Date: 2014-10-07 03:47 pm (UTC)
damerell: (cycling)
From: [personal profile] damerell
Coo, this took a lot of time to get back to.

Thing is, "burned once, twice shy"; we've had one plausible-looking head protection device which turns out to do nothing, and I think the onus is now on the next one to demonstrate utility.

Beyond that, many of the hypotheses as to why the regular kind seem to do very little also apply here. Risk compensation? Check [1]. Increases the lever arm, potentially exacerbating rotational injuries? Check. The inflatable one is more shock-absorbent than the normal kind, but not by a factor that deals with the difficulty that helmet standards are for unassisted falls - they're massively underspecified for the motor vehicle impacts that typically cause KSIs.

Like early airbags, I'd also want to see if there's any potential for inflation (perhaps unplanned) causing comedy in its own right...

(Also, of course, cycling's not that dangerous; head injury rates are similar to peds and cagers, depending on whether you prefer to count per person-hour or per person-kilometre. So why not helmets for them? But that argument's besides the point here.)

[1] Well, maybe. At least some of the risk compensation is presumably by motorists, and an "invisible" helmet would eliminate that.
From:
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
User
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of people who comment anonymously.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.

March 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags