Originally Posted by
Eric F
Forget "suddenly". Explain how me riding without a helmet today makes my riding significantly safer in 15 years. Zero of the things you've talked about before significantly apply to the way I prefer to ride my bike.
I explained the concept previously. That said, I've no idea how you ride your bike -- maybe you ride exclusively on a velodrome, or hucking off mountain tops. Hopefully you can imagine that you are not the only cyclist in the world.
Originally Posted by
Eric F
The crushing of helmet foam is the deceleration of the skull after impact. No helmet means 100% of the impact force is applied to the skull. That's why the crushing matters. Reducing the transfer of energy to the skull reduces the severity of injury. This is a simple concept.
In point of fact, it is not so simple. As previously explained, the larger size of the helmet necessarily means that it will impact more objects and with greater force than a bare head would. So the question is, does the helmet absorb enough energy to offset the increase which its size and mass necessarily causes? The relevant statistics illustrate that "No, they do not" because we see no benefit whatsoever offered to helmeted cyclists.
Be careful claiming something is "simple" before you have thought much about it, especially when conversing with someone who has.
Originally Posted by
Eric F
A helmet also significantly reduces the potential of exterior injuries, as well. That's also a pretty big bonus.
So do all manner of hats, and -- more to the point -- real helmets do a vastly superior job at this task, so if you are really concerned with safety and not virtue signaling, you would be wearing a motorcycle-rated helmet.
Originally Posted by
Eric F
Yes, there are more protective helmets in the world, such as those worn by motorcyclists. The trade-off is that they are limiting to the performance of operating a bicycle at a high level.
As I said, the priorities for bicycle helmets are "light, cool, cheap, and safe" -- in that order. Maybe throw 'fast' in there, too. So let's not pretend this helmet fetishization is about safety, eh?
Originally Posted by
Eric F
Despite the protection limitations of current bike helmet designs, it's still better than being helmet-less...by a lot. Your continued insistence that bike helmets are worthless is delusional.
So why, exactly, do the relevant statistics in the United States argue precisely against your imagination on this point? Why do helmeted riders die at precisely the same rate as bare-headed ones?