Pedrestrian killed in England

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jul 12, 12:56 pm, "Pat" wrote:
Pat, is there no way you can get your posts to indicate responses?
Everyone else's show up correctly.

I don't know what you are talking about. I am using Outlook Express. No one
has every complained before.

Wrong. I'm not the first to complain....

Hard to have a sensible discussion when no one can tell who wrote what,
without constantly referring back to previous posts.

It was funny when Sorni flamed Pat because Pat quoted landotter while
making the quoted text look original, and Sorni had landotter kill filed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

Pat, you've made a valiant effort to correct your software's
shortcomings and separate your responses from the rest of the post.
Unfortunately, you've gotten it exactly backwards, so you've just
confused things more.

The "" marks are displayed NOT before the new lines; they're
displayed at the beginning of lines that have been posted previously.
The more "" marks before a certain line, the older that line is.

There's no practical way for me to fix what you've done, so I'll put
my responses between lines of dashes.



On Jul 13, 9:56*am, "Pat" wrote:
[fk:] Lots of people know someone who _thinks_ the helmet protected them.
But if all those "protections" were real, there would be significant
drops in head injuries per rider, wouldn't there be?

[Pat:] Nobody thinks in terms of statistics. I doubt even you do.

That's a little like saying "Nobody understands math."

You missed my point again: nobody runs their everyday life by first
checking on the statistics of what they plan to do. I wager you do not do
that, either. Or else you're trying hard to deflect my point, which is
more likely.
When you leave
home, do you consult the statistics of driving on Maryland 3 on a Tuesday
morning between 0800 and 0900 in a 4-cylinder sedan going north? No, of
course not. You are only thinking of statistics for bicycle helmets as
hind-sight. Whereas other people judge the necessity of a bike helmet for
the kids based on their experience. Their own experience, not some
statistical table where they don't even know how the statistics were
measured.

What you're describing is factually impossible. *A person can't put
the first bike helmet on their kid based on previous experience of a
bike helmet protecting their kid!

You are really good at sidestepping the question, I have to admit. A
person CAN put a bike helmet on his kid based on a previous experience of
some child he personally knows having the helmet protect that child. And,
you did not answer my question, once again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person puts a bike helmet on a kid because he's heard someone
else's story, he's reacting to an anecdote, not to his own
experience.

But you're correct, people don't make every decision based on
consultation of statistical data. People operate largely by custom
and habit. They frequently change their customs and habits based on
fashion or publicity - or, sometimes, fearmongering.

But when the fashion, publicity or fearmongering tells you to buy a
commercial product and make its use your new custom or habit, don't
you think it's worth checking information on whether that product
really works?

Perhaps you don't. Not everybody does - which is why get rich quick
schemes ("Earn up to $2500 per month working part time at home!",
weight loss schemes ("Lose up to 125 pounds!"), weird spam e-mails
("Gain up to three inches!!!") and so much commercial advertising
("Ultra-Brite makes your smile 42% sexier!!!!") find suckers every
day.

Just like "Prevents up to 85% of head injuries!!!!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People put bike helmets on kids because they've been convinced that
their kid is a) pretty likely to get a significant head injury if they
don't wear a helmet, and b) that the helmet is almost guaranteed
("85%!!!!) to prevent such head injuries. *Both ideas are false.

No, again let me say that it is based on common sense and logic, not
statistics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you claim is common sense and logic sound to me like naive
acceptance of advertising and fearmongering. Perhaps its because our
experiences are different.

I learned to ride a bike at a time when _all_ kids rode bikes a lot,
and bike helmets were never heard of. I rode nearly every day,
barring days when the snow was too deep, and so did all my friends. We
rode on roads, in neighborhoods, in the woods, and I recall even
riding down the six-foot-high piles of excavation dirt at construction
sites - which was pretty dumb.

There were zero significant head injuries. Oh, I vaguely recall one
of my friends once getting a "knot on his head" from falling off the
bike, but there was no thought of going to an ER. His mom probably
yelled at him to be more careful. There were no tales of serious head
injuries among the larger groups of kids at grade school, or later,
the even larger groups in high school. Such things were completely
unheard of.

Bike head injuries became news after one important event: the
introduction of the Bell Biker helmet. Immediately, articles popped
up about how an ordinary bike ride could become a tragedy. From my
perspective, it certainly didn't look like a product invented to solve
a big problem. Rather, it was a big problem invented to sell a
product. It looked like marketing, not logic. And it still does.

Perhaps you're very young. Perhaps you began riding only after, say,
1989, when the "Danger! Danger!" publicity _really_ took hold.
Perhaps you never knew people like me who rode at least five fast
miles every day for years on end with no problems. Or perhaps all
your childhood friends are dead of bicycle-caused brain injury.

But I suspect you've just bought into propaganda.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[fk:]
If drugs were promoted using the techniques and lies used to sell bike
helmets, the FDA would slap the companies with huge fines.

Get a grip, Frank! Misuse of drugs can kill a person.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about misuse of drugs. I'm talking about the efficacy
of drugs. If a drug's effectiveness were as low as bike helmets'
effectiveness (as shown by reams of data), and if the drug company
still persisted in selling the drug with an "85%!!!" claim, plus
inflating the need for the drug by fearmongering, the FDA would put a
stop to the practice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat, you've already mocked the use of statistics, hence my statement.
Did you read the article? http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1028

No, I have not "mocked" the use of statistics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To quote: "Don't make this another of your long and boring statistic
argument for not wearing helmets." I think that's mocking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He was jogging _fast_. *His speed certainly looked the same as a
common bicycle speed - although why that matters in a right angle
collision, I can't imagine!

Pedestrians "jog" at 20 mph? In the city? Come on, Frank, get real!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat, you missed the train of thought entirely.

First, your defense of helmets seems based entirely on stories you've
heard. I gave an opposing story, pointed out that IF that jogger had
worn a helmet, it would have generated an identical "helmet saved his
life" story. The point is that many such stories must be false.

Second, the young man jogging across that road was moving at a speed I
judge to be a normal bicycle speed. No, I didn't have a radar gun on
him; but he was not shuffling along, he was obviously at a pace faster
than, say, an eight minute mile. (BTW, he wasn't in jogging clothes;
he was in street clothes, but running or jogging to get somewhere in a
hurry.)

Third, it hardly matters. The car hit him at a right angle. The
impact would probably have been about the same whether he was
sprinting or walking, or riding a bicycle.

Fourth, the fact that some bicyclists do 20 mph in the city is hardly
pertinent - unless you're prepared to change your tune, and say
helmets make sense only for 20+ mph cyclists. But that would exclude
the little kids, wouldn't it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny, if little Brooks had had his helmet on, he wouldn't have gotten his
skull fractured.

Really? *Then why doesn't that apply to these folks, as well?http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

Perhaps those folks aren't six years old and riding over a manhole cover?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've never described this "manhole cover" incident. Still, if you
want to restrict your helmet recommendation to kids riding over
manhole covers, please do so. Personally, I taught my kids to watch
the road surface and to realize wet steel is slippery - the only way
I've ever seen a manhole cover cause a crash. (And BTW, the guy who
demonstrated that crash didn't hit his head either.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You still didn't answer the question as to whether you think pedestrians
should have to wear helmets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I believe I did. I'll repeat for your benefit.

No, I don't think pedestrians should wear helmets. Even though the
only data I've seen says they are at more risk of head injury (and
fatality) than ordinary bicyclists are.

Likewise, I don't think bicyclists should have to wear helmets. Is
that clear?

- Frank Krygowski

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person puts a bike helmet on a kid because he's heard someone
else's story, he's reacting to an anecdote, not to his own
experience.

___________________

Not if that person saw the kid's bloody head and was there when the
ambulance arrived.
___________________

But you're correct, people don't make every decision based on
consultation of statistical data. People operate largely by custom
and habit. They frequently change their customs and habits based on
fashion or publicity - or, sometimes, fearmongering.

But when the fashion, publicity or fearmongering tells you to buy a
commercial product and make its use your new custom or habit, don't
you think it's worth checking information on whether that product
really works?

_____________

I have enough friends in my biking group who have told me of their first
hand experiences. I don't call them liars; I call them fortunate that the
helmet cracked but their head did not.

BTW: do you use seat belts? Some people say that's fear-mongering, you know.
They say seat belts jam in a collision or refuse to get unbuckled
underwater.

