Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

SmellTheGlove · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

Very interesting poll results - faith in helmets seems very high.

I asked because I did a google search on what helmet to buy. I quickly identified the best unbiased expert on helmets in the UK - possibly the world - as being Brian Walker, whose company is responsible for helmet testing in the UK.

Dear Mr Walker
my helmet actually dates back to 1990 according to the moulded in date clock (that was back in the days when the helmets were more effective apparently) - does it still protect me as if it were new?

If not, should I replace it? Probably more to the point, how long ago should I have replaced it? Would it have survived longer if I only ever stored and used it in the dark? What about that minor bump I had in December that at least stopped my shades getting bust?

I have so many questions about helmets that are imponderable because as far as I can make out the only faintly objective data about crash protection is lab data on boxfresh lids, yet still I wear one most of the time in the wonderful wild uncontrolled world.

Have to admit it's also a good place to carry some more reflective tape, keeps rain off, makes the silhouette fatter etc. In other words, wearing it is, for me, a habit but not really a matter of blind faith.

cjw · May 2008

cjw wrote:

To save even more time I've just cut and pasted from the other thread below that mentions helmets...

To save time....

1. Helmets are good, they saved my life
2. Helmets didn't save your life and at best they do no harm
3. Bollocxs
4. With knobs on
5. Your mother is a hamster
6. And your father smells of elderberries

Repeat for 59 pages...

Do you see how much time I would have saved you

1. Helmets are good, they saved my life = Most of the posts before MEANWHILE
2. Helmets didn't save your life and at best they do no harm = MEANWHILE POST

This will repeat for a while.

3. Normally I would now post statistics and counter evidence, especially countering the rotation head injury statement (Because it's Bollocx ITEM 3), so I'll just give you the previous link of counter arguments....

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12549995&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

JoeSoap76 · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

In real accidents, while broken helmets are common, it is extremely unusual to see any helmet that has compressed foam and thus may have performed as intended.[...]

I.e. the mechanism which is suppose to operate to reduce injury - without which helmets are worthless - only rarely works.

I'm no physicist but would a part of the 'mechanism' of the helmet not be that it absorbs some of the energy of the impact?

Although the foam in a 'broken' helmet might not have also compressed, there was still some energy transfer involved. That energy has been asborbed by the helmet which, as a result, has broken. Were the helmet not there to absorb that energy is it not logical to assume that the energy would, instead, have to be absorbed by the head?

Seems to me that absorbing the energy which would otherwise be absorbed by the head is precisely what a helmet should do. Whether that results in the helmet breaking or the foam compressing really doesn't change that I'd rather my helmet had to do it than my head.

meanwhile wrote:

At speeds above 12mph, helmets don't have a subtractive effect. I.e. a 30mph is reduced to being the equivalent of an 18mph one.

Okay, so if I come off at 30mph and hit my head on a lamp post my helmet is unlikely to absorb all of the energy of the impact and I'm still going to take a hefty conk to the noggin, but (and again, no physicist) unless the foam in a helmet is able to transfer 100% of the energy of its impact with an object through to the head inside, it must have a subtractive effect. If that's not the case and the foam used in helmets absorbs none of the energy let me know because there must be thousands of areas where a substance like that would be invaluable.

Personally, where my head is concerned every little helps so even a small reduction in force is going to be worth it

DavidTQ · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

DavidTQ wrote:

2) it gives me somewhere to mount my helmet cam. I like being able to point my camera at people

I'm pretty sure that carrying a camera on a helmet -

i. Makes the helmet potentially useless. Helmets are generally good with flat surfaces and bad with "anvils", which is what even a plastic camera will function as in an impact. You have to understand that the light construction of helmets is very delicate - they're not at all like motorcycle helmets.

ii. May well be more likely to cause brain trauma than wearing no helmet, especially if the camera is to one side, as I expect it is.

Of course, your odds are surviving are still excellent, especially if you rarely wear the thing.

Im pretty certain the mounting would give way in any sort of accident long before it causes any serious problems

I dont believe the camera mount would stand up to a 5kg static weight without breaking off

Let alone a force with speed and direction.... The mount isnt as strong as the light construction of the helmet.

Maybe theres a chance Id come down heavy on the side the camers mounted with no forward or angular force, and nothing like my shoulders breaking the impact first. It would have to ensure that I dont instinctively move my arms to protect myself... could happen... but in most scenarios I can think of the impact is unlikely to be full on side ways with no other motion to dislodge the camera first. I dont see many situations in which a helmet cam will become a direct anvil strike.

