not part of helmet testing, others may provide some degree of mitigation, but we just don't know.
While I disagree with Paramount1973's statements, conclusions, and find the study cited useless and chock-filled with inconsistencies and nonsense -- "We support MHLs because that will make parents make more kids wear helmets, but we have no idea if it will actually make cyclists safer in general." -- once again, you delve into conjecture and assumptions:
- Just because helmets are designed to pass a minimum test for one type of impact, they can and do prevent/mitigate all kinds of injury. Just not serious injury.
- Helmets are not useless and provide real benefits.
You're just as off-base, your comments as useless, as those you seek to castigate for their helmet advocacy.
That's the bottom line, they may not be as good as most people think, but they
are CERTAINLY BETTER than no helmet at all despite all the non helmet wearers nay-saying and "statistics"...