Jaded said:There was a calculation done on the effectiveness of a helmet at speed, based on the energy of the crash at that speed and the absorbing powers of the helmet. It was on another forum and the posts have now gone.
However, from memory, it went along the lines that at 40mph a helmet would ensure that your head hit the hard thing with the same effect as if it hit it at a speed of 38mph without a helmet.
You can draw your own conclusions.
Which, no doubt, will be coloured by you own acceptance of what speeds are possible..
Saying '40mph with a helmet is equivalent to 38mph without' is saying the speed you're going ALONG at doesn't make much difference to head injury. Which is right, but it doesn't back up the anti-helmet argument in the way that they want it to.
The speed you hit the GROUND at is what makes a difference. That isn't necessarily the same as the speed you're going along at, unless you have a habit of riding head on into brick walls.
You can't equate the speed you will hit the ground at to the speed that you are going ALONG at, just by making up the term """energy of the crash""". That's a non-sensical term, what does that actually refer to?