New Bontager Helmet Material

On 3/21/2019 3:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Ooops. What I was going to say is that those curb cuts occur to accommodate an island created for the street car. You could continue straight, but the bike lane ends, and a lot of people are afraid of crossing parallel train tracks to take the lane. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...n/photostream/

This is the beginning of my commute out of downtown -- a few blocks from my office. It is often hard to find open pavement. https://www.pdx.edu/transportation/s...?itok=OQmqRyBs That is an example of one of those street car islands. I get on to the sidewalk, go up and over the island and then drop down in front of a turning street car. It's great! Transit malls are a nightmare.

The big problem is that non-separated bike lanes become illegal
temporary parking areas and that you can't possibly provide enough
enforcement to stop this behavior. Delivery trucks, Uber & Lyft drivers,
drivers pulling over to make a call, cars waiting to turn into a parking
lot, police pulling people over, the shoulder, whether a painted bike
lane or no bike lane, is constantly being expropriated by various vehicles.

There is also the issue of perception. If we want to get more people on
bicycles, and the perception is that it's safer to be in a protected
bike lane, then perhaps those lanes are worth it, and they do have a
positive impact on cycling numbers.

One issue with protected bike lanes that I never thought about until
talking with our Public Works Department, is that street sweepers can't
reach the curb. You need specialized equipment for sweeping protected
bike lanes.

On 23/3/19 7:03 am, wrote:


Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet?


I have little choice. In the Australian state of New South Wales, the
fine for not wearing a helmet is now some $330.

I would like to have the choice. There are some rides where it is
entirely unnecessary. However we are not trusted with our own lives.
Government has stepped in and mandated helmets for all bicycle riding.

A lot of people,
including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So
if you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your
overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is
on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

No, I want the helmet to be nonexistent. Not just lighter. Disappeared.

They are hot, make your head sweat more and leave strange marks on your
head. They are also fragile and are something else to look after.


But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any
more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us
all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a
smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum
determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard
from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started
coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself
because you're worn out.


A coast down test would be useful. I thought it was understood that
rough pavement would suck more energy than smooth?

I did a coast down test on a wheel once. Hooked the reed switch up to a
microphone input on a laptop, so I could fairly accurately measure the
number of samples and hence time between pulses. The test was to
calculate bearing drag and rotational aerodynamic drag, IIRC. Was a
long while ago.

--
JS

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 7:03 am, wrote:


Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet?


I have little choice. In the Australian state of New South Wales, the
fine for not wearing a helmet is now some $330.

I would like to have the choice. There are some rides where it is
entirely unnecessary. However we are not trusted with our own lives.
Government has stepped in and mandated helmets for all bicycle riding.

A lot of people,
including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So
if you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your
overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is
on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

No, I want the helmet to be nonexistent. Not just lighter. Disappeared.

They are hot, make your head sweat more and leave strange marks on your
head. They are also fragile and are something else to look after.


But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any
more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us
all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a
smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum
determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard
from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started
coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself
because you're worn out.


A coast down test would be useful. I thought it was understood that
rough pavement would suck more energy than smooth?

I did a coast down test on a wheel once. Hooked the reed switch up to a
microphone input on a laptop, so I could fairly accurately measure the
number of samples and hence time between pulses. The test was to
calculate bearing drag and rotational aerodynamic drag, IIRC. Was a
long while ago.

--
JS

Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD? I was on a group ride and when I got way to hot I took my helmet off and fastened it to a long strap and then slung the helmet over my shoulder. Technically I was wearing the helmet just not on my head. The group ride registration form only stated that a helmet had to be worn during the ride but did not specify that it had to be worn on the head.

Hey the Jay, would that work in the U.S.A.?

Cheers

writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:10:37 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:48:52 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/21/2019 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The
serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY
serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety
equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we
can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we
certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to
prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries
are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range
from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast
majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by
auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries
that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce
and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as
70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in
severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also
this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your
Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use
it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it
and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a
sound judgement. But there is a small possibility that this could
be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope
the later.


"this stuff weighs almost nothing "

From the guy who considered the difference between a
Campagnolo chain and a Wippermann chain to be significant.

Or a titanium seat post clamp bolt for only $9.00 and the nut
(required) for only $4.50. think of it, the lightest seat bolt clamp
bolt in town.... right there on your very own bicycle :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet? A lot of people,
including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So if
you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your
overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is on
the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any
more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us
all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a
smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum
determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard
from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started
coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself
because you're worn out.

