I recently watched a hockey game where a ref left the game due to a concussion. He was moving at less than walking pace, and fell only his body height. He got tripped and hit the back of his head. His helmet didn't prevent the concussion, that is all I was trying to say.
Of course you fail to mention that the helmet most likely prevented the ref from much worse injuries. Would hate to think what would have happened if the ref was NOT wearing a helmet, but I guess we'll never know. I reckon the ref was glad he was wearing a helmet.
How about you replicate what the ref did WITHOUT a helmet. I am willing to bet you'll up with more then just concussion.
Remember Natasha Richardson? She had a simple "slip and fall" on her head incident at a beginners ski run (from memory she fell backwards and hit the back of her head - please correct me if I am wrong).
According to wikipedia..
The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left. Refusing medical attention twice, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache. She was transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur, Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours after the fall. The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March. An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural haematoma due to blunt impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident.
Had she worn a helmet, she still might have gotten concussion, but chances are she would still be alive today.
Helmets are not a guarentee against head injury (especially in high speed collisions) but if I was about to crash, I would prefer to have one on my head.
Re stickers...point missed a bit. Stickers are made with somewhat toxic glue, it will eat away at the shell and foam in a helmet over time. Unless it is the non-toxic variety, like scrapbooking stickers or kids stickers. The article wants to frighten people into wearing AU approved helmets by saying you're breaking the law if you don't. But either the sticker they are using is toxic and will degrade the foam, or it's got weak glue which might give on a particularly sweaty day. I think it's a bit hypcrytical to tell people they're not safe with a non AU approved helmet, but then use products that can damage the lid (or use products that easily fall off). I currently have 3 helmets purchased in Australia, none have these stickers. I didn't remove them, i have no idea what happened. So then I guess cops should be writing me tickets for wearing my lid, because it doesn't have a sticker on it. It's a stupid law punishing people for doing the right (safe) thing.
Are you an expert on glue? Without any factual evidence of the glue/adhesive Standards Australia use to stick the "approved" sticker on the helmets directly causes degradation of the said helmet you sound well.... <insert insult here>. Standards Australia have been around for quite some time and they wouldn't still be around if they weren't doing things right. It would cause irrepairable damage to their reputation otherwise.
My helmets have the SA sticker on them. I race mtbs. If I have a crash and need to claim some form of insurance I know the insurance company has less of a chance of knocking my claim back. Yes I agree its likely a claim with a non-SA sticker will still go through OK but why give them the chance for the sake of saving $50-100? I have seen people's car insurance claims gets rejected because the person failed to tell the insurer of a speeding offence and fine they received 5 years ago. By not disclosing that one speeding offence, they voided their policy (as per the PDS) and thus no payout!
In Wollongong in the 1990's there was a huge storm which caused landslides with many people having their houses washed away. There was huge outcry over some insurance companies not paying up because there was argument over whether it was a "storm" or a "flood" (some people did not have flood cover). Think Queensland floods. Some people are still waiting on payouts. Insurance companies have been known to try to weasel their way out of some claims - why give them the chance.
