Originally Posted by slvoid
Your arguments are all good and well until you said "that." It doesn't help when you start putting words in my mouth. Please tell me where I said the current helmet design is the best design.
Alright, I apologise for that. It seemed to me that you were arguing in favour of the current design. Am I correct in my reading that you think it is the best compromise though? I'm not convinced that is the case either.
Originally Posted by slvoid
BTW: I hope you realize the difference between force and stress. You can hit at 30mph and have a large force but relatively little stress on a helmet. You can also hit at 15mph and have a relatively small force but large stress on the helmet if you hit a curb. If the helmet were designed to crumple, as you would prefer it, a curb can easily put several thousand psi in your helmet and while it will crumple in a low stress high force impact, a low force high stress impact would allow the curb to go right through the helmet into your skull.
Good points. I think the ideal design would prevent any penetration of things like kerbs or worse, but still allow the head to decelearte more moderately. A decent hard shell should do that.
I don't think the ventilation problem is insurmountable either. The only hiderance to a better helmet I can see is a lack of concerted effort.
Originally Posted by slvoid
The best design would be a compromise of a crush zone, followed by a hard shell, followed by a thin elastic foam layer. Of course that would drive up production costs, end costs, and drive down profits. And your life isn't worth that much to most companies.
I'm not sure of the benefit of the outer elastic layer - could you elaborate? I think the outer layer should be a smooth hard shell. One of the potential problems with the current design is it's tendency to 'dig in' on impact, possibly introducing harmful rotational forces to the neck. I'd prefer it to skid across the road surface.
It's true that a better helmet would cost more, but I'd be prepared to pay it, especially if it was reuseable. A $500 helmet that survives 5 or more crashes is better than a $100 one that survives none.
Originally Posted by slvoid
Now, I'm all for helping you not wear a helmet, so check the law. I see motorcyclists around here wearing the helmet strapped to their arms or just sitting on their head (not over, as in full faced helmet). Check your local laws to make sure they say that your helmet actually has to be ON your head.
I'm well aware of local laws:
"256 Bicycle helmets
(1) The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(2) The rider of a bicycle must not carry a passenger on the bicycle
unless the passenger is wearing an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted
and fastened on the passenger’s head.
Maximum penalty—20 penalty units.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the rider of a 3-wheeled
4-wheeled bicycle who is carrying a paying passenger.
(4) A person is exempt from wearing a bicycle helmet if the person
carrying a current doctor’s certificate stating that, for a stated period—
(a) the person can not wear a bicycle helmet for medical reasons; or
(b) because of a physical characteristic of the person, it would
unreasonable to require the person to wear a bicycle helmet."
Which is not to say that it's policed very strenuously, but I try to be a good boy.