Re: "Denialism" and cycle helmets
Posted: 11 Aug 2018, 7:42am
Should we be concerned that some of us are much less like point masses than are others?
Discussion boards hosted by Cycling UK
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/
drossall wrote:Should we be concerned that some of us are much less like point masses than are others?
[XAP]Bob wrote:drossall wrote:Should we be concerned that some of us are much less like point masses than are others?
Yes, the other thing to be concerned about is that helmets are only tested on decapitated heads...
You received some benefit from the helmet cracking. That dissipated the force a little. If the helmet does not crack, the benefit is solely the padding. Most helmets have very little real padding. And nothing really to stop the brain from rocking inside your skull
[XAP]Bob wrote:Given the force required to fracture a skull... the protection it offers would be in a very limited range indeed.
Flinders wrote:Unfortunately there is a significant amount of active resistance to better helmet design and legals standards for helmets from those who don't want to wear them. That's tough on those of us that do want to wear them.
Flinders wrote:[XAP]Bob wrote:Given the force required to fracture a skull... the protection it offers would be in a very limited range indeed.
I'm aware that my helmet will not help significantly if my head gets a direct hit from an oncoming truck doing 60mph, but it may well make the difference between brain damage or not if I end up falling off and hitting my head on a kerb. Because something doesn't work in all cases, it doesn't follow that it can't help in any. Which is why I wear one. But I wouldn't make it compulsory for other people, as so far there isn't the sort of evidence there was in favour of biking helmets or seatbelts, but I suspect that's partly because so many cycling helmets don't meet the best standards they could do.
Flinders wrote:Unfortunately there is a significant amount of active resistance to better helmet design and legals standards for helmets from those who don't want to wear them. That's tough on those of us that do want to wear them.
Flinders wrote:The horse-riding community has a far more accepting view of helmets, which is surprising in a lot of ways, given the demographic and risk factors involved. That means that good design is encouraged, and standards have risen a lot over time.
Horizon wrote:So my question is: in what way does your stance on helmets fit in with your other views on society and science?
Flinders wrote:..
The horse-riding community has a far more accepting view of helmets, which is surprising in a lot of ways, given the demographic and risk factors involved. That means that good design is encouraged, and standards have risen a lot over time.
StephenW wrote:Perhaps this distinction could be obscured if the underlying assumptions of the researchers producing the evidence happen to align with the assumptions of those proposing the policy.