Bill Sornson wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:07:10 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 04:50:24 GMT, (Bill
Z.) wrote:
Nobody is claiming that helmets are a panacea, but they are useful.
Lots of people are.
Name a few.
From congresscritters to lobyists, lots of people are.
Just as I thought. If you find someone who "claim(s) that helmets are a
panacea", then let us know who it is. (By name.)
I don't really follow football, but I bet the QB in Pittsburgh who got
smacked this summer wishes he was wearing a helmet. He was on a
motorcycle, but once you go airborne it doesn't really matter how you
got that way. It isn't the falling that hurts you, it is the landing.
As an aside, many helmets are not used correctly and therefore have
their safety compromized. They are really "one use" items. If you
bonk your head or even drop the helmet, its time for a new one. For a
big, expensive, well made motorcycle helmet that is worlds better than
a styrofoam bicycle helmet, if you hit the road or even drop it from
waist high, you are supposed to send it back to the company x-raying or
inspection. Otherwise it might split or do something nasty on the next
time you need it.
So here is my thought on bicycle helmets. For low-speed, "minor"
accidents they distribute some force over a larger area and keep you
from getting road rash. When they earn their keep is in accidents that
demolish the styrofoam instead of your head. But it doesn't take muc
more force than that to go beyond what the helmet can protect you from.
So I'm sure they work, but there a small zone between need a helmet
and too much force for the helmet.
For people who like helmets and believe in them, you could always hedge
your bets by wearing a light motorcycle helmet.