On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 12:06:55PM -0800, Kevin Stevens wrote:
> Not true, there are many, many reports of broken noses, cheekbones;
> and, most scary, glasses.
Were the broken noses and cheekbones caused directly by the airbag, or
were they due to hard objects (say an arm or hand) caught between the
airbag and the face? (not a rhetorical question...genuinely want to
know)
> >In the case of the combination of a full face helmet with an
> >airbag,
> >the helmet defeats the function of the airbag, and concentrates the
> >force rather than spreading it.
>
> Yeah... I'll stick with the helmet. You know, the device designed to
> protect my face against high-speed impact with objects.
It's designed to protect you from impact with hard or sharp objects
like the steering wheel, dashboard, seat back, roll cage, etc. An air
bag is different, and neither is designed to work with the other, as
far as I know.
I'm not arguing in favor or a ban on full-faced helmets, just pointing
out that there are real physical reasons why the combination of a
closed face helmet with an air bag *could* be less safe than either
one by itself. Certainly more research should be done before making
any sort of rule change.
> >You put "study" in quotes, as if you don't believe the research was
> >valid. Is there a reason to doubt the motives or methods of the
> >authors?
>
> Certainly. They were studying another subject entirely, and probably
> had no idea that their (5-year old) finding would be extrapolated and
> applied to a significantly different scenario.
The only "application" so far has been a recommendation to the
membership (which you are free to ignore), and a declaration that the
rules could be changed in the next year (with no specifics about what
the changes might be). People are reacting as if the rules have
already been changed without further research or member input.
--
john@idsfa.net John Stimson
http://www.idsfa.net/~john/ HMC Physics '94
|