Originally Posted by endform
This says nothing about the effectiveness of helmets, this is a red herring.
Again, red herring, this says nothing about the effectiveness of current helmets, and let's hear some stats on "most head injuries are facial."
Who says they're designed to be used at the speed of someone running. Oh right, I forgot, your study doesn't want to risk being cited cause it's on the run from the feds.
There are plenty of studies and reports on the internet A helmet is designed for an impact of no more than 14mph. The average speed of a runner in a 100 yard sprint is over 20mph.
From magma.ca
The maximum 2 metre (6'8") drop simulates a 20 km/h (14 mph) impact. Direct impacts over 20km/h can be expected to be lethal.
"One has to agree that in high speed impacts [a helmet] won't prevent death."
Facial and head injuries, admitted to an emergency room, actually are about the same number. The consensus is that most facial injuries go unreported, but occur more frequently. The red herring about face protection indeed says nothing about current helmets and their effectiveness. If you had considered the question more thoroughly, you would have understood it's intent.
Why are we not using helmets that will, for a few pennies more, protect ourselves to an almost 100% level? Why use protection that only partially does it's job? Are you satisfied with just being partially protected?