dmrcycle wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 11:01pm
No matter what you argue about the psychology of helmet wearing, human behaviour and risk arguments you cannot argue with the physics that wearing a helmet reduces injury. It's like arguing black is white. Have a debate about society and behaviour but not the laws of physics. Thats not up for debate.
You are very limited in your application of physics to those situations where the outcome is better with a helmet on.
How about those occasions where wearing a helmet makes things worse, such as providing a bigger lever to twist things further, or making a head heavier or bigger such that it might make the difference between having an impact and having no impact?
If I only think of simple scenarios like banging a protected part of my head against a hard surface then certainly a helmet will help, but the reality of the world isn't that simple. And modelling human safety using nothing other than energy absorption in a direct impact is ridiculously simplistic.
Of course one can argue the toss about which of these scenarios is more or less likely, but it turns out the best way to decide whether people would be safer is with epidemiology, not mechanics. And epidemiology is really none too sure.
Meanwhile, given that the biggest causes of serious head trauma are being in a car crash and trips and falls, and given "you cannot argue with the physics that wearing a helmet reduces injury", I take it you always wear a crash helmet in a car and when using the stairs? If not, why not? Until you can demonstrate clearly that cyclists in any situation are clearly safer wearing helmets than not, and back that up with reality in a real cycling population, it's not much use looking at simple stuff and saying it's some sort of proof.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...