Originally Posted by cyclintom
And if you want the final word here it is: Written by Brian Walker, one of the leading experts on the mechanics of helmets, and whose company Head Protection Evaluations is the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1081
"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum. Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other."
"In other legal cases with which I have been involved, where a cyclist has been in collision with a motorised vehicle, the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present."
.
Funny, they guy you quoted doesn't eve reach the same conclusion you do...
"My purpose is not to dissuade people who wish to, from wearing cycle helmets. They do, I promise, work a little better against a flat surface, than the Court decided in the case I cited above. After all the Snell B-90 standard called for four impacts on each test sample, two of which were tested against flat surfaces with an impact energy of 100 joules each. The tragedy is you cannot buy helmets to this standard any more. Manufacturers prefer the easier standard that they helped to write.
Rather my purpose is to illustrate that the whole cycle helmet issue contains many hidden issues of which most researchers are quite unaware. "
Yes helmet are a complicated issue.
The man you and I quoted above runs a helmet testing facility.
He is not a specialist in brain injury.
He is also mourning the loss of the "tougher" Snell standard. More impacts, higher energy. Many brain injury experts say the Snell standard is too tough, and to meet it a helmet must transfer too much energy to the brain in an impact most likly to be seen in a real world incident. Not too many crashes produce 4 100 joule impacts like the Snell standard makes the helmet protect against.
I will listen to the people that are and where my helmet an both types of bikes I ride (pedal and motor) as well as insist my kids where there not only on their bike, but rollerblades and skateboards as well.