Another Helmet Thread

Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned-usa-safety-authorities-drop-key-helmet-claim

--
T0m $herm@n

On Jun 16, 2:57*am, "T0m $herman"
wrote:
Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned...

--
T0m $herm@n

Yes, I heard that NHTSA is finally (after nearly 25 years!) dropping
the ludicrous "85% benefit" claim. I'm also seeing more "cycling is
not dangerous" press. It seems that sanity may finally be returning.
Slowly.

- Frank Krygowski

Hmmm, interesting.

I made the same point myself about the negative effects of discouraging cycling, although being candid with assumptions rather than objective data to justify it, in a recent thread;

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....I/YsIsqntZdoEJ

On Jun 16, 11:10*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:57*am, "T0m $herman"

wrote:
Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned....

--
T0m $herm@n

Yes, I heard that NHTSA is finally (after nearly 25 years!) dropping
the ludicrous "85% benefit" claim. *I'm also seeing more "cycling is
not dangerous" press. *It seems that sanity may finally be returning.
Slowly.

- Frank Krygowski

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...clipId=8997933

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/17/2013 10:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:
On Jun 16, 11:10 am, Frank wrote:
On Jun 16, 2:57 am, "T0m $herman"

wrote:
Another couple of nails in the coffin of Thompson, Rivara, Thompson.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/bmas-helmet-stance-questioned...

--
T0m $herm@n

Yes, I heard that NHTSA is finally (after nearly 25 years!) dropping
the ludicrous "85% benefit" claim. I'm also seeing more "cycling is
not dangerous" press. It seems that sanity may finally be returning.
Slowly.

- Frank Krygowski

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...clipId=8997933


And on top of that the guy was hit from behind. Another "favorite" of
the take the lane crowd.

On Jun 17, 11:13*am, Duane wrote:
On 6/17/2013 10:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:


Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...njures-bicycli...

And on top of that the guy was hit from behind. *Another "favorite" of
the take the lane crowd.

Why are you assuming he was taking the lane? The photos show what
seems to be a narrow bike lane. I can't tell (from debris, etc.)
where the impact occurred, but I'd bet he was to the right of the
magic, all-protective white line.

Do any other reports mention whether or not he had a taillight?
Lights were not mentioned, but even a very ordinary taillight is far
more effective than the reflective jacket that was mentioned.

And of course, there is a possibility that the helmet did save his
life. There seem to be perhaps 35000 "my helmet saved my life"
stories annually in the U.S. Some of them may actually be true.

Of course, there are only about 750 annual bike deaths in the U.S.
What does it mean when the number of lives "saved" greatly exceeds the
record number of deaths? That if the person did not wear a helmet,
ten people around him would have died with him? Just wondering.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/17/2013 5:32 AM, wrote:
Hmmm, interesting.

I made the same point myself about the negative effects of discouraging cycling, although being candid with assumptions rather than objective data to justify it, in a recent thread;

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....I/YsIsqntZdoEJ

Not sure what post you're responding to, but the fact is (if facts
actually matter) that there is absolutely no evidence that either
encouraging or requiring helmets actually discourages cycling (or
encourages it for that matter).

Even though cycling rates increased in countries that implemented
mandatory helmet laws it would be just as wrong to claim that the
increase in cycling rates was actually a result of the helmet
legislation as it would be to claim the opposite if there had been a
decrease. There are many factors that contribute to changes in cycling
rates, but helmet legislation has never been found to be one of those
factors. When someone incorrectly claims that there was a decrease in
cycling following the adoption of a helmet law, and claims that the
helmet law was responsible, they're beginning with a fabricated premise,
then speculating as to how something that didn't happen was caused by
the new law.

You now see claims that obesity rates increased as a result of helmet
laws in Australia but of of course obesity rates had been increasing
before the helmet law. Some people just can't resist taking two
unrelated things and trying to correlate them (this claim was on one of
the most disreputable anti-helmet sites where they will say _anything_
and always, intentionally, ignore the difference between correlation and
causation).

I personally think that adults should be permitted to decide the level
of risk they take in life and that legislation is uncalled for.
Education is a better approach. After being made aware of the facts
regarding the benefits of protective equipment adults can decide whether
or not to take advantage of the equipment. There can be financial
incentives to encourage the use of protective equipment and of course we
already see that in other areas when it comes to the cost of auto,
health, and life insurance. In countries with national health care it
gets a bit more complicated since these countries have a vested interest
in reducing the rates of head injuries but unless they're also going to
pass laws regulating every personal choice that increases medical costs
then they shouldn't do it for helmets either.

On Jun 17, 10:13*am, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...njures-bicycli...

Oh heck, as long as we're rolling:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-gef...y-helmet-claim

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/17/2013 7:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...clipId=8997933

The most amazing thing to me is that you still have people doing the
"foam hat" schtick, disregarding the fact that it's the foam, that's
designed to absorb impact and be destroyed in the process, that's the
key component in helmets.

BTW, the story didn't say if the cyclist had lights, just that he was
wearing reflective material. One thing I notice at night is that a lot
of cyclists tend to have very crappy rear LED flashers that don't have
much range in terms of visibility.

On 6/17/2013 2:24 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/17/2013 7:13 AM, Jay Beattie wrote:

Ooooh, you're going to hate this helmet-saved-life story from
yesterday's news:
http://www.kptv.com/story/22603582/h...clipId=8997933


The most amazing thing to me is that you still have people doing the
"foam hat" schtick, disregarding the fact that it's the foam, that's
designed to absorb impact and be destroyed in the process, that's the
key component in helmets.


Not that amazing considering the people.

BTW, the story didn't say if the cyclist had lights, just that he was
wearing reflective material. One thing I notice at night is that a lot
of cyclists tend to have very crappy rear LED flashers that don't have
much range in terms of visibility.


You may be right but it seems to me that a car with its headlights on
should be able to see a cyclist with reflective gear before they hit
them from behind. Maybe the driver was drunk, texting or doing
something else illegal and that's why they fled the scene.