A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old February 19th 19, 04:42 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

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...


--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #112  
Old February 19th 19, 04:56 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On 2/18/2019 9:08 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?


Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective.
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.


Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any standard.


But apparently, that's not true for the populations that suffer the
greatest number of scalp lacerations or other similar injuries,
including real traumatic brain injury. Right?

I mean, if they worked for the groups that get the majority of those
injuries, they'd be promoted for those groups. You know - motorists,
pedestrians, people walking around their own homes...

We were on a five mile hike in the woods yesterday with other members of
our bike club. Parts of the trails were treacherously icy, including
trails next to steep drop-offs 50 feet high or more. Nobody wore helmets
- go figure.

One woman did fall at one point. She tripped on a branch and went down
like a ton of bricks. As I helped her up, I quietly said "Tsk - no
helmet!" One club member heard it and started to chuckle, then stopped
herself. You're not supposed to joke about helmets!

--
- Frank Krygowski
  #113  
Old February 19th 19, 06:10 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:33:41 AM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote to Tom:
How effective do you think bike helmets are at preventing fatalities?


At
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.bicycles.tech/new$20york$20jute|sort:date/rec.bicycles.tech/ow2rIVqZ_DU/pdrY0lrdze8J
a study is discussed which concludes that helmet-wear in the US might save between 70 and 400 lives every year (of the 716 fatalities in 2008, between ten percent and more than half the cyclists dead on the roads).

Andre Jute
Always happy to help
  #114  
Old February 19th 19, 08:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:06:31 -0800, "Mark J."
wrote:

On 2/18/2019 3:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 2:23:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:46:45 PM UTC, AMuzi wrote:
On 2/18/2019 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
Why allow bikes on roads in the first place? They're dangerous!

Why allow people to ride on devices with top speeds in excess of 70mph with no license, no training and no supervision!

Bicycles should have airbags, collision avoidance systems, back-up cameras and ABS! They should be subject to rigorous regulation with mandatory licensing, registration and driver-training -- and mandatory insurance. With high limits! Bicycles are a terror! https://www.theguardian.com/environm...d-in-the-press

To quote Punch Magazine:

"Every cyclist to be presumed in all legal proceedings to be a reckless idiot, and on the wrong side of the road, unless he can bring conclusive evidence to the contrary.

and

Nobody to cycle without a license, issued by the Governor of Newgate, after a fortnight’s strict examination (on bread and water) in elementary mechanics, advanced hydrostatics and riding on the head down an inclined plane.

and

When a cyclist on any road sees, or has reason to believe that he might see if he chose to look, any horse, cart, carriage, gig or other vehicle, or any pedestrian approaching, he (or she) to instantly dismount, run the machine into the nearest ditch, and kneel in a humble and supplicating attitude till said horse, cart &c., has got at least a mile away."


Your bike privilege is showing. You've got some bike-splaining to do!

-- Jay Beattie.


*ahem* the Paved Roads movement was instigated by CTC
(England) and LAW (USA), so who's the interloper on whose
roads again?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Chalo once made the killer point that cyclists are the predominant form of transport on the roads because the cyclist does not need the permission of an official license for either himself or his bike, whereas a motorist needs a license both for himself and for his car. That is possibly a reflection of who was originally behind the paved roads.

Andre Jute
A little history will usually supply the answer


The ancient Mesopotamians? Which paved roads? The early Good Roads movement in the US was animated by bicyclists, but the real road building was for cars -- funded by license and registration fees and then gas taxes. We bicyclists love to take credit for paved roads, but that's basically wishful thinking. For a history of the Oregon Movement: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads, nor is it in the Bible or based on the "rights of man" or "natural rights" (whatever those might be). A local legislature could just say "No bikes . . . too annoying. Thank you. Come again." Check your bike privilege.


The reference looks very interesting (history of Oregon Good Roads
movement). But as to rights to the road, I thought I had read on RBT
some years back about there being some basis in English common law.

A quick google found this:
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...04/jones07.htm

I'll admit I didn't read carefully enough to see what main point it was
discussing, it may be something about easements, but in it I found:

"In Rankine, The Law of Land, Ownership in Scotland, 4th ed. (1909), p.
325 it is stated that the definition of a highway in English law as "a
right of passage in general to all the King's subjects" applies also to
Scotland."

Now, granted, this is to /people/, not modes of conveyance, but it may
be the background that is implicit for us (but you're the lawyer).

Mark J.


