Quoted message said:This is enlightening:
http://www.forbes.com/fyi/1999/0503/041.html
oh dear, I'm about to make an [censored] of myself...
I can't see the m/c helmet is no use thing. Honestly, I really can't. No
matter what the septics think, they also think Sadam runs Al-Q and GWB
is a force for good in the world...
That 7mph accident, that's just bollocks, a head-to-head impact where
the full impact is taken by a riders head is as unlikely as a slow-speed
one. So the testing involves a limited drop on the floor, so what? What
about the more realistic sliding accident?
Every time I've written off a helmet on my m/c (three so far) it's been
by abrasion along the road, they wear holes in as you slide along,
waiting to stop.
They also usefully keep the flies out of yer face, and the snow, and the
rain... a fly in the nose at sixty mph hurts, honest...
Bicycle helmets are a different thing entirely, in application and
construction. My bicycle lid is a crappy piece of credit card (in fact
proly not even that) thin plastic, over a bit of polystyrene. My m/c
shell is made from proper stuff - carbon/kevlar mix that will resist
abrasion.
I appreciate fully the rotational injury issues, equally applicable no
doubt to m/c accidents but in the main I like my helmet because it will
prevent my skull being worn away in a slide. Which is a highly likely
accident scenario. On balance, I'll accept the additional rotational
risk for the abrasion protection. But that's my choice (as it should be).
I don't think for a second that my lid will stop a lorry. However, I
also don't accept it as useless. Unlike my bicycle helmet, which is just
[censored]. Also it is not at all onerous to wear a motorcycle helmet, whereas
the bicycle helmet is a right PIA.
So, am I wrong to think my m/c helmet is useful, whereas my bicycle
helmet is not? This newsgroup has convinced me of the latter, although
it will need a paradigm shift in my thinking to transfer similar
reasoning to my m/c lid. But i do try and keep an open mind.
bfn,
Tony B