______________

Just like "Prevents up to 85% of head injuries!!!!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you really think people wear helmets simply because someone made an
outrageous claim? Come now--you're forgetting people's logic and common
sense.

_________________

People put bike helmets on kids because they've been convinced that
their kid is a) pretty likely to get a significant head injury if they
don't wear a helmet, and b) that the helmet is almost guaranteed
("85%!!!!) to prevent such head injuries. Both ideas are false.

So, YOU say that's false. I say, I have seen injuries from bike accidents.
Once, a woman touched my rear wheel and went down. She broke her collarbone
and smashed her helmet, but she didn't get a concussion or a bloody head.
Now, you would have me say, "Let's see, Frank claims that helmets do not
protect people. I guess I had better do what Frank says" while I am helping
get Janie's bike, etc., out of the street.

Face it, Frank, you're just NOT convincing anyone. If you were, you wouldn't
have to jump in on every thread which even mentions the word helmet. People
make up their minds on their own experience, not your statistics.

__________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you claim is common sense and logic sound to me like naive
acceptance of advertising and fearmongering. Perhaps its because our
experiences are different.

_________

No, it's because I evaluated the risks and thought the benefits outweighed
the risks. Just because someone doesn't fall into step behind you doesn't
mean "naive acceptance of advertising and fearmongering."

____________




But I suspect you've just bought into propaganda.

-----------------------------------------------------------

See above: people who do not agree with you are not naive or accepting of
advertisiing and fearmongering. They actually have, gasp, logical reasons!
________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about misuse of drugs. I'm talking about the efficacy
of drugs. If a drug's effectiveness were as low as bike helmets'
effectiveness (as shown by reams of data), and if the drug company
still persisted in selling the drug with an "85%!!!" claim, plus
inflating the need for the drug by fearmongering, the FDA would put a
stop to the practice.

___________

Curious how anyone who disagrees with you is falling for "fearmongering."
______________



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To quote: "Don't make this another of your long and boring statistic
argument for not wearing helmets." I think that's mocking.

___________

It's mocking your use of statistics, Frank, not the statistics.

_______________



First, your defense of helmets seems based entirely on stories you've
heard. I gave an opposing story, pointed out that IF that jogger had
worn a helmet, it would have generated an identical "helmet saved his
life" story. The point is that many such stories must be false.

__________

No, what you are doing is what you always do when someone disagrees with
you: dissemble, try to change the subject, bring up anedotes and try to
mock someone's real life stories. In other words, the usual. I wish you
would stop trying to change someone's real life experience to "stories
you've heard." Being there and witnessing the kid's bloody head is not
"stories you've heard."

_______Second, the young man jogging across that road was moving at a speed
I
judge to be a normal bicycle speed. No, I didn't have a radar gun on
him; but he was not shuffling along, he was obviously at a pace faster
than, say, an eight minute mile. (BTW, he wasn't in jogging clothes;
he was in street clothes, but running or jogging to get somewhere in a
hurry.)

Third, it hardly matters. The car hit him at a right angle. The
impact would probably have been about the same whether he was
sprinting or walking, or riding a bicycle.

Fourth, the fact that some bicyclists do 20 mph in the city is hardly
pertinent - unless you're prepared to change your tune, and say
helmets make sense only for 20+ mph cyclists. But that would exclude
the little kids, wouldn't it?

___________________

I shouldn't have responded to your anecdote at all, because you didn't
observe the pertinent info--you pointed out that you didn't see the impact.
Regardless, it was just another one of your anecdotes to try and convince
the reader that all anecdotes must therefore be useless. They're not. To
you, the ones that agree with you are useless and the ones which don't agree
are "stories you've heard." That says it all.

___________



Funny, if little Brooks had had his helmet on, he wouldn't have gotten
his
skull fractured.

Really? Then why doesn't that apply to these folks, as
well?http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html

Perhaps those folks aren't six years old and riding over a manhole
cover?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've never described this "manhole cover" incident. Still, if you
want to restrict your helmet recommendation to kids riding over
manhole covers, please do so. Personally, I taught my kids to watch
the road surface and to realize wet steel is slippery - the only way
I've ever seen a manhole cover cause a crash. (And BTW, the guy who
demonstrated that crash didn't hit his head either.)

