crumpetman
Well-Known Member
Myth.
An insurance company cannot absolve their liability for a leg injury, for example, because someone was not wearing a helmet. How on earth would they argue that a broken leg or collarbone could have been prevented by a helmet?
I am glad that it is a myth. I have read the "reduced compensation" thing on a few different forums but have seen no evidence to support it. It was only after posting above that I thought I would have another look to find out where this assumption comes from, glad I did.
Crumpetman, from that site you quoted above these are very particular points
- Their design-intended strength is equivalent to a impact speed of about 12.5mph [3]. They were never intended for collisions with cars. They're not a cycle-equivalent of motorbike crash helmets (and you can't wear one of those because your brain would boil). They're not safety gear in the sense of being designed to save your life [1]. They work by the outer shell keeping the polystyrene in place whilst it absorbs the deceleration by being crushed. Counter-intuitively if the shell breaks in the initial contact the total energy absorbed is a lot less: a broken helmet is one that didn't work. This means above about 12.5mph the helmet has little effect; certainly it won't reduce a crash at, say, 30mph by an amount equivalent to crashing at 12.5mph. Ask an engineer. Doctors and nurses aren't usually engineers
They are very good points and those are the main reasons I cite for not wearing a helmet.