Achtung! This is a long 'n.
Originally posted by bikeman
You could say that it is the rider's choice not to wear a helmet, but ultimately the medical expense that they will incur will trickle back down to the masses through increased insurances (at least in the U.S.) or governmental costs. So we all pay the price and the injured party pays the ultimate price or will indure pain and suffering as a result of a decision not wear the helmet.(
Originally posted by aerobat
Trickle down effect isn't the only consideration. Here in Canada,for the most part we have government health care, as in some other countries.
That is paid directly by the taxpayer, and the costs are huge, which is one of the reasons I support helmet usage, seat belt laws, stiffer drunk driving penalties and higher taxes on cigarettes. It's not a matter of judging these acitivities, or the individuals that engage in them.
Ah, so the promotion of helmets is not so much in the interest of saving lives but more in the interest of saving ourselves money. That certainly clears that up. Isn't it nice that insurance/public health has absolved us of the responsibility to care for others.
Originally posted by nathank
i'm pretty sure i would have broken my neck and had a major concussion w/o the helmut.
I'm pretty sure a helmet won't protect you from a broken neck. If anything, with the larger area and mass it gives your head, it'll make any neck injury more serious.
I'm not interested in a flame war arguing about helmets one way or the other. It's all been done before, and the regular rec.bicycles.soc helmet warmongers at least have actual research at hand to highlight and discuss.
However (you knew there was going to be a however, didn't you?) there's a few things regarding helmets that might be worth considering.
First off, helmets are made of styrofoam. Computer monitors are packed in the same stuff. Take a packed computer monitor and drop it from head height and see if the thing still works. The point is, we seem to attribute some rather magical protective qualities to a material that is really only effective against very minor bumps. Styrofoam as a protective material is grossly overrated.
Second, we generally underrate the protective abilities of the human skull. It is a remarkably tough bone that is really quite difficult to crack. The thing is, it isn't skull cracking that causes most head injuries, it is rapid decelleration causing the brain to slosh around and impact on the inside of the skull. The role of the helmet in this is to decrease the rate of decelleration to something that the brain can safely cope with (I believe the standard requires 3g).
I question the styrofoam hat's ability to do this in real world conditions. It says clearly in all helmet manuals I've seen that they are designed to
crush, not crack on impact. It is the crushing of the shell that provides the required reduction in decelleartion. If a helmet cracks, it has failed in it's stated design purpose. I have destroyed four helmets ovre the years. Every single one of them cracked and showed no observable signs of crushing. True it provides some protection, but not as much as a)it's supposedly designed to and b)is necessary for anything more than a fall from a stationary position (which, by the way, is the only test they need to pass to get standards approval)
The current trend of putting more and more holes (vents) in helmets only compromises the design further. First, it limits the ability of the helmet to spread any impact over the covered area, and second, it increases the chances of it cracking. For the best protection you can get from a helmet get one with as few vents as possible. A hard shell would help considerably as well. These would never find a market though, so the standard has been watered down to make helmets lighter and cooler, which is fine, but not as strong, which isn't.
The rumor that helmets need replacing after a few years due to breakdown from u.v. light is, as far as I can tell, a marketing myth.
Note that I have made no mention of helmet laws here. I am only interested in the design of the things, and frankly it is left wanting. I live in a country with mandatory helmet laws, which I have no particular objection to, (but I would be just as happy to be without - I would still probably wear one though), but I figure if we're going to have them, we might as well have ones that actually work.
I've got a few ideas on better helmet design - I'm even thinking of making one myself. I've said more than enough for now, but if anyone's interested I'd be happy to post them here, if only to divert the thread away from what looks like a flame war brewing.