I actually consider the camera to be a BETTER safety aid than the helmet itself, It serves as a nice deterent against more aggressive motorists

The helmet is there to save some road rash, the helmet cam helps protect against the more dangerous menace of dangerous driving!

Of course the helmet cam also helps against dangerous cycling

- knowing your own actions are on film means you have to KNOW your actions are right! I was confident enough in my cycling to give the police a couple of months worth of commutes filming unedited when they were appealing for evidence (not related to any event involving me)

Id say in terms of safety from most important to last important on my bike:-

Riding style
panniers (help drastically reduce close passes)
camera
glasses
gloves
helmet
bib tights and jerseys in appropriate conditions (only minor but may help reduce road rash to a small degree if I did come off)

I wear my helmet with camera daily does that statistically mean its going to kill me?

I

meanwhile · May 2008

SmellTheGlove wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

Very interesting poll results - faith in helmets seems very high.

I asked because I did a google search on what helmet to buy. I quickly identified the best unbiased expert on helmets in the UK - possibly the world - as being Brian Walker, whose company is responsible for helmet testing in the UK.

Dear Mr Walker
my helmet actually dates back to 1990 according to the moulded in date clock (that was back in the days when the helmets were more effective apparently) - does it still protect me as if it were new?

I mailed Mr Walker and this was his reply: Only if you are still wearing the same hair style as when you originally purchased and wore the helmet. We are told you this was a mullet, and you still are, so yes. SMTG can further enhance his safety by listening to old Pet Shop Boys albums while wearing the helmet.

meanwhile · May 2008

DavidTQ wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

DavidTQ wrote:

2) it gives me somewhere to mount my helmet cam. I like being able to point my camera at people

I'm pretty sure that carrying a camera on a helmet -

i. Makes the helmet potentially useless. Helmets are generally good with flat surfaces and bad with "anvils", which is what even a plastic camera will function as in an impact. You have to understand that the light construction of helmets is very delicate - they're not at all like motorcycle helmets.

ii. May well be more likely to cause brain trauma than wearing no helmet, especially if the camera is to one side, as I expect it is.

Of course, your odds are surviving are still excellent, especially if you rarely wear the thing.

Im pretty certain the mounting would give way in any sort of accident long before it causes any serious problems I dont believe the camera mount would stand up to a 5kg static weight without breaking off Let alone a force with speed and direction.... The mount isnt as strong as the light construction of the helmet.

I wouldn't assume that the camera would stay attached. But the way a helmet operates is so delicate, particular, and marginal, that this doesn't matter.

Maybe theres a chance Id come down heavy on the side the camers mounted with no forward or angular force, and nothing like my shoulders breaking the impact first. It would have to ensure that I dont instinctively move my arms to protect myself... could happen... but in most scenarios I can think of the impact is unlikely to be full on side ways with no other motion to dislodge the camera first. I dont see many situations in which a helmet cam will become a direct anvil strike.

I can't say without seeing how the camera is mounted. But I'd worry about an increase in rotational force even more than an anvil effect. A 300g evenly distributed helmet is already problematic; a lump weighing an extra 100g? 200g? one one side is much more so.

I actually consider the camera to be a BETTER safety aid than the helmet itself, It serves as a nice deterent against more aggressive motorists The helmet is there to save some road rash, the helmet cam helps protect against the more dangerous menace of dangerous driving!

It has to be a superb instrument of potential legal vengeance at least!

Riding style
panniers (help drastically reduce close passes)

- *Good* trick.

camera
glasses
[/quote[

I couldn't find my bike without mine..

gloves
helmet
bib tights and jerseys in appropriate conditions (only minor but may help reduce road rash to a small degree if I did come off)

I wear my helmet with camera daily does that statistically mean its going to kill me?
I[/quote

Well, statistically, we can't say! I'd take a guess and say that it's reducing your expected cyclist mortality from 3000 years to something less, assuming that you're otherwise immortal and ride frequently. That's without allowing for the effect on the camera on drivers.

meanwhile · May 2008

JoeSoap76 wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

In real accidents, while broken helmets are common, it is extremely unusual to see any helmet that has compressed foam and thus may have performed as intended.[...]

I.e. the mechanism which is suppose to operate to reduce injury - without which helmets are worthless - only rarely works.