------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I have Frank: to refresh your memory:

For sure, the pediatricians do not listen to Frank.

Some do, some don't, Pat. For sure, I know one ER physician and one
other physician (unknown specialty, unfortunately) who agree with my
views almost completely. A lot depends on whether they've actually
looked into the data or not.

Oh, but you overlooked the pertinent word: pediatrician. You and I agree
adults may decide for themselves, but for small children, I think helmets
are there for a reason. But then, I have personal experience with a 6 year
old boy who got a skull fracture when he rode his bike across a manhole
cover and fell off. That's not statistics, it's learning the hard way.

________________________

You still didn't answer the question as to whether you think pedestrians
should have to wear helmets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I believe I did. I'll repeat for your benefit.

No, I don't think pedestrians should wear helmets. Even though the
only data I've seen says they are at more risk of head injury (and
fatality) than ordinary bicyclists are.

Likewise, I don't think bicyclists should have to wear helmets. Is
that clear?

- Frank Krygowski


___________

I went back through all of your responses in this thread and did not find
the so-called quote you inserted above. But, I am glad you have finally
agreed to make a statement on it. My position is that adults shouldn't have
to wear helmets, but that parents should make the decision for their own
kids.

Pat in TX

On Jul 13, 4:46*pm, "Pat" wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person puts a bike helmet on a kid because he's heard someone
else's story, he's reacting to an anecdote, not to his own
experience.

___________________

Not if that person saw the kid's bloody head and was there when the
ambulance arrived.

Perhaps that's true, IF that's what he saw. But you won't find one in
a thousand who bought a bike helmet because of such a thing! The vast
majority buy bike helmets because they've heard the propaganda, in one
form or another.


BTW: do you use seat belts? Some people say that's fear-mongering, you know.
They say seat belts jam in a collision or refuse to get unbuckled
underwater.

Pat, there is one major difference between seat belts and bike
helmets. Seat belts are designed for, and tested in, very realistic
crashes. I've seen video clips of seat belt (and airbag) tests, where
actual cars are run into concrete barriers at 35 mph, and dummies that
accurately model the human body record the forces, etc.

Bike helmets are tested without even having a body attached! The
helmet is on a model of a decapitated head. The impact speed is only
14 mph. They take care that there is no glancing impact (the type
that tends to cause more brain damage, by internal rotation) because
the helmets can't prevent that, and may even make it worse. In
summary, the helmet test is ludicrously low. And the most expensive
bike helmets barely, barely pass it.

The proper analogy would be to rip out your seatbelts and replace them
with ribbons. Then you'd have seatbelts about as effective as a bike
helmet.

Just like "Prevents up to 85% of head injuries!!!!"
Do you really think people wear helmets simply because someone made an
outrageous claim? Come now--you're forgetting people's logic and common
sense.

Pat, I had the president of our metro area's Safe Kids chapter tell
me, "Frank, they're 85% effective! 85%! It's so simple!!!"

Not only did she wear one because she believed that, but she lobbied
for mandatory helmet laws because she believed it!

People put bike helmets on kids because they've been convinced that
their kid is a) pretty likely to get a significant head injury if they
don't wear a helmet, and b) that the helmet is almost guaranteed
("85%!!!!) to prevent such head injuries. Both ideas are false.

So, YOU say that's false. I say, I have seen injuries from bike accidents..
Once, a woman touched my rear wheel and went down. She broke her collarbone
and smashed her helmet, but she didn't get a concussion or a bloody head.
Now, you would have me say, "Let's see, Frank claims that helmets do not
protect people. I guess I had better do what Frank says" while I am helping
get Janie's bike, etc., out of the street.

First, let me be clear: I am NOT saying no bike helmet will ever
prevent any head injury. I don't believe anyone has ever made that
claim. (Likewise, nobody should ever claim a Zippo lighter in a shirt
pocket can't prevent an injury, because one really did stop a bullet
to a man's heart once, in World War II.)

But a smashed helmet absolutely does NOT prove an injury was
prevented. You seemed to misunderstand the point of my "jogger hit by
a car" incident, so here it is again: If that kid had worn a helmet,
it would have been smashed, and it woujld have generated a story that
the "helmet saved his life" (or if you prefer, "prevented a concussion
or bloody head," like you just gave). But it would have been false,
because the kid was fine without a helmet.

