helmets in cars- a right that should be recognized
 

Is this legal in Florida?

Why is it illegal in many states and countries?

A small open-face motorcycle helmet (the cheap one that doesn't cover the
ears) could cut fatalities in side impact crashes by about 50 percent, and
it would be safer/easier than getting a car with a side-impact airbag for
the head. In fact, few models of cars have side impact head protection,
especially anything that would work against smacking into an SUV/truck or a
pole.

I have been thinking of just wearing one and seeing what happens. Maybe
I'd take it to court and challenge it. Until automakers are forced to
actually protect occupants, citizens are at the mercy of trucks and SUV's
that have taken over roads, often in the hands of idiotic drivers. But
again, our government has no political will to actually fix problems
anymore. It's business as usual. Bush Co. gave the auto industry until
2010 until the NHTSA starts factoring in head injury into their side impact
ratings- and the side impact crash test is very anemic and doesn't account
for an SUV or truck collision ,where the occupants head is at a greater risk
(they will implement a poll test by 2010, which will be better... but it's 5
years away).

In Australia the government is actually funding research into developing a
small headband/visor or disguised hat that would have about 20-25 mm of
honeycomb cardboard/plastic or Strandfoam closed-cell foam protecting the
front and sides of the head (the temples, above the ears, and forhead).
They estimate it could reduce auto fatalities as much as 45 percent, and
serious head injuries by much more, even in a side-impact crash. And it
would be cheaper than an airbag.

"Magnulus" > wrote in
:

> Is this legal in Florida?
>
> Why is it illegal in many states and countries?
>
> A small open-face motorcycle helmet (the cheap one that doesn't
> cover the
> ears) could cut fatalities in side impact crashes by about 50 percent,
> and it would be safer/easier than getting a car with a side-impact
> airbag for the head. In fact, few models of cars have side impact
> head protection, especially anything that would work against smacking
> into an SUV/truck or a pole.
>
> I have been thinking of just wearing one and seeing what happens.
> Maybe
> I'd take it to court and challenge it. Until automakers are forced to
> actually protect occupants, citizens are at the mercy of trucks and
> SUV's that have taken over roads, often in the hands of idiotic
> drivers. But again, our government has no political will to actually
> fix problems anymore. It's business as usual. Bush Co. gave the
> auto industry until 2010 until the NHTSA starts factoring in head
> injury into their side impact ratings- and the side impact crash test
> is very anemic and doesn't account for an SUV or truck collision
> ,where the occupants head is at a greater risk (they will implement a
> poll test by 2010, which will be better... but it's 5 years away).
>
> In Australia the government is actually funding research into
> developing a
> small headband/visor or disguised hat that would have about 20-25 mm
> of honeycomb cardboard/plastic or Strandfoam closed-cell foam
> protecting the front and sides of the head (the temples, above the
> ears, and forhead). They estimate it could reduce auto fatalities as
> much as 45 percent, and serious head injuries by much more, even in a
> side-impact crash. And it would be cheaper than an airbag.
>
>
>

A helmet would be WORSE in your standard passenger vehicle.
It adds to the mass above your neck,and whiplash would be far worse.
Note that NASCAR implemented the HANS device after Dale Earnhardt died from
a relatively mild crash,even though wearing an approved helmet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Magnulus" > wrote in
:

> Is this legal in Florida?
>
> Why is it illegal in many states and countries?
>
> A small open-face motorcycle helmet (the cheap one that doesn't
> cover the
> ears) could cut fatalities in side impact crashes by about 50 percent,
> and it would be safer/easier than getting a car with a side-impact
> airbag for the head. In fact, few models of cars have side impact
> head protection, especially anything that would work against smacking
> into an SUV/truck or a pole.
>
> I have been thinking of just wearing one and seeing what happens.
> Maybe
> I'd take it to court and challenge it. Until automakers are forced to
> actually protect occupants, citizens are at the mercy of trucks and
> SUV's that have taken over roads, often in the hands of idiotic
> drivers. But again, our government has no political will to actually
> fix problems anymore. It's business as usual. Bush Co. gave the
> auto industry until 2010 until the NHTSA starts factoring in head
> injury into their side impact ratings- and the side impact crash test
> is very anemic and doesn't account for an SUV or truck collision
> ,where the occupants head is at a greater risk (they will implement a
> poll test by 2010, which will be better... but it's 5 years away).
>
> In Australia the government is actually funding research into
> developing a
> small headband/visor or disguised hat that would have about 20-25 mm
> of honeycomb cardboard/plastic or Strandfoam closed-cell foam
> protecting the front and sides of the head (the temples, above the
> ears, and forhead). They estimate it could reduce auto fatalities as
> much as 45 percent, and serious head injuries by much more, even in a
> side-impact crash. And it would be cheaper than an airbag.
>
>
>

