gotbent wrote:
> Having done a bit of package design and gotten a rudimentry
> education in what foam does, I think that the breaking strength
> of the skull is a poor metric in a discussion of how a helmet
> protects you. I believe the purpose of a helmet is to decrease
> the g loading on the brain by absorbing energy so that the grey
> stuff doesn't slam into the skull case which is the thing that
> causes damage.
Obviously. And, equally obviously, the skull is much, much more
structurally sound than the helmets -- that's the entire point.
It's why modern cars accordion if you look at them worng.
And, also obviously, it's not all that hard to overwhelm even
the most overprotective full-face high-speed motorcycle racing
helmet. If you go head-first into the grill of a Mack truck coming
at you at 75 mph, you're dead, helmet or no.
Helmets are especially effective in the kinds of crashes they were
designed to protect against, which is exactly the crash I had. And
mine did its job perfectly. If I had been out in the middle of
nowhere when the hit-and-run driver hit me, assuming I came to
before I got run over, I could have walked home. Maybe. Hitched a
ride, certainly.
> Ian has an opinion and I have an opinion. His previous points in
> helmets discussions dealt with statistical relavency of the
> necessity of a helmet, and such nonsense as does a helmet
> protect your thumbs. I have crashed and crushed a large portion
> of the foam liner in my helmet and did not suffer any concussive
> injury.
I didn't escape the concussion, but it was mild. No signs of it
after a few hours, or to this day.
> Did my helmet play a part in that. i believe it did.
I have no doubt that I would be much, much unhappier today if it
were not for my helmet. At the very least, I'd have an ugly bald
spot on the side of my head.
> you don't have to agree, but I will wear a helmet when I ride a
> bike and hope that I never crash and need to test its efficacy
> again. You may dissagree and not wear a helmet. I don't care.
I agree. I won't sit on the bike without a helmet. I'm glad that
you won't either; our society is more productive, and therefore
I'm a little bit richer, when everybody is as healthy as possible.
I doubt Mr. Smith will change his opinion, but it'd sure be nice
if he did, for the same reason.
The way I see it, the bike is itself the cheapest health insurance
available to me (coupled, of course, with a good diet with lots of
fresh veggies, complex carbohydrates, and healthy meats), and the
helmet is the cheapest accident insurance I can get for the
bike. The helmet is by no means the /only/ accident insurance;
I've got a mirror, I just bought an HID light that I'll be running
during the day (with matching taillight), I'll soon have a lime
green aerotrunk on the back, and I'm working on more visibility
aids. I follow all traffic rules, and I'm not afraid to take the
whole lane. And, of course, most importantly, I assume that I'm
/still/ invisible to everybody on the road.
Defense in depth is crucial, as everybody should know. A helmet is
a vital part of a cyclist's defenses, but it's just one part.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
- thanks for the link.