Upload your photos
Forgot your password?
Like most complex subjects, this can't be boiled down into one opinion vs another, nor can someone get up to speed instantly on it. No one here (certainly not Dave) is suggesting that tech advancements are NOT useful, or are not advancing helmet safety. No one is suggesting that the people designing, testing, and marketing helmets are interested only in money, or that they don't care about making better helmets for the right reasons. However, what he is pointing out is that it's still conjecture. Research is being done, but that doesn't mean anything is being proven _scientifically_. And I think that based on some of the dissenting comments above, there's still work to be done in educating people about what we collectively KNOW, what we THINK, and what we HOPE to be true.
But just remember this: there is huge money involved in helmet sales. Go through any piece of research and follow the money - it usually leads back to someone who has a vested interest. This is not like testing rev cycles on a BB. It's far, far more lucrative - and important, of course.
Where things get murky - and this is where only a little bit of knowledge becomes dangerous and causes people to get upset - is that the list of things we don't know about brains and how helmets protects them is far, far longer than the list of things we do know. Dave's conclusions are not lazy in the least, and if you really know about all the dissenting opinions and disagreement, you'd know that, too.
Do helmet companies do the research, test their products, and put the one on the market that they conclude does the best job? Yes, we can assume in most cases, that they do. Yes, they all want to exceed minimum standards in testing. But what if I were to tell you that there are very few cases where people from different companies can agree on the best way to test ANYTHING - including simple things like stems and bars? Those products shouldn't be controversial in a case like this, right? And yet most companies will tell you that they test to meet and exceed CE norms (or whichever governing body is geographically relevant) because they have to, but usually develop their own tests that they feel do a better job of replicating real world use.
Please log in to leave a comment.