Likewise, we recently had a story on rec.bicycles.* where a guy said
he didn't even realize his helmeted head had touched the ground, so
gentle was the impact; but the helmet still cracked. That proved
nothing except that bike helmets are fragile! There's no way that
helmet did anything but cause him to buy another helmet!

So some helmet protection tales are obviously false. How can we tell
how many are true? We can tell by examining the data on head injuries
per rider in large populations that have increased helmet use. No
matter how much you dislike math, that's the only logical way. And
that's what shows that helmets are doing next to nothing.

Face it, Frank, you're just NOT convincing anyone.

:-) Pat, the first person I convinced was myself. That is, I used to
promote helmet use. Then discussions such as this convinced me to
spend time in the library, getting articles, then reviewing data.
Obviously, what I learned taught me to no longer promote helmets.

Others have made the same journey I've made, and have said so here.
And I know one person who started as a pro-helmet debater in these
forums, who now is literally leading the fight against mandatory
helmet laws in his country.

*My position is that adults shouldn't have
to wear helmets, but that parents should make the decision for their own
kids.

My position is exactly the same.

However, I'd like to see the "Bicycling is dangerous!!!!" lies stop.
And I'd like to see the _real_ data on bike helmet effectiveness (or
lack of same) become much more widely circulated. After almost 20
years of disproof, anyone still using that "85%" claim should be
ashamed of either their ignorance or their dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

On 2008-07-13, Pat wrote:


OEquotefix is the usual recommended solution to this. That should at
least get the leading characters in there to satisfy the other
newsreader
clients.


Kristian Zoerhoff

Is this something built in to Outlook Express or something I have to
download?

You download it from http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
and install it. Once there, it fixes up quoting, and colorizes messages
for you based on quoting levels, which can make it easier for you to see
who said what, as well as making your posts easier for others to read.
Pretty much a win-win.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

OEquotefix is the usual recommended solution to this. That should at
least get the leading characters in there to satisfy the other
newsreader
clients.


Kristian Zoerhoff

Is this something built in to Outlook Express or something I have to
download?

You download it from http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
and install it. Once there, it fixes up quoting, and colorizes messages
for you based on quoting levels, which can make it easier for you to see
who said what, as well as making your posts easier for others to read.
Pretty much a win-win.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

Thanks so much!

Pat

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person puts a bike helmet on a kid because he's heard someone
else's story, he's reacting to an anecdote, not to his own
experience.

___________________

Not if that person saw the kid's bloody head and was there when the
ambulance arrived.

Perhaps that's true, IF that's what he saw. But you won't find one in
a thousand who bought a bike helmet because of such a thing! The vast
majority buy bike helmets because they've heard the propaganda, in one
form or another.

______________

Frank, my son was riding with Brooks that day; I was the one who saw the
bloody head.

_______________


BTW: do you use seat belts? Some people say that's fear-mongering, you
know.
They say seat belts jam in a collision or refuse to get unbuckled
underwater.

Pat, there is one major difference between seat belts and bike
helmets. Seat belts are designed for, and tested in, very realistic
crashes. I've seen video clips of seat belt (and airbag) tests, where
actual cars are run into concrete barriers at 35 mph, and dummies that
accurately model the human body record the forces, etc.

Bike helmets are tested without even having a body attached! The
helmet is on a model of a decapitated head. The impact speed is only
14 mph. They take care that there is no glancing impact (the type
that tends to cause more brain damage, by internal rotation) because
the helmets can't prevent that, and may even make it worse. In
summary, the helmet test is ludicrously low. And the most expensive
bike helmets barely, barely pass it.

The proper analogy would be to rip out your seatbelts and replace them
with ribbons. Then you'd have seatbelts about as effective as a bike
helmet.

_________

Holy Cow! you are denigrating the testing because they didn't use a real
human?

_____________


First, let me be clear: I am NOT saying no bike helmet will ever
prevent any head injury. I don't believe anyone has ever made that
claim. (Likewise, nobody should ever claim a Zippo lighter in a shirt
pocket can't prevent an injury, because one really did stop a bullet
to a man's heart once, in World War II.)

