From: behanna@phoenix.syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna)
Subject: Re: Fatal motorcycle accident in Untersiggenthal
Organization: NEC Systems Laboratory, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:17:10 GMT

In article <13SEP199206124731@erich.triumf.ca> ivan@erich.triumf.ca (Ivan D. Reid) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.153448.29320@research.nj.nec.com>, 
>	behanna@phoenix.syl.nj.nec.com (Chris BeHanna) writes...
>>In article <11SEP199203543231@erich.triumf.ca> 
>	ivan@erich.triumf.ca (Ivan D. Reid) writes:
>>>	My major experience was landing head-first at about 110 km/h.  Admit-
>>>tedly into soft ground so I was lucky.  Since then, I probably have a higher
>>>regard for modern helmets than most people (after all, that 15 mph figure has
>>>been floating around since, what, 1975?).
>> 
>	Back when I was in school (real school, not university) we used to
>have exercises called "comprehension".  We would read or hear passages of
>prose, and then have to answer questions about the passages, including some
>that required some drawing of conclusions from statements made in the passage.
>Unfortunately, Chris, you drew some unwarranted assumptions about my paragraph
>quoted above, so I think I'd have to give you an F :-(.  I choose my words
>carefully.  Note that I said I landed head first, not that I fell off at 110
>km/h.  In fact I was catapulted from the bike due to its having stuck a locked-
>up front wheel in a ditch.  I went some way in the air, as did the bike,
>before landing head-first in the soft ground (a mixture of sand and sawdust).
>This is _not_ like landing on a hard surface; the soft surface deforms and
>tends to resist horizontal as well as vertical motion, more so as you dig in,
>and I dug in a few inches before starting to tumble.  I'm not claiming that this
>is the same as hitting a solid object, and in fact the helmet probably caused
>me more injuries than it saved, but the bald statement that "a helmet's no
>good above 15 mph" is, to me, outdated.  For more details on my spill, look
>for a product review of a Dainese back-protector that I'll try to put up on
>Loki's review server.

	Landing on soft ground absorbed some of the impact itself, no doubt, or
else it would not have deformed.  As you have pointed out, this is not like
hitting a solid object.

>>>	I have been able to determine that Castellazzi had indeed just
>>>"graduated" from a 125 to the 600.  The best hypothesis seems to be that
>>>inexperience on such a heavy, powerful bike was a major contributing factor
>>>in the accident.
>> 
>>	I wouldn't blame the bike.  I'd blame the inexperience of the rider
>>first.  Infamiliarity with equipment is no excuse the blame the equipment.
>
>	Another F, I'm afraid.  Where am I blaming the bike?  I'm explicitly
>hypothesising that inexperience was a major factor.

	An F to you too, I'm afraid.  Nowhere did I say that you blamed the
bike.  Okay, maybe I implied that you said that.

	Let this be a conclusive statement:  helmets are not tested for impacts
at speeds greater than 13mph; therefore, it is not possible to say with
any certainty whatsoever that a person will have any significant protection at
impact speeds higher than 13mph.  Bearing in mind that the helmet manufacturers
themselves make no claims for effectiveness in high-speed crashes, I would say
that it is a mistake to believe that a helmet WILL save your life in a high
speed crash.  It is also a mistake for legislators to make that same
assumption.  Fair enough?

Regards,
-- 
Chris BeHanna	DoD# 114  KotHLF    1983 H-D FXWG Wide Glide (She lives!)
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	            (I need another bike for this space!)

Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC agree with any of this anyway?
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles