Quote:
Originally Posted by gixxer.rob
I don't know about you but I prefer to put my head in something that is a bit better than just meeting the " Basic Requirements" for helmet safety.
.
|
You'd need to employ someone to develop and an carry out a suitable test then, the basic ones from the 1960's are the only standards we have.
I know you all want to believe that these are something more than lumps of polystyrene, but the facts point only to some early testing, developments to add practicality, some testing to show these didn't change very much and one heck of a lot of marketing. There has been no advanced testing and the only measurable change in casualty rates was when they went from no helmets to helmets. It's possible one type is better, but there is no proof. (If there was, they'd ban the lower performance helmets in Europe as this would drive sales of the safer type).
Do you suppose Brunel would have tried to make a bridge that looked like the Millau viaduct? The Victorian public and journalists looked at the Menai bridge and said it would fall down. It didn't because IBK calculated for wrought iron not just brick. The Millau bridge stays up despite looking weaker because modern cables are superior to iron chain and we can calculate the forces to a much better degree. We don't know if that plastic in the flip front was NASA grade stuff that had been abused or the same stuff as chip shop forks that hadn't.
Andy
|