On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Nick Murphy <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Isn't it logical that if you have something on your head it will cushion the
> impact of your skull if it hits a a hard surface, however, miniimal that
> effect might be if you're going at speed.
Yes. It's equally logical that if you strap something to your head
and then your head hitrs a surface at anything more than an exactly
normal angle, it will wrench the neck and shake the brain more than
had you not been wearing something.
It's equally logical that if people have belief that their protective
equipment will mitigate injury severity, they will have more accidents
than if tehy were not wearing it.
> A couple of years ago I came off my bike and my head hit the road. I know
> that if I hadn't been wearing a helmet it would have been my skull which
> took the impact.
Possibly. But that's all you know. You don't, for example, know
that your injuries would have been any different. Most especially,
you don't know that you'd have had suvstantially the same accident had
you not been wearing a helmet. Personally, I'd rather my bare head
didn't hit the road than my head hit the road inside a helmet.
> Wearing a helmet doesn't make me feel invincible or less wary of stupid
> drivers - it's just a sensible precaution which stacks the odds slightly in
> your favour if the wrost happens.
No, if you look at the 'odds', all the real-world figures show that
while most people _think_ they can't hurt, they do in fact increase
the chance of you suffering an injury requiring hospital treatment
(though this may of course be a secondary effect rather than a direct
cause-effect situation), and do not in fact reduce the chance of you
suffering a life-changing injury.
But don't let facts impede your common sense.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|