08-30-2017, 02:28 AM
(08-30-2017, 01:40 AM)Cormanus_imp Wrote:(08-30-2017, 12:42 AM)The ferret_imp Wrote: https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/
The SHARP site and this one too, https://www.crash.org.au/ratings.php lend weight to the view that safety and cost are not correlated. As I recall, the SHARP site shows a number of inexpensive helmets with very high safety ratings.
The SHARP site and this one too, https://www.crash.org.au/ratings.php lend weight to the view that safety and cost are not correlated. As I recall, the SHARP site shows a number of inexpensive helmets with very high safety ratings. Worse, all so called "safety" testing/ratings I have seen measure is the resistance of the helmet to the damage to the helmet itself.
I am not interested in a helmet that I can re-use after an accident, I am interested in a helmet that will absorb the energy of the impact instead of transferring it to the base of my skull, the anatomical locale where the injuries are many time more deadly than skull dome fractures. The rest of this topic should be addressed by a competent, impartial head-trauma surgeon, and since I am not one I will stop here.