Too beautiful to be at mercy of wobbly experiments

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: - In Academic Research;

* why, in the UNSW 2009 study that underwrites the government's case for mandatory helmet laws, was the welfare of the RTA crash dummy of highter importance than the possible results of the helmet efficacy testing experiment?

* & why were the parameters of testing helmets in that experiment manipulated to protect the aforementioned borrowed crash dummy?

& also

* why were R-jays (helmets) used for experimenting purposes instead of the mandatory cycling soft-shell helmets?

* & why were helmets tested at such low speeds?

We don't actually need answers to these farcical questions...we know them.

Notwithstanding;

* why should our cycling behaviour be subjected to this flawed study?

(& that last question is not rhetorical!)