Remember that time some guy here was going on about "fisti-mouths"? I
wasn't sure quite what he was on about, but it might have been that some
of us have the habit of throwing in gratuitous digs without even
thinking about it, like a cook throwing pepper into the tapioca pudding.

Just a random thought.

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 2:48:51 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 7:03 am, wrote:


Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet?


I have little choice. In the Australian state of New South Wales, the
fine for not wearing a helmet is now some $330.

I would like to have the choice. There are some rides where it is
entirely unnecessary. However we are not trusted with our own lives.
Government has stepped in and mandated helmets for all bicycle riding.

A lot of people,
including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So
if you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your
overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is
on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

No, I want the helmet to be nonexistent. Not just lighter. Disappeared.

They are hot, make your head sweat more and leave strange marks on your
head. They are also fragile and are something else to look after.


But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any
more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us
all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a
smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum
determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard
from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started
coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself
because you're worn out.


A coast down test would be useful. I thought it was understood that
rough pavement would suck more energy than smooth?

I did a coast down test on a wheel once. Hooked the reed switch up to a
microphone input on a laptop, so I could fairly accurately measure the
number of samples and hence time between pulses. The test was to
calculate bearing drag and rotational aerodynamic drag, IIRC. Was a
long while ago.

--
JS

Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD? I was on a group ride and when I got way to hot I took my helmet off and fastened it to a long strap and then slung the helmet over my shoulder. Technically I was wearing the helmet just not on my head. The group ride registration form only stated that a helmet had to be worn during the ride but did not specify that it had to be worn on the head.

Hey the Jay, would that work in the U.S.A.?

We have no national MHL. In Oregon, we have an under-16 MHL:

ORS 814.485

(1) A person commits the offense of failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear if the person is under 16 years of age, operates or rides on a bicycle on a highway or on premises open to the public and is not wearing protective headgear of a type approved under ORS 815.052 (Rules establishing standards for protective headgear).

(2) Exemptions from this section are as provided in ORS 814.487 (Exemptions from protective headgear requirements).

(3) The offense described in this section, failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear, is a specific fine traffic violation. The presumptive fine for failure of a bicycle operator or rider to wear protective headgear is $25.

If you're 15 and strap your helmet to your ass, you'll probably get fined. 25 smackers, baby. I don't know anyone who has gotten a ticket. I've seen plenty of asses in helmets, though. Every day in fact.

I don't know why we want to get more people on bikes. I'd go absolutely crazy in Amsterdam. We need a MHL to get people off bikes!

-- Jay Beattie.

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:32:08 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/21/2019 3:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Ooops. What I was going to say is that those curb cuts occur to accommodate an island created for the street car. You could continue straight, but the bike lane ends, and a lot of people are afraid of crossing parallel train tracks to take the lane. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...n/photostream/

This is the beginning of my commute out of downtown -- a few blocks from my office. It is often hard to find open pavement. https://www.pdx.edu/transportation/s...?itok=OQmqRyBs That is an example of one of those street car islands. I get on to the sidewalk, go up and over the island and then drop down in front of a turning street car.. It's great! Transit malls are a nightmare.

The big problem is that non-separated bike lanes become illegal
temporary parking areas and that you can't possibly provide enough
enforcement to stop this behavior. Delivery trucks, Uber & Lyft drivers,
drivers pulling over to make a call, cars waiting to turn into a parking
lot, police pulling people over, the shoulder, whether a painted bike
lane or no bike lane, is constantly being expropriated by various vehicles.

There is also the issue of perception. If we want to get more people on
bicycles, and the perception is that it's safer to be in a protected
bike lane, then perhaps those lanes are worth it, and they do have a
positive impact on cycling numbers.

One issue with protected bike lanes that I never thought about until
talking with our Public Works Department, is that street sweepers can't
reach the curb. You need specialized equipment for sweeping protected
bike lanes.

For non-Californians, there are also issues with fallen
leaves piling up faster than the sweepers can clear them.
And of snow clogging those lanes. And of melt water
from snow and ice flowing into the bike lane and re-
freezing as black ice.

Not to mention pedestrians crossing without looking, or
just strolling down the "protected" bike lane.

And motorists crossing the lane to enter an intersection
or driveway from either direction, producing a right hook
or left cross hazard. Or motorists pulling out of a
driveway not expecting a fast moving cyclist. Or just
pulling forward to look around parked cars, thus blocking
the "protected" bike lane.

Columbus, Ohio installed a "parking protected" bike
lane on a mile of Summit Street about two years ago.
In the previous two years, there were three car-bike
crashes, total - so 1.5 per year. In the year the lanes
were completed, there were 13 car-bike crashes, IIRC.
I leave computing the percentage increase as a lesson.