I'm no physicist but would a part of the 'mechanism' of the helmet not be that it absorbs some of the energy of the impact?

That's what it's supposed to do, yes.

Although the foam in a 'broken' helmet might not have also compressed, there was still some energy transfer involved. That energy has been asborbed by the helmet which, as a result, has broken. Were the helmet not there to absorb that energy is it not logical to assume that the energy would, instead, have to be absorbed by the head?

IMO: It's logical, and its true that some energy is required to break the helmet structures chemical bonds, and almost certainly not relevant. Force at the moment of maximum deceleration probably matters far more. The moment of helmet breakage may maximize this. And the materials that helmets are made typically take little energy to break.

The expert opinion: They say "No, doesn't work that way - a broken helmet effectively didn't work."

meanwhile wrote:

At speeds above 12mph, helmets don't have a subtractive effect. I.e. a 30mph is reduced to being the equivalent of an 18mph one.

Okay, so if I come off at 30mph and hit my head on a lamp post my helmet is unlikely to absorb all of the energy of the impact and I'm still going to take a hefty conk to the noggin, but (and again, no physicist) unless the foam in a helmet is able to transfer 100% of the energy of its impact with an object through to the head inside, it must have a subtractive effect.
[/quote]

On energy, yes. On maximum force, no. Badly designed helmets - or helmets pushed past their limits - can act like springs: they can absorb a soft force and release it as a harder one. (This happened some years ago with some boxing helmets, making injuries worse.) If a helmet is cracks, then this may well have been the cause.

meanwhile · May 2008

Oh - the other tip from my research is that the manufacturer whose non-full face helmets are most likely to meet the Snell standard and actually be available in the UK is Specialized. That doesn't mean all their helmets are that good: check the Snell site link I gave. And even then, if the helmet doesn't fit and you and isn't tight on, it's worthless.

cjw · May 2008

And, put another way there are 33 cyclists deaths for every billion km travelled. So, statistically once you have travelled 19 million miles on your bike, you will die :?

cjw · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

Oh - the other tip from my research is that the manufacturer whose non-full face helmets are most likely to meet the Snell standard and actually be available in the UK is Specialized. That doesn't mean all their helmets are that good: check the Snell site link I gave. And even then, if the helmet doesn't fit and you and isn't tight on, it's worthless.

Yep, thanks, I noticed that from your Snell link. None of the Giro ones appear - guess what I've got! - I wonder if this is because they haven't registered?

Interestingly the only criticism I have seen for the Snell testing rigime is that it is too rigorous and over the top!

"In an in-depth magazine article[1] discussing helmet testing and safety, SMF came under some pressure from prominent head injury and helmet design experts, including Dr. Harry Hurt, author of the Hurt Report, who described the Snell standards as "a little bit excessive" in reference to the extremely high standard of results the Foundation requires."

Sounds like a bloody good recommendation to me.

JoeSoap76 · May 2008

cjw wrote:

And, put another way there are 33 cyclists deaths for every billion km travelled. So, statistically once you have travelled 19 million miles on your bike, you will die :?

I have a feeling that if I ever travelled 19,000,000 miles on my bike I'd welcome the rest

biondino · May 2008

Meanwhile, can I suggest you put your money where your mouth is? I will allow a forum member of your choosing to hit me on the helmet with a metal bar, and you can be hit on your bare scalp with the same force. We can build up from low impact to high and see how it goes. First one to refuse to move up a notch concedes, okay?

The 12mph thing is a bit of a red herring. If you come off your bike in most ways you'd be very unlucky for your head to hit the ground at either the speed of the bike at the time of the incident or faster (though obviously both can happen), and any blow while moving that doesn't involve hitting an object dead on will be a glancing blow which absorbs much less energy.

JavaBob · May 2008

I wear a helmet but I don't think it will save my life. However I am certain that is saved me from grinding my face into the tarmac on one occasion. The gloves left me with deap bruises in my palms but also stopped me from abrading my hands.

I was going down hill and a pedestrian stepped between stopped cars and in front of me. I went over the top. The pedestrain actually ran away while I was still on all fours..

One problem I have with helmets is that they do not seem to be designed to wash easily. The foam pads get very smelly but if you wash them the lining seems to peal off.

meanwhile · May 2008

biondino wrote:

Meanwhile, can I suggest you put your money where your mouth is? I will allow a forum member of your choosing to hit me on the helmet with a metal bar, and you can be hit on your bare scalp with the same force.

You need to warm your brain up a little, bio.

