Ok, I'll bite,
Paul writes, in part:
>
> There was a quite interesting test, run by a motorcycling magazine
> recently,
> that showed (my simplistic summary) that helmets meeting the latest Snell
> rating often imparted more damage to one's noggin in any impact
> significantly
> below the design basis maximum impact, more than a helmet meeting a
> different
> standard. My interpretation is that they have to be enough stiffer and
> stronger to meet the increased maximum, thereby reducing the amount of
> "give"
> for lower and statistically more likely impacts. Snell Foundation
> response at
> http://www.smf.org/response.html. Original article, including Snell's
> response and a rebuttal comment, at
>
> http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/. Of course, the SCCA does not
> give us a choice in this matter.
Without even looking at, what might be a very responsible and helpful
article, I have to wonder where a lot of motorcyclist's "heads" are. Is a
"beanie" helmet, that is "M" rated, really safe?
Hard for me to believe it is.
And, while on my "anti-motorcycle-rider" thread, anybody or everybody who
rides a Harley please explain to me why these, otherwise "responsible",
Harley riders dump the stock exhaust and inflict pain on the rest of us, at
least those as old and stuck-in-the-mud as me, with their obscene
after-market noise-makers.
Don
|