Helmet Complience

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

"Kurt Davis" wrote in message
...
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is
allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

It's just got to do with the differences in testing, and who does the
testing. Some countries' standards are more difficult to pass than others,
some allow the manufacturer to certify their own helmets whilst others (like
here) must go through specific labs.
It's prety hard to define 'safe', if you want to see more about helmet
standards around the worls, have a look he
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm The Australian standard appears pretty
tough.
Cheers
Gemma

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:19:15 +1000, Kurt Davis wrote:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Ummm -- no.
The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a bicyclist from the
responsibility of riding safely so as to avoid accidents in the first
place.
I think about here I will stop and try to think a little reasonably and
non-emotively before posting more on this subject.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

"Peter" == Peter Keller writes:

Peter On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:19:15 +1000, Kurt Davis wrote:
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.
--
Cheers
Euan

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:07:14 +1000, euan_b_uk wrote:

"Peter" == Peter Keller writes:

Peter On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:19:15 +1000, Kurt Davis wrote:
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Kurt Davis Wrote:
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that i
allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure i
Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with th
Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from th
manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified
or they don't think it's worth the cost.

Ritc

--
ritcho

ritcho wrote:

Kurt Davis Wrote:
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is
allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if
Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with the
Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from the
manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified,
or they don't think it's worth the cost.

Ritch

--
ritcho

Perhaps they are not allowed on Australian roads because of our "unique
bitumen road surface"
(http://www.forsterhalfironman.com/event-crse.html)

;-)

(Yep, sure to be some people happy/amazed I actually referenced
something, even if it is a dodgy, dodgy quote.)

ritcho Wrote:
Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with th
Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from th
manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified
or they don't think it's worth the cost

RitchLeaving aside the legality issue. There are a number of variables.
Importers make an economic decision whether it is worthwhile/profitabl
to pay for certification. There are differences in certificatio
standards between countries. There are differences between testin
methodologies for those standards. The standards/testing methodologie
attempt to replicate real world helmet stresses/risks/levels o
protection in a consistently reproducable lab setting. The real worl
impact when a rider crashes may or may not be similar to the impac
tests in the lab. Given these variables, it might not be unreasonabl
to trust your cranium to the protection of a helmet that is CPSC (i
US) certified but not Australian Standards certified

Steve
*Bell Phi Pro - CPSC Certified
*Bell Rubicon Pro - Austrlain Standards Certified
*Bell Ghisallo - CPSC Certified on its way from the USA

--
SteveA

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

Peter Keller wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:07:14 +1000, euan_b_uk wrote:


"Peter" == Peter Keller writes:

Peter On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:19:15 +1000, Kurt Davis wrote:
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.


I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

Peter

"Max" wrote in message
u
Peter Keller wrote:

[...]

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?