To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
From a first aid perspective, head protection is a VERY GOOD THING because head injuries are a VERY BAD THING. As someone who unerstands physics, helmets are extremely clever in the way they distribute the force of the impact. Having hit my head (lightly, thankfully) on a rock both with a helmet and without, I can tell you which I prefer.
Also, he was on a motor cycle. They tend to go at over 40km/h, and it’s at impacts of 40km/hr that you become very likely to die. To not wear a helmet on a motorcycle is completely stupid.
And they can estimate whether the helmet would have saved his life. If you have the speed at which the motorbike was going, you can figure out the speed at which he hit the pavement. If that force is one for which the helmet is designed to protect, then you can know quite accurately whether it would have worked.
All things being relative in this case. Cycling helmets are built for cycling accidents. I top 40 kmh every day on a descent commuting to work, and I cannot imagine have my dome exposed. Others prefer their hair in the wind, and more power to them, unless there’s a helmet law. The story is ironic for that reason. I learned very quickly that the helmet debate is contentious in almost every online cycling forum, so I stay away from saying should or shouldn’t, but it is quite ok to wonder what if…
Not irony. You would expect someone to die not wearing a helmet.
Ironic=/=coincidentalÂ
The irony is that it was at a rally against the helmet law. There’s no coincidence incurring a fatal head injury when your egg meets the pavement, that’s just physics at work (and maybe a little natural selection).
Helmet debates are worthless….
however as you started it 🙂
cycling helmets are designed for low speed (<12mph) accidents not high speed ones. why aren't you wearing a motorcycling helmet when you ride? it would be safer right?
If only bike helmets were as effective as motorcycle helmets…