On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 10:00:43 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 10:09 AM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:02:05 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 6:10:07 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:55 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Tell us then, Franki-boy, whether you took the same Luddite attitude of obstruction to ca safety belts?

Those who pretend bike helmets are equivalent to seat belts are
demonstrating shallow thinking and incredible ignorance.

Seat belts are tested by taking real motor vehicles, strapping in very
accurate and expensive, fully instrumented crash test dummies, and
running the motor vehicles into solid concrete barriers at 35 mph.
Instruments and other techniques are used to make sure the seat belts
(and air bags) are effective in this very realistic crash.

Bike helmets are tested by strapping a helmet on a magnesium model of a
decapitated human head. The model of the head (with no body attached) is
dropped about six feet onto an anvil, which it strikes at about 14 mph.
Accelerometers measure the decapitated head's linear deceleration.

The test is simplistic beyond belief. "Passing" means less than 300 gees
linear deceleration, a standard that was deemed acceptable 40 years ago,
but since thoroughly disproven. It's now known that rotational
accelerations are far more damaging, but the test doesn't even attempt
to measure them. And the impact speed of 14 mph is low enough to be
exceeded in most really serious bike crashes. And again, there is no
body attached; the helmet is actually tested to protect a decapitated
head. This laughably low standard is probably the reason bike helmets
don't demonstrate any large scale benefit.

And BTW, when the standard was first proposed back in the 1970s, there
were immediate complaints that it was obviously too weak. The helmet
industry responded by saying it was the best that could be done, because
truly protective helmets would be too large, heavy and hot to be worn
while riding. Yet designs that just failed this weak test were pulled
from the market. Designs that barely pass it are touted as amazing and
necessary life saving products.

Perhaps helmet promoters and helmet apologists don't know these facts.
Perhaps they simply don't want to make them more widely known, since
they'd interfere with their sales jobs. Or perhaps they lack the desire
or ability to actually think about them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Okay, minus the ad hominem and other nastiness that are inseparable from discussing anything at all with you, Franki-boy, that's a sort of an answer. But I knew all that, and so, I suspect, did most of the posters here.. We've heard it all before, and it's a bore.

However, you've missed the point of my posts, either deliberately or because your mind runs on the railroad tracks of your obsession. I wasn't comparing the relative efficacy of automobilist and bicyclist protection. I was pointing out that the philosophical justification for mandatory car seatbelt laws and mandatory bicycle helmet laws are the same, and that those who resist or accept the principle of one must do the same for the other, or be labelled irrational.

Moving on to effective bicycle helmets, I would expect modern materials and knowledge to provide a solution. For instance, I can easily conceive of a bicycle helmet growing out of a HANS (a head and neck restraint against whiplash) as a sort of bowl of the same plastic as the HANS is made from, the bowl and as much of the lower part of the plastic surface of the HANS filled with D30, a military chemical compound used behind the outer skins of tanks; the compound goes hard in a microsecond and takes up all the shock of the impact. HANS devices are proven in automobile racing. D30 is proven in military use. I throw my expensive iPhone skinned in leather with D30 inside on concrete floors to demonstrate the amazing qualities of the stuff. In mass production it needn't cost more than helmets today (which I suspect have a huge markup of which most is spent on marketing).

Let us therefore say that my suggestion, or any other plan for an effective lightweight cycling helmet proves workable, would you still object to a mandatory helmet law? Or would you by analogy with mandatory car seatbelt laws agree that a mandatory helmet law is a good thing?

Andre Jute
Bicycle helmets are not the hill to die on

The latest "improvements" in a bicycle helmet is known as MIPS technology. This is a mounting system that allows the head to turn in the helmet when the helmet hits and usually sticks to the road surface. This prevents neck injuries and possibly some slight improvement in concussion protection..

But they were expecting to get a real premium for it and in fact - helmets are becoming less popular because of the price. Most performance cyclists are of college age or not a whole lot older except from we old useless duds. With tuition rates so damn high and not getting any lower even the once popular Giro Helmets (a Bell helmet with better styling) has had to start dropping prices. This is already driving the price of MIPS helmets down.

Bell isn't standing still but as I've said before - you cannot make a helmet that passes the standard and decreases concussions because it would be FAR too large for anyone to wear.

MIPS is a reaction to the fact that currently certified helmets have not
decreased bicyclist concussions. In fact, concussions have risen
markedly in the helmet era.

And it's interesting that America's most prominent helmet pusher, Randy
Swart (AKA "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute") is pretty much against
MIPS. He says that MIPS won't help.

OTOH, he says that current helmets are wonderful...

Where is your data Franky baby - show us the data. Mips has NOTHING to do with concussions and they do not advertise it as such.

From
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-...-say-1.1367454

"New designs claim to address concussion"

"There are now helmet designs out there that claim to lower the risk of
concussion by reducing rotational acceleration of the brain."

"One is known as MIPS, an acronym for Multi-directional Impact
Protection System."

Or if you prefer, from the inventors themselves, at
http://mipsprotection.com/mips-faq/#...fect-the-brain

"Several researchers have linked severe brain injuries like Diffuse
Axonal Injury (DAI) and Subdural Hematoma (SDH) to rotational motion
transmitted to the brain from angled impacts."

"Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (MTBI) or concussion is also believed to be
caused by rotational motion."

Note the word "concussion" in that last sentence, Tom.

(sheesh!)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Thanks for sending us a really great medical paper from the company that invented and market's MIPS technology to helmet manufacturers. That is a highly reliable source of medical information.