06-17-2014, 08:32 AM
I'm suspicious of statistics, but this graphic is interesting.
The numbers represent someone's quantifying of helmet impacts. I don't know who counted and how they counted. Also, if something sticks out from your body far enough it's going to get hit 100% of the time, so those 19.4 out of 100 hits landing on a protruding right front quadrant might not necessarily have touched skin and bone. According to this there's almost no point at all in protecting the top of your head or the back of your neck. A helmet designed using just these statistics would look very different than what we're used to.
Moral hazard is a term from the insurance business but it applies to this too. It seems people with insurance are less careful to prevent loss than those without. Thinking that the most expensive full coverage helmet will protect one from whatever happens can lead to less careful riding than if one had no helmet at all.
If someone is convinced a helmet will protect them from anything, they should have no problem diving helmeted-head first off the front porch onto the sidewalk. I doubt anyone would do this and not because it would ruin the helmet.
Also, it seems other people around us can contribute to moral hazard too. Another way of saying this is that other people can consume the safety cushions a careful rider creates around him/herself. Seeing a rider in full protective gear and thinking they are impervious to harm could cause a harried soccer mom to be less concerned with the rider's well being.
I keep thinking about the "safety" post I'm going to write one day, maybe this will get the ball rolling again.
The numbers represent someone's quantifying of helmet impacts. I don't know who counted and how they counted. Also, if something sticks out from your body far enough it's going to get hit 100% of the time, so those 19.4 out of 100 hits landing on a protruding right front quadrant might not necessarily have touched skin and bone. According to this there's almost no point at all in protecting the top of your head or the back of your neck. A helmet designed using just these statistics would look very different than what we're used to.
Moral hazard is a term from the insurance business but it applies to this too. It seems people with insurance are less careful to prevent loss than those without. Thinking that the most expensive full coverage helmet will protect one from whatever happens can lead to less careful riding than if one had no helmet at all.
If someone is convinced a helmet will protect them from anything, they should have no problem diving helmeted-head first off the front porch onto the sidewalk. I doubt anyone would do this and not because it would ruin the helmet.
Also, it seems other people around us can contribute to moral hazard too. Another way of saying this is that other people can consume the safety cushions a careful rider creates around him/herself. Seeing a rider in full protective gear and thinking they are impervious to harm could cause a harried soccer mom to be less concerned with the rider's well being.
I keep thinking about the "safety" post I'm going to write one day, maybe this will get the ball rolling again.