A helmet would be WORSE in your standard passenger vehicle.
It adds to the mass above your neck,and whiplash would be far worse.
Note that NASCAR implemented the HANS device after Dale Earnhardt died from
a relatively mild crash,even though wearing an approved helmet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Magnulus" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Is this legal in Florida?
>>
>> Why is it illegal in many states and countries?
>>
>> A small open-face motorcycle helmet (the cheap one that doesn't
>> cover the
>>ears) could cut fatalities in side impact crashes by about 50 percent,
>>and it would be safer/easier than getting a car with a side-impact
>>airbag for the head. In fact, few models of cars have side impact
>>head protection, especially anything that would work against smacking
>>into an SUV/truck or a pole.
>>
>> I have been thinking of just wearing one and seeing what happens.
>> Maybe
>>I'd take it to court and challenge it. Until automakers are forced to
>>actually protect occupants, citizens are at the mercy of trucks and
>>SUV's that have taken over roads, often in the hands of idiotic
>>drivers. But again, our government has no political will to actually
>>fix problems anymore. It's business as usual. Bush Co. gave the
>>auto industry until 2010 until the NHTSA starts factoring in head
>>injury into their side impact ratings- and the side impact crash test
>>is very anemic and doesn't account for an SUV or truck collision
>>,where the occupants head is at a greater risk (they will implement a
>>poll test by 2010, which will be better... but it's 5 years away).
>>
>> In Australia the government is actually funding research into
>> developing a
>>small headband/visor or disguised hat that would have about 20-25 mm
>>of honeycomb cardboard/plastic or Strandfoam closed-cell foam
>>protecting the front and sides of the head (the temples, above the
>>ears, and forhead). They estimate it could reduce auto fatalities as
>>much as 45 percent, and serious head injuries by much more, even in a
>>side-impact crash. And it would be cheaper than an airbag.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> A helmet would be WORSE in your standard passenger vehicle.
> It adds to the mass above your neck,and whiplash would be far worse.
> Note that NASCAR implemented the HANS device after Dale Earnhardt died from
> a relatively mild crash,even though wearing an approved helmet.

The helmet he's referring to is pretty light. But I guess if he wants to
be really safe he should get a neck brace too. I wonder how long it
would take before he'd get pulled over driving around like that
though... :-)

>
Ulf

Jim Yanik wrote:
> "Magnulus" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Is this legal in Florida?
>>
>> Why is it illegal in many states and countries?
>>
>> A small open-face motorcycle helmet (the cheap one that doesn't
>> cover the
>>ears) could cut fatalities in side impact crashes by about 50 percent,
>>and it would be safer/easier than getting a car with a side-impact
>>airbag for the head. In fact, few models of cars have side impact
>>head protection, especially anything that would work against smacking
>>into an SUV/truck or a pole.
>>
>> I have been thinking of just wearing one and seeing what happens.
>> Maybe
>>I'd take it to court and challenge it. Until automakers are forced to
>>actually protect occupants, citizens are at the mercy of trucks and
>>SUV's that have taken over roads, often in the hands of idiotic
>>drivers. But again, our government has no political will to actually
>>fix problems anymore. It's business as usual. Bush Co. gave the
>>auto industry until 2010 until the NHTSA starts factoring in head
>>injury into their side impact ratings- and the side impact crash test
>>is very anemic and doesn't account for an SUV or truck collision
>>,where the occupants head is at a greater risk (they will implement a
>>poll test by 2010, which will be better... but it's 5 years away).
>>
>> In Australia the government is actually funding research into
>> developing a
>>small headband/visor or disguised hat that would have about 20-25 mm
>>of honeycomb cardboard/plastic or Strandfoam closed-cell foam
>>protecting the front and sides of the head (the temples, above the
>>ears, and forhead). They estimate it could reduce auto fatalities as
>>much as 45 percent, and serious head injuries by much more, even in a
>>side-impact crash. And it would be cheaper than an airbag.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> A helmet would be WORSE in your standard passenger vehicle.
> It adds to the mass above your neck,and whiplash would be far worse.
> Note that NASCAR implemented the HANS device after Dale Earnhardt died from
> a relatively mild crash,even though wearing an approved helmet.

