On Apr 25, 2005, at 4:05 PM, Daniel1312@aol.com wrote:
> If I wanted to be safer driving any car on the public highway I'd
> drive wearing a crash helmet - it makes sense but no-one does it.
umm.. most of the accidents involve blunt trauma to the chest and
internal organs hitting internal bone. Not gonna be helped with a
helmet. Would probably help in side impact collisions but a properly
restrained, read belted in, occupant isn't too likely to hit his head
in all but the most severe accidents which are essentially not
survivable. Can't compare driving on the street in traffic around LOTS
of immovable objects to racing.
> If I wanted to be really safe I'd also wear a correctly fitted HANS
> device.
You won't be going fast enough on city streets to make it worthwhile,
you neck has LOTS of free play fore and a little aft and side to side.
To make it go far enough to make a HANS useful you would have to be
going REALLY fast. As an aside, the Air Force, in an effort to solve
this very problem in the 50's designed helmets with a ball sticking out
the back that fit into a socket in the headrest to limit movement of
the head in an impact. Didn't quite work... ;-)
>
> So is someone driving a Spridget but wearing a crash helmet and HANS
> device less likely to suffer a serious injury or death than someone in
> a modern car who isn't?
No, but someone driving a Spridget with a helmet and HANS device is
less likely to suffer injury than a similar Spridget driver without
them..
Lester
>
> Daniel1312 - Sprite with roll bar (but not door bars) and a 6 point
> harness.
>
> In a message dated 25/04/05 21:56:37 GMT Daylight Time,
> lewing@sport.rr.com writes:
>
>
>
> is not about any given task, but rather taking advantage of all that
> science has to offer about making any given task safer.
|