I said that a helmet - according to every credible expert - wouldn't be any use in a serious head impact, not that a bare head would be better. I.e. we'd both got cranial injuries in your proposed scenario. You've already done this at home by yourself, haven't you?

We can build up from low impact to high and see how it goes. First one to refuse to move up a notch concedes, okay?

Read more carefully. You'd have a good test (well, assuming you can find another person willing to perform it with you - do you have a brother?) if it wasn't for the fact that you haven't modeled the cost factors for helmet wearing - i.e. more likelihood of impact, and increased trauma from off centre blows. You'd need to be bit something like twice as often, and one hit in two would have to be a twister. We could learn a lot from this experiment, and I encourage you to go ahead. (Haha.)

Oh, and your grasp of physics is appalling. Being hit by a 1kg moving at 12mph is very different to you, say a 70 kg object, hitting something at 12mph. By a factor of about 70 - one case probably has nothing to do with another. Relying on your own intelligence can very dangerous, if you're a professional helmet tester.

The 12mph thing is a bit of a red herring. If you come off your bike in most ways you'd be very unlucky for your head to hit the ground at either the speed of the bike at the time of the incident or faster.

Congratulations - that's a completely wrong short paragraph. I specified a bad - i.e. high speed acciden, not a typical "I can't ride straight/use my brake" tumble. I've seen bad cycle accidents and talked to people after they got of hospital from them (I'm an ex bike messenger.) Such accidents are almost always collisions with cars - a shunted cyclist will often be moving at the speed of the impacting car. We often knew precisely the distance people flew through the air, and it's simple physics to work out the velocity they were moving from that, given you know the saddle height. People worked away from these or not depending on how they landed - and the speed was always much faster than 12 mph. None of these people would have had a greater chance of survival if they'd been wearing a helmet, based on what the helmet experts say.

Now, I'm not saying "Don't wear a helmet". I am saying "Don't wear a helmet thinking that it will provably increase your life expectancy." The first statement would be one of opinion; the second is one of fact, accepted in courts in the UK and the US. A helmet might reduce your chances of minor injury in a low speed, low trauma prang - maybe, maybe not. If your helmet is a good one, which it probably isn't. There may be a cost for this benefit in increased risk of major damager, but we aren't completely sure.

redddraggon · May 2008

I wear a helmet

I only wear the helmet because there is traffic about.

I know the helmet wouldn't save me in a high speed impact, but it would save me in most of the accidents that I would have trying to avoid idiot drivers (not that it has happened).

If there was no traffic I wouldn't wear a helmet as I'm confident enough with my bike handling abilities to keep on the bike even in the wet.

However If there was no traffic I'd still were a helmet if the road was icy, or I involved in bunch racing or high speed group riding.

Cycling is not a dangerous activity and cycling per se shouldn't need helmet wearing, but it's the other road users that might make me take avoiding action leading to a spill.

meanwhile · May 2008

redddraggon wrote:

I wear a helmet

I only wear the helmet because there is traffic about.

I know the helmet wouldn't save me in a high speed impact, but it would save me in most of the accidents that I would have trying to avoid idiot drivers (not that it has happened).

If there was no traffic I wouldn't wear a helmet as I'm confident enough with my bike handling abilities to keep on the bike even in the wet.

However If there was no traffic I'd still were a helmet if the road was icy, or I involved in bunch racing or high speed group riding.

Cycling is not a dangerous activity and cycling per se shouldn't need helmet wearing, but it's the other road users that might make me take avoiding action leading to a spill.

That's a very sensible argument; if you're riding at 18 mph and pull a sharp turn and something goes wrong, then you might well hit the road at 12 mph. If you don't feel that helmets eg restrict your vision or affect your balance, then wearing one in this case makes sense. Possibly, as long as you don't ask awkward questions about rotational brain injuries, which they probably make worse and are about the nastiest category of injury short of "A swordfish went through my head."

andrewc3142 · May 2008

Missing the simply don't wear one choice.

Crapaud · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

[That's a very sensible argument; if you're riding at 18 mph and pull a sharp turn and something goes wrong, then you might well hit the road at 12 mph. If you don't feel that helmets eg restrict your vision or affect your balance, then wearing one in this case makes sense. Possibly, as long as you don't ask awkward questions about rotational brain injuries, which they probably make worse and are about the nastiest category of injury short of "A swordfish went through my head."