- Frank Krygowski

On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.

I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a helmet that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 3:32:02 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
writes:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:10:37 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:48:52 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/21/2019 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The
serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY
serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety
equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we
can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we
certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to
prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries
are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range
from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast
majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by
auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries
that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce
and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as
70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in
severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also
this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your
Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use
it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it
and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a
sound judgement. But there is a small possibility that this could
be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope
the later.


"this stuff weighs almost nothing "

From the guy who considered the difference between a
Campagnolo chain and a Wippermann chain to be significant.

Or a titanium seat post clamp bolt for only $9.00 and the nut
(required) for only $4.50. think of it, the lightest seat bolt clamp
bolt in town.... right there on your very own bicycle :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet? A lot of people,
including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So if
you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your
overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is on
the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any
more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us
all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a
smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum
determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard
from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started
coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself
because you're worn out.

Remember that time some guy here was going on about "fisti-mouths"? I
wasn't sure quite what he was on about, but it might have been that some
of us have the habit of throwing in gratuitous digs without even
thinking about it, like a cook throwing pepper into the tapioca pudding.

Just a random thought.

My point is that what we are seeing an almost continuous string of people that are making negative comments that either have no thought behind them or are coming from people that don't really ride.

At least Trek is making some attempt to improve cycling helmets. These devices have been around for almost 50 years with no one really attempting to improve them - only to make them look more fashionable.

This is why I was agreeing with Frank - that helmets are not what they are presented to be. What if YOU could save yourself from a concussion by paying as much for a Trek helmet as you would for a Giro that isn't using the advanced technology.

Or what if you could improve your neck fatigue by using a Trek helmet?

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 8:10:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:32:08 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/21/2019 3:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:

Ooops. What I was going to say is that those curb cuts occur to accommodate an island created for the street car. You could continue straight, but the bike lane ends, and a lot of people are afraid of crossing parallel train tracks to take the lane. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikepo...n/photostream/

This is the beginning of my commute out of downtown -- a few blocks from my office. It is often hard to find open pavement. https://www.pdx.edu/transportation/s...?itok=OQmqRyBs That is an example of one of those street car islands. I get on to the sidewalk, go up and over the island and then drop down in front of a turning street car. It's great! Transit malls are a nightmare.

The big problem is that non-separated bike lanes become illegal
temporary parking areas and that you can't possibly provide enough
enforcement to stop this behavior. Delivery trucks, Uber & Lyft drivers,
drivers pulling over to make a call, cars waiting to turn into a parking
lot, police pulling people over, the shoulder, whether a painted bike
lane or no bike lane, is constantly being expropriated by various vehicles.

There is also the issue of perception. If we want to get more people on
bicycles, and the perception is that it's safer to be in a protected
bike lane, then perhaps those lanes are worth it, and they do have a
positive impact on cycling numbers.

One issue with protected bike lanes that I never thought about until
talking with our Public Works Department, is that street sweepers can't
reach the curb. You need specialized equipment for sweeping protected
bike lanes.

For non-Californians, there are also issues with fallen
leaves piling up faster than the sweepers can clear them.
And of snow clogging those lanes. And of melt water
from snow and ice flowing into the bike lane and re-
freezing as black ice.

Not to mention pedestrians crossing without looking, or
just strolling down the "protected" bike lane.

And motorists crossing the lane to enter an intersection
or driveway from either direction, producing a right hook
or left cross hazard. Or motorists pulling out of a
driveway not expecting a fast moving cyclist. Or just
pulling forward to look around parked cars, thus blocking
the "protected" bike lane.

Columbus, Ohio installed a "parking protected" bike
lane on a mile of Summit Street about two years ago.
In the previous two years, there were three car-bike
crashes, total - so 1.5 per year. In the year the lanes
were completed, there were 13 car-bike crashes, IIRC.
I leave computing the percentage increase as a lesson.

- Frank Krygowski

Come on Frank; you know that there are so few bicycle accidents that you can't develop any statistics from a year. And you don't know the causes of them unless you look each and every one of them up.

The usual bicycle/car fatality is from a bike proceeding on a straight road and a car making a left turn on the T intersection and taking up sometimes several lanes and the bike lane and hitting the bicyclist at speed.

We have had a couple locals killed from being doored. This is something that is really dangerous on bicycle lanes and I'm always on the outlook for that. While most cars have doors that take up perhaps 1/2 to 3/4ths the bike lane others such as a Camaro door takes up the entire bike lane and part of the street.