Chris Phillipo wrote:
> Well then let me explain this to you so you are clear. In the first
> post we were talking about a car impacting the helmet or the helmet
> impacting the car, because in road going cars we do not have the same
> level of head restraint as in a racing car. In the second post I was
> talking about loose nuts and bolts and bits of carbon fiber impacting
> it. I hope you can see the difference.
But it doesn't alter the fact I related, higher up this sub-thread, that
you can always do /something/ to make a car safer. For example, as well
as a helmet, add the same level of head restraint as in a racing car,
and then you've got the same conditions as in a race car where helmets
are felt beneficial. It might just save an accident!
But the "might" is a rather big "might" and it basically isn't worth
doing because this sort of injury almost certainly wouldn't actually be
that common and the above would add considerable basically unnecessary
inconvenience and discomfort to driving. But the chances would be
finite. A bit like with cycle helmets and cycling (not /as/ much
discomfort and inconvenience, but still some), and are similarly
"essential" to a cyclist in the same way that racing car standards of
protection are "essential" to day to day motorists.
> If you can't, I really don't
> care, go back to cut and pasting statistics that contradict themselves.
What statistics would they be? The statistics for serious head injury
rates staying the same with changing helmet wearing rates are about the
only reproducible and consistent ones out there, unlike the varying
numbers sent to us by case control studies.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net
[email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
