As I understand it, what matters is not really the instantaneous peak acceleration but whether enough of it is imparted to bounce the brain off the skull. The former can be used as a proxy for the latter for traditional helmets because they're all fairly similar, but I've no idea if the Hodving is actually better or just optimised for the test.
I mistrust that press release also because of the paragraph beginning "The harmful effects of Folksam's impact test have now been analysed" where some statistics are pulled out of thin air.
I'm not convinced it is practical for a cyclist to wear something that will provide effective protection from being hit by motor vehicles, especially if effects like increased lever arm and risk compensation are in play (and why wouldn't they be?); and as mentioned, since cycling isn't actually more dangerous than other modes of travel equally blighted by drivers, I'm not sure I see the point in any case; so I don't know what the standard should be.
The best way of testing it is to persuade countries to pass silly legislation and see if anything changes. :-/
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zvi and
no subject
Date: 2014-10-16 05:32 pm (UTC)I mistrust that press release also because of the paragraph beginning "The harmful effects of Folksam's impact test have now been analysed" where some statistics are pulled out of thin air.
I'm not convinced it is practical for a cyclist to wear something that will provide effective protection from being hit by motor vehicles, especially if effects like increased lever arm and risk compensation are in play (and why wouldn't they be?); and as mentioned, since cycling isn't actually more dangerous than other modes of travel equally blighted by drivers, I'm not sure I see the point in any case; so I don't know what the standard should be.
The best way of testing it is to persuade countries to pass silly legislation and see if anything changes. :-/