I'm not a lawyer but from my reading of several state's laws it
appears that the basis is that a bicycle is classified as a vehicle
and vehicles have the right to use most roads although that right may
be subject to a number of circumstances. For example, a farm wagon is
a vehicle but that doesn't mean you can drive it down a major city
street, at high noon, or as is quite often found I believe, neither
can you ride your bicycle on many limited access, high speed,
highways.

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #115  
Old February 19th 19, 08:08 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:08:44 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:01:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:32:46 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:41:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:49:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2019 8:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I didn't see a ton of bicycle accidents as an ambulance driver...

Which is my point! Could you take a guess at the percentage of serious
head & brain injuries you saw that were bicyclists?

Well, there weren't a lot of cyclists back then, and undoubtedly not many who required ambulance transportation from an accident...

Nonetheless, it's been very consistent for decades that
of the nation's serious TBI, less than 2% are bicyclists.
The other 98% are not told they should have worn helmets.
And I know, from asking audiences of talks I've given
to various audiences, that it's common for people to
believe that 30% of America's TBI fatalities are
bicyclists. Now how do you suppose that idea popped up?
Hint: It was NOT spontaneous.

But a bunch of studies have said
that's true of bicycling.

That means that dissuading people from riding bikes (by helmet mandates
or scary helmet promotion) probably causes net detriment to public health.

I don't see any helmet promotion, but I do see a lot of people in helmets. I'll quiz the bazillion helmeted cyclists I see every day and see why they wear helmets.

You don't see any helmet promotion?

OK, I'll grant you that it's a bit less than it has been,
partly because people have spent years pointing out
the lies helmet promoters used. Some people did listen,
for example the bike club that sued to get NHTSA to
stop using T&R's obviously false "85%" claim.

But I think the main reason there's _less_ (but
definitely not NO) helmet promotion is that "big helmet"
as you call it is satisfied. They've got helmets
installed as the default choice among people who think
they're being responsible. They've got cyclists mocking
others who ride without helmets. They've got every
day care in America forbidding kids to use any wheeled
toy without a helmet, even though most are fitted
terribly and totally unnecessary.

That did NOT happen without decades of dedicated,
persistent and dishonest helmet promotion. It's
incredibly naive to think otherwise.

I wear a helmet because I whacked my head a bunch of times, had my face stitched up twice and believe there is value in wearing a helmet. And yes, de-gloving scalp injuries can be painful and nasty to repair. It is trauma worth avoiding. I wear a helmet voluntarily, so If I were compelled to wear a helmet, I wouldn't stay off my bike. I rode my bike with my legs in ortho boots, with a shoulder sling, broken and plated hand -- and currently with massively arthritic knees. Out of my cold dead hands! I don't understand people who refuse to ride with a helmet. I get the whole "Don't Tread on [my Head]" thing, but I couldn't imagine not riding even if someone made me wear an orange vest.

Do you not understand that you're the tail of the bell
curve? You'd probably ride a bike if they passed a law
requiring you bungee twenty pounds of concrete blocks
onto a rear rack. But it's pretty well proven that
many, many people feel differently. And even if they
did not, what is the sense of imposing a law that
mandates a commercial product of very questionable
efficacy, to prevent a problem of tiny proportions,
when other activities demonstrate far greater risk?
It's absolute nonsense.

Really, it doesn't matter to you primarily because
you've bought into the nonsense. It wouldn't bother you
if they said you have to wear a helmet because you
believe a helmet is wonderfully valuable. Maybe for you
it is, but others who don't have your crash history
shouldn't be harangued, and shouldn't have to justify
their choice to ride as everyone rode before 1980 or so.

- Frank Krygowski

In the spirit of honest advertising I wonder whether a little decal
shouldn't be placed on each helmet sold stating something like, "This
Helmet was tested at an equivalent speed of 14mph (22.5kph) and speeds
exceeding this figure may prove dangerous.

After the public is entitled to know the limitations of the safety
gear that they are being sold :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

That is a totally incorrect depiction of a helmet. They are designed to withstand a fall of 6' with ONLY the weight of your head on the helmet upon impact. And the design is to protect you from a skull fracture alone. They CANNOT protect you from concussion.

Most serious falls have much more mass behind the helmet than just your head. And the most serious injuries are from concussion since this usually leads to damage of the prefrontal lobe cortex - the part of your brain with which you think.

But since you instinctively have a desire for self preservation you seldom are in such a position to cause such injuries.

And helmets do a reasonable job of protecting you from minor injuries.

But, as Frank has pointed out, bicycle head injuries are far
outnumbered by head injuries among motor vehicle operators and even
those who walk.

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?


Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective.
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.


Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the

Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex
laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a
helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical
standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any
standard.

-- Jay Beattie.



But riding in a "sensible manner" and not attempting to run over your
own son can, frequently, prevent injuries :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #116  
Old February 19th 19, 08:20 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:35:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 5:56:42 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:48:50 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 6:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:


We also have no constitutional right to ride on the roads...

Other lawyers have disagreed, of course. But then, that's why there are
multitudes of lawyers.


And multitudes of vehicle rules and regulations, so if there is a right to use the roads rather than a privilege, it is certainly subject to extensive regulation. And that regulation can be a MHL -- or a bicycle license, registration, etc., etc. I'm proposing a local ordinance requiring all bicyclists to have operating calliopes to alert others to their presence. There is a bagpipe alternative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGGO035dolE

-- Jay Beattie.

-- Jay Beattie.


The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen "cannot be deprived" without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125



Err... Tommy, that judgment was specifically concerning the right of
the Secretary of State to issue or not issue a passport and even more
specifically to the Secretary of State denying passports to
petitioners because of their alleged Communistic beliefs and
associations and their refusal to file affidavits concerning present
or past membership in the Communist Party.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with traveling on the nation's roads.

Your continuing failure to understand common English words is
frightening.






As I said, you cannot stop a pedestrian from using any public road though they do limit them for purposes of safety that is NOT enough to prevent public use of the roads. Absolute right to use public roads by a bicyclist without limitations has passed into common law. Do you remember when they tried to license bicycles? That was an utter failure though I cannot remember the circumstances around it. I think that it was because almost everyone ignored such stupid laws and the 5th Amendment would have made it far too costly to uphold and would not hold up under Supreme Court scrutiny.

Motor vehicles and commercial vehicles CAN be licensed and drivers can be licensed on the grounds that it supports public safety though today's government considers regulation of it's citizens a God Given Right.

One more conservative justice on the Supreme Court and the saying that a judge is a lawyer with a better suit will finally be reduced.


--
Cheers,
John B.


  #117  
Old February 19th 19, 08:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B. Slocomb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:42:16 -0500, 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...


The thing I wonder about is, if as Tom says bicycles are several times
faster then they were, oh say, ten years ago, then what are we doing
with a helmet standard codified more then 20 year ago?

--
Cheers,
John B.


  #119  
Old February 19th 19, 04:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM,
wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM,
wrote:

Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road?

You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data.

Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much.

Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike
racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the
popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no
evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the
right direction.

Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically
effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped
out by a few miles per hour more speed?

That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you
compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said
helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance
of you actually giving data.)

Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the
effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities.

Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds.

Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds.

Is your Alzheimer's acting up today?

Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in
your response to John.

Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's
scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response:

As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists
have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to
the law's enactment.

--
Cheers,
John B.

To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with
helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc.

You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that
the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor
speed increases were the cause.

Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness
of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will
clear up the confusion.


Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths?


What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect
into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else.

Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think
bike helmets are at preventing fatalities?


--
- Frank Krygowski


I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities?

And exactly why would you ask me how many lives I thought were saved by helmets when I'm the one that wrote the paper that said that they had no statistical effect?

What have you ever done besides sign on to several forums and whine about helmets with no information that you didn't get from me?

I would suggest you grow up but it is pretty plain that you're going through your second childhood.

If you have any wits to knit it might occur to you that the paper I wrote also showed that there were no secondary effects from wearing helmets so the only possible reason that more racers would die after the imposition of helmets were because they were going faster. It doesn't take any brains to actually look it up and discover that the increase in deaths in the professional peleton started in 2010 which was also when highly aero bikes and much higher speeds in the peleton appeared.

So explain all this to us Frank - if you believe that helmets are what is causing increased deaths in the peleton why did the huge jump in deaths not start until 2010? While helmets were not made mandatory until 2010 the entire peleton was wearing them from about 1985 on because the helmet companies sponsored most of the teams - and ALL of the teams in the Grand Tours.

  #120  
Old February 19th 19, 04:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,261
Default Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

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. It was designed and advertised as stopping neck injuries and that is what the "improvement" was for.

Helmet makers do not DARE to even mention concussions because that would make them liable.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. James[_8_] Techniques 2 November 6th 14 12:57 PM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Social Issues 310 June 23rd 05 07:56 AM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] Racing 17 April 27th 05 04:34 PM
Helmet propaganda debunked [email protected] UK 14 April 26th 05 10:54 AM
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. caracol40 General 0 December 21st 04 12:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.