On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 10:36:42 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 16:04:49 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 6:50:58 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2019 12:51:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:28:52 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 17 May 2019 12:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:27:58 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2019 18:28:00 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/16/2019 1:10 AM, jbeattie wrote:

Without getting into the prudence of an adult MHL, I could see a MHL causing significant drops in certain populations.

Perhaps, but that's not what happened in Australia. In fact numbers went
up right after the MHL, just not as fast as the population increase.
When that fact was noted, the AHZs insisted that the reason that cycling
numbers went up slower than the population growth was because of the
MHL--even when the data didn't support their premise they simply created
a rationalization to excuse the actual data. Of course that was of
little importance since when the actual data doesn't support their
position they just fabricate data to suit them.

If traffic is no so bad that you really need to ride a bike, then people
with a "live free or die" or "don't muss my hair" or overheat my head
mentality may not ride -- assuming there is any real effort to enforce
the law. In Amsterdam, people would probably just ignore the law, and
there would be no change. In the London scrum, they may comply because
driving is impossible and riding is objectively dangerous. In Portland,
compliance is pretty high already and enforcement would be nil, so there
would be no change. It really depends on the population. I don't see
any reason why the drop in Australia couldn't be "real" as opposed to
or the result of some confounding factor. Entire populations can become
entrenched on some relatively minor issues.

Tomorrow we kick off construction of some protected bike lanes near a
high school. These are real protected bike lanes, not some widely placed
pop-up bollards. While I would be thrilled to get the increase in
cycling that they saw in Columbus Ohio (75%)
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/engineering/OTEC/2017Presentations/72/Moorhead_72.pdf
I'd be happy with just 15%. The fact that we're doing real protected
bike lanes will hopefully mean that we see less of an increase in
non-fatal crashes than Columbus saw.

Perusing any of the studies of bicycle accidents that included an
attempt at defining who was at fault, who basically caused the
accident, shows that from about 30, to over 50 percent
( in one study) of the "accidents" between motor vehicles and bicycles
were the fault of the bicyclist, and this ignores the fact that a
substantial percentage, as many as 30%, in some studies, of all
bicycle crashes are "single vehicle crashes".

Thus it seems likely that simply building a private road for bicycles
while it may decrease bicycle versus motor vehicle crashes where the
fault lies with the motor vehicle it is not likely, as the "Columbus
Study" demonstrated, to reduce crashes significantly. In fact the
fact that the bicycles are protected from any attack by motor vehicles
will likely result in an increase in the "stupid stunts" that
bicyclists seem to do. One study, for example, listed "failure to
yield right of way", by both motor vehicles and bicycles, as a major
cause of crashes. Will being isolated from motor vehicles on the
Bicycle Road reduce the number of "failure to yield", by bicycle,
incidents? Or, for that matter, the number of single vehicle crashes?

One of the questions about the reduction in bicyclists when the
Australia helmet law went into effect was "is this a result of having
to wear a helmet?" Or is it "a result of discovering that bicycling
had become so dangerous that one must wear a helmet to be safe?"
--
cheers,

John B.

True John, but it does reduce fatalities. Single vehicle accidents only rarely end in fatalities. Though watching that Frenchman descending Mt Hamilton in the Tour of California might have given you doubts. I cannot believe a man that strong and a pro with a 7 minute lead had absolutely NO idea of how to take a corner at speed.

Does it? I wonder.

The figures I read are more in line with "of those that had a head
injury only xyz were wearing a helmet", but what is a head injury?
"Scratched your nose" is a head injury.

What I don't see is number such as "of those with fractures of the
skull or brain damage XYZ ware wearing a helmet." Probably because in
an accident that severe a bicycle helmet would do no good at all.

I recently read an article that stated that even U.S. football helmets
which are far more protective than a bicycle helmet do not protect
from brain damage so how can a Styrofoam Bennie, with holes in,
protect one from significant head or brain injury.
--
cheers,

John B.

I have not been a believer in helmets for a very long time now. But the new Bontrager (Trek) helmets are something else altogether though they certainly have a long way to go to make them more comfortable. I bought a Chinese helmet that is really comfortable but it lacks the technology of the Bontrager which has engineered the foam to actually be absorbent.

I read a bit about the New! Improved! (more expensive) Bontrager
helmet. It's claim to fame is that it allows 6mm of rotational
movement. 6 mm, think of it?

Trek's data says that this new foam has 28 times less chance of causing concussion which is the majority injury to bicyclist with severe injuries.

Data? I wonder. After all the best football helmet, and you must admit
that football helmets do a much better job of protection than bicycle
helmets, provide about 20% protection but the NEW! Improved! Bontrager
helmets provide almost a third more protection?
--
cheers,

John B.

I'd like to see helmets tested in a manner similar to automobile safety testing. that is, strap the helmet onto a dummy and then crash the bike and see what forces (including rotational) are imparted to the helmet. I wonder if ANY bicycling helmet currently in production would pass such a test? I doubt it including the newer MIPS design. I think MIPS is just another marketing gimmick. Oh, btw, I do NOT trust anything a manufacturer of helmets says. Like politicians they are seeking to sell their wares.

Cheers

Mips is said to address what is said to be one of the common causes
of brain damage in crashes, (in 60% of casualties, rotational forces
are known to be a major source of brain injury) but whether the new
Bontrager helmets actually are effective doesn't seem to be known, or
at least I've yet to see the results of any tests.

I think that a helmet that provided maximum protection to the cyclist
would not sell. It would be heavy, restrict vision to some extent, and
undoubtedly be hot - think modern football helmet, F1 Helmet,
Motorcycle Racing helmets. A modern, racing motorcycle helmet weighs
more then a kilogram - The AGV Corsa, a top line racing helmet weighs
1.35kg (about 3 lbs).

I well remember the post, here, where someone (I don't remember who)
stated that to him the most important things about a helmet were (1)
that it was light in weight, and (2) cool to wear.

Also, regarding helmet tests read up on the Sharp Testing, which seems
to be a supplemental British testing agency.
https://billyscrashhelmets.co.uk/all...safety-scheme/
--
cheers,

John B.

Interesting. Also interesting are the comments about a=ANSI and SNELL anti-penetration requirements especially the comment that a super rigid non-flexible outer hard shell transmits more energy to the liner than a less rigid shell. With the ultra thin shells on bicycle helmets that would mean that ALL of energy has to be absorbed by the liner. I've seen many cracked helmets or images of the same wherein people point at them and said the helmet worked. I tell them that because the helmet broke it means the impact SURPASSED what the helmet was capable of protecting from. I really would like to see some test by independents that tested the helmets in a manner that mimics real world use. The current standards and tests are ridiculously low.

Cheers