Re: published helmet research - not troll
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:04:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >The helmet research I've seen so far is junk--it focuses on population
> >statistics not physics, and is motivated to social change not truth.
> For varying values of "junk" - small scale prospectiuve studies are
> certainly prone to error, but whole population evidence is harder to
> ignore. That's what proved the link between smoking and cancer.
It's not the same thing. Different helmet designs are going to have
different effects. Those statistics completely ignore that factor. And
people who wear helmets might be more cautious anyway, or less skillful,
which would distort the statistic one way or the other. Without a
cause-effect analysis, the statistics--on both sides of the argument--are
worthless junk. With the social agenda bias in either direction they should
> >If researchers really cared about the truth of the matter, they would
> >some of this casual analysis and more and begin formulating good models
> >this so they'd have more to go by than mere emergency room statistics,
> >also have a means of specifying better helmets. Maybe the manufacturers
> >this, I don't know.
> The manufacturers don't care a damn as far as I can tell. They have
> pushed through lower standards and it's almost impossible to find a
> helmet made to Snell B95.
Snell B95 isn't the standard. The right standard is a good physical model
built from causal analysis and experiment.
Most manufacturers probably make what they think they can sell instead of
making the best they can create. Since the public is largely uncritical and
apathetic to real science, and many businessmen are cynical and deaf to the
better part of the public (which I think can be successfully appealed to),
some or all of the manufacturers may not bother with the verifiable and
instead come up with designs that are good enough to make a buck off of or
that are pretty or mainly designed for comfort--the aspects of design that
most people can relate to.
If I'm being overly harsh then point me to the manufacturer who has a good
research paper published on this topic.