But if the anecdote he reports can be backed up by statistics, that would be an interesting fact.
You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to count legal cases...
Of course - but it would still be an interesting fact. It would, for instance, weaken the oft-repeated argument that "helmets are only tested up to 12mph therefore they're only effective up to 12mph". It might also mean that the UCI's decision to force riders to wear helmets could be justified post hoc.
It would also be just about the only conceivable example possible of a controlled experiment on the impact on the frequency and severity of rider injuries of wearing helmets.
I know it doesn't. But it's rarely challenged - and if I had a pound for every time I've heard it...That argument doesn't hold anyway.
... then you could buy us all a nice cup of tea.I know it doesn't. But it's rarely challenged - and if I had a pound for every time I've heard it...
That's assuming they deform and don't just crack and break apart due to higher loadings, if they do that they absorb very little energy.That argument doesn't hold anyway. They still absord the same amount of energy to deform at higher speeds
That's assuming they deform and don't just crack and break apart due to higher loadings, if they do that they absorb very little energy.
Which is only relevant if you believe that KSI is the only appropriate measure. My best guess, without a full knowledge of the statistics, is that the KSI rate has changed from bugger-all to bugger-all (to use a technical term). There is now an anecdote which has been posted in about seventy-nine separate places suggesting that sub-KSI injuries have seriously declined.The problem that the UCI would face is that there hasn't been a significant decrease in the KSI rate for professional riders wearing helmets. The decrease is marginal and could be explained by a number of other reasons (e.g. better medical cover and faster response times).
It's the yardstick used by many in the pro-helmet lobby - the only problem is the evidence doesn't support their contention.
Of course - but it would still be an interesting fact. It would, for instance, weaken the oft-repeated argument that "helmets are only tested up to 12mph therefore they're only effective up to 12mph".
That argument doesn't hold anyway. They still absord the same amount of energy to deform at higher speeds, and falls at higher speeds don't necessarily mean a single blow to the head at the maximum speed. Car impact tests, and the relevant standards, are usually done at much lower speeds than the maximum speed limit.