The number of people cycling has increased over the last few years, so presumably the number of helmet wearing cyclists has increased as well. Where is the evidence that 'rotational brain / neck injuries' have increased? On all of the cycle forums that I've lurked on I've never seen anyone post any statistics for this, never mind a post saying, "Feck, I've got a rotational brain / neck injuries caused by my helmet.".

meanwhile · May 2008

andrewc3142 wrote:

Missing the simply don't wear one choice.

Missing the "This isn't whether you have a choice, but what the evidence is." And that there are lobbies in the UK trying to make wearing helmets compulsory.

meanwhile · May 2008

Crapaud wrote:

The number of people cycling has increased over the last few years, so presumably the number of helmet wearing cyclists has increased as well. Where is the evidence that 'rotational brain / neck injuries' have increased?

There isn't any empirical evidence either way, because no one is bothering to collect it. What we do know is that serious injuries in London have gone up with helmet use, even while minor ones have gone down - by 20% and 40% respectively.

On all of the cycle forums that I've lurked on I've never seen anyone post any statistics for this, never mind a post saying, "Feck, I've got a rotational brain / neck injuries caused by my helmet.".

That might be because they would be dead or a cabbage - that's why these injuries are to be avoided: they're bad. Additionally, brain injuries of any kind are rare - when was the last time someone posted (explicitly) confessing to have one?

JoeSoap76 · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

What we do know is that serious injuries in London have gone up with helmet use, even while minor ones have gone down - by 20% and 40% respectively.

And the only change was an increase in helmet use? No coinciding increase in road traffic? No change to the 'type' of road traffic? Were the classifications of accidents similar across the samples?

Crapaud · May 2008

meanwhile wrote:

There isn't any empirical evidence either way, because no one is bothering to collect it. What we do know is that serious injuries in London have gone up with helmet use, even while minor ones have gone down - by 20% and 40% respectively.

So, there's really no evidence, apart from it's possible that it can happen, that brain traumas have increased with helmet use. I think it's critical to your arguement that it's shown to have gone up otherwise you don't really have a point.

As you've only got figures for London I'd suspect that any increase in injuries are due to increased numbers of commuter cyclists, probably beginner and / or inexperienced cyclists, after 7/7. Regardless, unless they're specifically for head injuries, the figures are irrelevant to this thread.

meanwhile wrote:

That might be because they would be dead or a cabbage - that's why these injuries are to be avoided: they're bad. Additionally, brain injuries of any kind are rare - when was the last time someone posted (explicitly) confessing to have one?

Brain injuries are rare??? That hardly promotes your case! Considering the number of posts that claim, in one way or another, that a helmet lessened a head injury, then on balance a lid is more beneficial than not. The number of rotational brain injuries caused directly by wearing a helmet must be vanishingly small.

always_tyred · June 2008

As people have pointed out, helmets are unnaturally bulky.

As such, when I use the eyes on the side of my head, I find that my vision is slightly obscured. This can be potentially risky since I feel that I am less able to see fly fishermen by the side of the road. Lets face it, people, if one of those hooks gets caught in your helmet, you are at increased risk of being hanged by your chin strap.

always_tyred · June 2008

Helmet fire safety standards have also slipped in recent years. Polystyrene is extremely flammable. The recent trend in metallic finishes to the helmet shell is just as foolish as the Hindenburg. It only takes a small spark and the whole lot could go up.

Incidents of hot headed cyclists have most certainly increased in recent years.

jedster · June 2008

Meanwhile,

Given you're reading on this subject, why didn't you give us an

"probably wont help that much in a bad crash but likely to reduce the severity of injuries in a minor crash"

option?

That's the reason I wear a helmet.*

*I'd actually add a caveat to this - "provided I am disciplined enough to avoid my riding becoming more aggressive to compensate for the risk reduction".

Was it some kind of trick?

J

mailmannz · June 2008

meanwhile wrote:

There isn't any empirical evidence either way, because no one is bothering to collect it. What we do know is that serious injuries in London have gone up with helmet use, even while minor ones have gone down with hemlet use- by 20% and 40% respectively.

There, Ive just corrected your statement

Mailman

meanwhile · June 2008

mailmannz wrote:

meanwhile wrote:

There isn't any empirical evidence either way, because no one is bothering to collect it. What we do know is that serious injuries in London have gone up with helmet use, even while minor ones have gone down with hemlet use- by 20% and 40% respectively.

