|
Thanks Itpro, I take the title as a compliment. I would normally leave it there, but feel that considered balance is worth achieving in a worthy debate - SO - Firstly, I was in no way offering my review of some "neck injury relevant" facts as PROOF of the efficacy of any form of neck brace - and I declared this up front (you intimated that me saying there is no current proof was me trying to offer proof? An interesting concept - If I ever manage that, intentionally or otherwise, I will run for local Government immediately!) ~To respond to your issues in order - 1. So far as I understand Leatt, its a product made by a small team in South Africa lead by a bike racing South African neurosurgeon.. So where else is it going to get its first approval? the Swiss bobsleigh authority? (Though according to their website checked tonight apparently now also certified by motorsports bodies in Australia, America and Mexico) 2. The helmet industry has to do the tests and spend the cash as its both heavily legislated and big business. Do any helmet manufacturers invest in testing to go above and beyond the current legislative standards other than as a marketing tool? 3. I do know bike racing. The limitations of a Leatt type brace currently precludes its use in road racing where streamlining is vital. Put simply, you have to limit the fore / aft movement on a solid restraining device and for a GP rider, thats too big a compromise. It is used in "upright" bike sports from BMX racing through Motocross and Supermoto. Some lower order bike racers do feel the benefits outweigh the disadvantages (without proof, naturally!). 4. When you have, by FIA regulation for the classes of car you mention, a solid structure behind you, why on Earth would you type approve an untethered brace? There is no way a Leatt etc can do the job as well as a Hans, but given no solid tethering structure to attach anything to, as on bike or kart, it is an attempt to limit the neck movement fore and aft in an accident. And, as an aside, and probably to round off our little joust- As you are clearly existential, please show me your PROOF that helmets do indeed save lifes. Actual proof. Not crash test dummies - that is only test data and evidence on simulated events- its not proof. Not reduction in incidences of head injuries admitted to hospitals directly after the legislation and for every year since then - Again - thats evidence not proof. In your assertion to others, actual proof can only be a series of pairs of identical actual human crashes, one with helmet and one without, with a very different outcome in the two cases... So - I expect you have done what we all have with helmets (well - I hope we have)- related the evidence from simulated tests to our own rational thought and concluded WITHOUT DIRECT and conclusive PROOF that yes, helmets do indeed save lifes.
|
|
|