Originally Posted by epl
earnhardt's car only decelerated by about 40mph and his helmet didn't save him. as for senna, i doubt any conceivable helmet would stop a tie rod being driven through your head with that kind of force.
Thanks for completely missing the point. In both cases, drastic changes with respect to safety followed. In both cases, these changes were by all accounts successful. The point is that people have to die in order for a serious development effort to get underway. It doesn't actually matter much whether or not the people that die would be saved by the subsequent development.
RR takes a lot of guff for suggesting that neck restraint systems and full faces might be worthwhile in skiing, yet no one has yet posted anything of value suggesting he is wrong. FIS sure as heck hasn't done the research. Have you?
Meanwhile, lots of posts about how well this POC helmet did abound, yet no actual analysis of the impact and helmet performance has been done. These posts are as useless as a post from me claiming it didn't
do its job would be. Note that I have not, and will not, make any such claim.
The CEO of POC demonstrated his commitment to marketing by blathering on about how well the helmet did in a time period that pretty much guarantees technically competent people didn't have an opportunity to analyze the incident and compare the performance with the design goals. And if your organization doesn't do that kind of thing before releasing statements on performance of your gear...well, I call BS on all your claims.
Yes, skiing is dangerous. This doesn't mean development of safety technologies isn't a worthwhile effort. It also doesn't mean that development is going to be done as a matter of course, as many people quite oddly believe to be the case.