There, Ive just corrected your statement

Mailman

Thanks!

meanwhile · June 2008

jedster wrote:

Meanwhile,

Given you're reading on this subject, why didn't you give us an

"probably wont help that much in a bad crash but likely to reduce the severity of injuries in a minor crash"

option?

Because I wanted to see how many people were under the same misapprehension I was - that helmets will help in a bad 'un.

*I'd actually add a caveat to this - "provided I am disciplined enough to avoid my riding becoming more aggressive to compensate for the risk reduction".

Another reason I'm ticked off with the pro helmet lobby is that they are actually using the above as an excuse for serious injuries not falling with helmet use. Hello? Does anybody really think "My head is protected by 300g of mighty polystyrene. Heavy goods wagons and buses, teenagers in uninsured hatchbacks, yuppies in BMWs - fear me, for I am Cyclo The Indestructible! Shimanos to ramming speed, legs to battle cadence - attack!"

I'm not anti-helmet, I'm anti deliberately poor helmet education that prioritizes selling helmets over making sure that the helmets sold are effective ones and worn correctly (so they might do some good), by people have made an informed decision to use them. Virtually everyone who answered the poll imagined that they will be getting a benefit that all the qualified experts I could find, and the UK and US courts, say they won't be getting. And most probably won't even be getting the real potential benefits - most people aren't wearing Snell helmets, most people (according to the expert) are wearing their helmet wrong.

Mettan · June 2008

JoeSoap76 wrote:

I'm no physicist but would a part of the 'mechanism' of the helmet not be that it absorbs some of the energy of the impact?

Although the foam in a 'broken' helmet might not have also compressed, there was still some energy transfer involved. That energy has been asborbed by the helmet which, as a result, has broken. Were the helmet not there to absorb that energy is it not logical to assume that the energy would, instead, have to be absorbed by the head?

Seems to me that absorbing the energy which would otherwise be absorbed by the head is precisely what a helmet should do. Whether that results in the helmet breaking or the foam compressing really doesn't change that I'd rather my helmet had to do it than my head.

Okay, so if I come off at 30mph and hit my head on a lamp post my helmet is unlikely to absorb all of the energy of the impact and I'm still going to take a hefty conk to the noggin, but (and again, no physicist) unless the foam in a helmet is able to transfer 100% of the energy of its impact with an object through to the head inside, it must have a subtractive effect. If that's not the case and the foam used in helmets absorbs none of the energy let me know because there must be thousands of areas where a substance like that would be invaluable.

Personally, where my head is concerned every little helps so even a small reduction in force is going to be worth it

Agreed - and well put.

meanwhile · June 2008

Mettan wrote:

JoeSoap76 wrote:

I'm no physicist but would a part of the 'mechanism' of the helmet not be that it absorbs some of the energy of the impact?

Although the foam in a 'broken' helmet might not have also compressed, there was still some energy transfer involved. That energy has been asborbed by the helmet which, as a result, has broken. Were the helmet not there to absorb that energy is it not logical to assume that the energy would, instead, have to be absorbed by the head?

Seems to me that absorbing the energy which would otherwise be absorbed by the head is precisely what a helmet should do. Whether that results in the helmet breaking or the foam compressing really doesn't change that I'd rather my helmet had to do it than my head.

Okay, so if I come off at 30mph and hit my head on a lamp post my helmet is unlikely to absorb all of the energy of the impact and I'm still going to take a hefty conk to the noggin, but (and again, no physicist) unless the foam in a helmet is able to transfer 100% of the energy of its impact with an object through to the head inside, it must have a subtractive effect. If that's not the case and the foam used in helmets absorbs none of the energy let me know because there must be thousands of areas where a substance like that would be invaluable.

Personally, where my head is concerned every little helps so even a small reduction in force is going to be worth it

Agreed - and well put.

I *do* happen to have a physics degree, and the above is bs.

Doesn't it alarm you at all that the guy who is the UK's #1 expert in helmets - the man who the courts call as a witness and who is responsible for testing - says that helmets don't work this way? There's no obligation on real life to be simply enough so that everything works the first way someone completely ignorant of the subject imagines. When an expert gives an opinion, based on actual expertise and years of empirical testing, then you should at least understand the basis for the opinion. Maintaining your ignorance, waving your hands and saying "But schoolboy physics tells me -" isn't likely to produce a more accurate result.

Otoh, your efforts may get hired you as global non-warming experts by the Bush administration.

Benefits of wearinga helmet poll

Comments

Categories