closetbiker

His head, I'll agree, was on the ground, and that's where he picked up the rocks, but landing on his head is another matter. Go get your arrows out, but I don't see where the contact is visable.

I still don't see the other riders head doing as you said it did, I think your thinking helmet, helmet, helmet, so that's what you see. Sort of like after my desciption of my collision with the wrong way rider. I landed on my back some meters away from the collision and right away there were a couple of cars that had pulled over and people came out to help. the first thing I heard from one of them was, "Oh, thank goodness he was wearing a helmet!" where as all I was thinking was, a helmet doesn't have any thing to do with the behavior that led to the collision. My helmet had not been impacted. Look at it. Why hasn't anyone picked up that the other guy was riding on the wrong side of the road at night with no light? Helmet, helmet, helmet. Some people are just obsessed to the point where it clouds their judgement.

I doubt if any kids did hair hair-nets back then either. Doesn't mean they couldn't have. Just like with todays helmets.

If you landed on the temple area, maybe it wouldn't have helped anyway, as jwc posted a few pages back (post #1029) from the law office site of Swanson, Thomas and Coon about a lawsuit involving the death of a cyclist hitting his temple area at a speed of 9-12 mph and dying because helmet standards only require energy absorbsion distribution from about 1 to 2 inches above the bottom portion of the side of the helmet leaving that most vunerable portion of the skull exposed. If a rider has an impact in an accident which is below the area required to be tested by the "standards," the helmet may not provide sufficient protection to prevent an injury. " Satisfaction of minimum standards that are not true performance standards (but instead only measure certain areas on a helmet which are not involved in the majority of head injury accidents) is not sufficient for making a product safe enough for use on the streets."

Bummer.

Funny what happens in court eh? Sort of like when in Coroner's Court Testimony, in Perth, Australia, Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke, said, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."

or when in another link I posted about a case in the UK where 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. The court found in favour of his argument.

Bummer.