4 ms·

Sounds like many of the commenters here did not actually read the article. It's not about "should you wear a helmet or shouldn't you." It is very strongly pro-

by abalone 12y ago

Sounds like many of the commenters here did not actually read the article. It's not about "should you wear a helmet or shouldn't you." It is very strongly pro-helmet. NOWHERE in the article does it suggest you should not wear a helmet. It's about how to make helmets work better, specifically against concussions. Summary: pay more to get a helmet equipped with something called MIPS. "The new rotation-dampening systems may not be perfect, but they are the biggest step forward in decades. The choices cyclists make with their money matter. You can pretend to protect your brain, or you can spend more money and get closer to actually doing it."

skierscott 12y ago
The takeaway message seems to be that there's another safe helmet technology that exists. Regular helmets help but MIPS[1] helmets maintain protection against brute-force impacts and improve protection against concussions and brain injuries. This MIPS style helmet is a large step forward in helmets. The standard helmet test is a just a straight drop from 6 feet with the helmet perfectly vertical. This is not how crashes happen. Crashes happen while moving. There's some rotational stuff going on there, and that's what MIPS tries to focus on. Their tests[2] focus on this. An aspect of brain injury is diffuse axonal injury or when your brain undergoes unreasonable acceleration. The MIPS helmet has two shells so the outer one moves while your brain doesn't. > President Barack Obama said that if he had a son, he might not let him play football; even some former NFL athletes agree. This was refreshing to hear. Malcolm Gladwell compares football to dogfighting because football players can experience remarkable head trauma[3]. For me, a severe traumatic brain injury survivor, it's hard to see someone willingly put themselves through a brain injury and even harder to see the public glorifying a sport I see as dogfighting. [1]:http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/ http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/ [2]:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU @ 0:29 [3]:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play
judk 12y ago
Another case of a link bait headline undermining the article. And possibly submarine PR for a patent holder.

by abalone 12y ago

skierscott 12y ago

The takeaway message seems to be that there's another safe helmet technology that exists. Regular helmets help but MIPS[1] helmets maintain protection against brute-force impacts and improve protection against concussions and brain injuries. This MIPS style helmet is a large step forward in helmets. The standard helmet test is a just a straight drop from 6 feet with the helmet perfectly vertical. This is not how crashes happen. Crashes happen while moving. There's some rotational stuff going on there, and that's what MIPS tries to focus on. Their tests[2] focus on this. An aspect of brain injury is diffuse axonal injury or when your brain undergoes unreasonable acceleration. The MIPS helmet has two shells so the outer one moves while your brain doesn't. > President Barack Obama said that if he had a son, he might not let him play football; even some former NFL athletes agree. This was refreshing to hear. Malcolm Gladwell compares football to dogfighting because football players can experience remarkable head trauma[3]. For me, a severe traumatic brain injury survivor, it's hard to see someone willingly put themselves through a brain injury and even harder to see the public glorifying a sport I see as dogfighting. [1]:http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/ http://www.mipshelmet.com/home/ [2]:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8W5X0s2AhU @ 0:29 [3]:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/10/19/offensive-play

judk 12y ago

Another case of a link bait headline undermining the article. And possibly submarine PR for a patent holder.