02-27-2019, 01:58 AM
(02-26-2019, 11:50 AM)GoldOxide_imp Wrote:(02-26-2019, 09:07 AM)EmptySea_imp Wrote: Why would that be interesting, GoldOxide?
Possibly on the assumption the neck wasn't broken due to whiplash I suppose (i.e. no helmet impact).
In terms of helmet impact, there could be a correlation between helmet "zone" impact and any severity of any neck damage. Never seen stats on that, not sure if there would be any. Hence, the call out.
Possibly on the assumption the neck wasn't broken due to whiplash I suppose (i.e. no helmet impact).
In terms of helmet impact, there could be a correlation between helmet "zone" impact and any severity of any neck damage. Never seen stats on that, not sure if there would be any. Hence, the call out.
Thanks for clearing that up. I've seen your original question, or forms of it, asked rhetorically in defense of not wearing a helmet (I don't think that was your reason for asking). The questioner usually has a hypothesis that helmets cause more injuries, particularly to the neck and spinal cord, than they prevent. My typical reply to those people is that in most cases, your head hitting the pavement would have probably killed you before you ever had the chance to realize you were paralyzed.
