View Single Post
Old 03-04-07, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
closetbiker's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Dewaine
This might be interesting to some of you:
seems similar to wikipedias entry about bicycle helmets

The way wikipedia works would seem to indicate this is what is believed by the mass public who add/delete info on topics on wikipedia. Sounds a lot like what I've posted

They are specified to withstand simple falls onto a flat surface without other vehicles being impact speed of around 12mph, but will only reduce the energy of a 30 mph impact to 27.5 mph, and even this will be compromised if the helmet fails. This energy calculation is based on the standards, which take no account of the weight of the rider's body...Helmets are not well designed to deal with high speed impacts or rotational stresses (crashes that are not centred, and involve rotation of the head). They are not designed to provide adequate protection for a collision involving another moving vehicle, (e.g. a car)...The major source of serious injury to cyclists is impact with motor vehicles. Current helmet standards are inadequate to protect against such collisions, the energies involved are routinely in excess of the rated capacity of the best motorsport helmets...Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive... A review of jurisdictions where helmet use increased by 40% or more following compulsion showed no measurable change to head injury rates...The definition of injury is also open to debate, and injury figures are acknowledged to be inaccurate...Recent research on traumatic brain injury adds further confusion, suggesting that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death may well be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which helmets cannot mitigate...Much of the research is partisan in one way or another. Thompson, Rivara and Thompson were already committed advocates of helmet legislation before publishing their first study...Helmet promoters routinely make claims which manufacturers cannot, due to truth in advertising restrictions. Promotion campaigns are often supported and/or funded by manufacturers...The major problem with helmet promotion, from the point of view of cycle activists, is that in order to present the idea of a "problem" to match the solution they present, promoters tend to overstate the dangers of cycling. Cycling is, according to the evidence, no more dangerous than being a pedestrian...Some bicycle activists complain that focus on helmets diverts attention from other issues which are much more important for improving bicycle safety, such as training, roadcraft, and bicycle maintenance...Official zeal for cycle helmets is greatest where cycling is a minority activity...Overall, cycling is beneficial to health - the benefits outweigh the risks by up to 20:1[41]. Critics assert that anything which jeopardises that benefit should be carefully weighed to ensure it is likely to achieve some meaningful benefit in turn. Thus far, no helmet law has been shown to do that.
closetbiker is offline