I'm also deeply suspicious of these apparent physicists explaining how helmets make you more likely to crash, and don't protect your head. If they break, they've absorbed energy, be it kinetic or lightsaber. I can believe that drivers are less careful around helmet wearers - perhaps as the researcher in Bath demonstrates, new helmets should come with huge wigs. But otherwise, why would anyone, from brick-layers to rally-drivers, wear helmets? I mean flak helmets aren't designed to stop bullets (except for the NVA helmets designed in E Germany) but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't want one in a war zone!
bicklayers e.t.c don't ware cycle helmets though do they the argument is about cycle helmets effectiveness. If we follow your argument why don't people wear helmets in cars, you get head injuries in cars e.t.c
Regarding the K.E argument it is has been found that K.E is absorbed but above a suppringly low speed the amount absorbed is insignificant and make little to no difference to the injuries.
bicklayers e.t.c don't ware cycle helmets though do they the argument is about cycle helmets effectiveness. If we follow your argument why don't people wear helmets in cars, you get head injuries in cars e.t.c
Regarding the K.E argument it is has been found that K.E is absorbed but above a suppringly low speed the amount absorbed is insignificant and make little to no difference to the injuries.