The helmet he's referring to is pretty light. But I guess if he wants to
be really safe he should get a neck brace too. I wonder how long it
would take before he'd get pulled over driving around like that
though... :-)

>
Ulf

Also, Dale Earnhardt was travelling about 180 mph and his skull absorbed
a tremendous amount of g forces- far in excess of what you'ld find in a
typical auto accident. Imaging decelerating from 180 mph to 0 instantly,
and you get the idea. No helmet could have saved his life. The HANS device
absorbs some of the G forces, and might have saved his life. But the HANS
device would probably be overkill at the speeds most cars drive at on the
roads. Some people with certain neck injuries might benefit from it,
though.

Also, Dale Earnhardt was travelling about 180 mph and his skull absorbed
a tremendous amount of g forces- far in excess of what you'ld find in a
typical auto accident. Imaging decelerating from 180 mph to 0 instantly,
and you get the idea. No helmet could have saved his life. The HANS device
absorbs some of the G forces, and might have saved his life. But the HANS
device would probably be overkill at the speeds most cars drive at on the
roads. Some people with certain neck injuries might benefit from it,
though.

Magnulus wrote:
> Also, Dale Earnhardt was travelling about 180 mph and his skull absorbed
> a tremendous amount of g forces- far in excess of what you'ld find in a
> typical auto accident. Imaging decelerating from 180 mph to 0 instantly,
> and you get the idea. No helmet could have saved his life. The HANS device
> absorbs some of the G forces, and might have saved his life. But the HANS
> device would probably be overkill at the speeds most cars drive at on the
> roads. Some people with certain neck injuries might benefit from it,
> though.

I was thinking of something like this:

http://www.ompusa.com/images/helmetsupp.jpg

"360° Helmet Support This collar prevents the weight of your helmet
from overextending and breaking your neck in an accident. VERY
IMPORTANT! Nomex, 360° type for sedan cars, velcro closure, black, red
or blue. $39.95"

>
>
Ulf

Magnulus wrote:
> Also, Dale Earnhardt was travelling about 180 mph and his skull absorbed
> a tremendous amount of g forces- far in excess of what you'ld find in a
> typical auto accident. Imaging decelerating from 180 mph to 0 instantly,
> and you get the idea. No helmet could have saved his life. The HANS device
> absorbs some of the G forces, and might have saved his life. But the HANS
> device would probably be overkill at the speeds most cars drive at on the
> roads. Some people with certain neck injuries might benefit from it,
> though.

I was thinking of something like this:

http://www.ompusa.com/images/helmetsupp.jpg

"360° Helmet Support This collar prevents the weight of your helmet
from overextending and breaking your neck in an accident. VERY
IMPORTANT! Nomex, 360° type for sedan cars, velcro closure, black, red
or blue. $39.95"

>
>
Ulf

Magnulus a écrit :
> Is this legal in Florida?
>
> Why is it illegal in many states and countries?


Do you know the amount of force that will be subjected to your neck
because of the additional weight in a crash?

you'll probably move your head so far forward that you'll hit the bag
and then you'll die. Enjoy!
>



--
----------------------
http://www.saab-900.tk
The Saab Tech Resource
----------------------