But a smashed helmet absolutely does NOT prove an injury was
prevented.

_____________

I've heard this one before, or a variation of it. It goes: "Sure there was
an accident, but the only way we'll ever REALLY know if the helmet helped
would be to recreate the accident this time without the helmet." That's when
you lose your audience.

__________________



Face it, Frank, you're just NOT convincing anyone.

:-) Pat, the first person I convinced was myself. That is, I used to
promote helmet use. Then discussions such as this convinced me to
spend time in the library, getting articles, then reviewing data.
Obviously, what I learned taught me to no longer promote helmets.

Others have made the same journey I've made, and have said so here.
And I know one person who started as a pro-helmet debater in these
forums, who now is literally leading the fight against mandatory
helmet laws in his country.

______________

And who would that be? The guy who just wrote a post about his accident and
started it off with "Sorry Frank."??

_________________


However, I'd like to see the "Bicycling is dangerous!!!!" lies stop.
And I'd like to see the _real_ data on bike helmet effectiveness (or
lack of same) become much more widely circulated. After almost 20
years of disproof, anyone still using that "85%" claim should be
ashamed of either their ignorance or their dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

____________

Well, until you made the "85%" claim and kept repeating it, I hadn't heard
it at all. I guess their "propaganda" hasn't been that effective...

_____________

I gotta go download that stuff now to fix outlook express.

Pat in TX

Pat ? wrote:
...
I've heard this one before, or a variation of it. It goes: "Sure there was
an accident, but the only way we'll ever REALLY know if the helmet helped
would be to recreate the accident this time without the helmet." That's when
you lose your audience....

Let us throw out the scientific method!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"People who had no mercy will find none." - Anon.

On Jul 14, 6:47*pm, "Pat" wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person puts a bike helmet on a kid because he's heard someone
else's story, he's reacting to an anecdote, not to his own
experience.

___________________

Not if that person saw the kid's bloody head and was there when the
ambulance arrived.

Perhaps that's true, IF that's what he saw. *But you won't find one in
a thousand who bought a bike helmet because of such a thing! *The vast
majority buy bike helmets because they've heard the propaganda, in one
form or another.

______________

Frank, my son was riding with Brooks that day; I was the one who saw the
bloody head.

I don't doubt that you're an exception, but still: You won't find one
in a thousand who bought a bike helmet because they saw someone's
bloody head. People buy bike helmets because all their friends wear
one; or because they have a pious notion that they should; or because
they think they could get killed by just falling off in their
driveway; or because they ran into a proselytizer. Bike head injuries
are way too rare to cause the helmet sales we've seen.

Bike helmets are tested without even having a body attached! *The
helmet is on a model of a decapitated head. *The impact speed is only
14 mph. *They take care that there is no glancing impact (the type
that tends to cause more brain damage, by internal rotation) because
the helmets can't prevent that, and may even make it worse. *In
summary, the helmet test is ludicrously low. *And the most expensive
bike helmets barely, barely pass it.

The proper analogy would be to rip out your seatbelts and replace them
with ribbons. *Then you'd have seatbelts about as effective as a bike
helmet.

_________

Holy Cow! you are denigrating the testing because they didn't use a real
human?

:-) Your capacity for misunderstanding is amazing!

I'm denigrating the test because the test doesn't come close to
replicating the forces a helmet sees in any serious crash - that is,
the type of crash for which people _think_ they need a helmet.

Try reading the test specifications to see. (Although I'll warn you,
the specs are technical indeed.)


However, I'd like to see the "Bicycling is dangerous!!!!" lies stop.
And I'd like to see the _real_ data on bike helmet effectiveness (or
lack of same) become much more widely circulated. *After almost 20
years of disproof, anyone still using that "85%" claim should be
ashamed of either their ignorance or their dishonesty.

- Frank Krygowski

____________

Well, until you made the "85%" claim and kept repeating it, I hadn't heard
it at all. I guess their "propaganda" hasn't been that effective...

Again, I have no doubt that you're an exception, perhaps in many
ways. But an "85%" claim is a standard part of bike helmet articles.
The last in our local newspaper was just over a week ago.

I gotta go download that stuff now to fix outlook express.

You certainly do!

- Frank Krygowski