Sportsman saved by helmet. Makes you wonder how light a cycle helmetcould be and still work right.

On 7/21/2014 1:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:


1. I've spoken to you before about making cycling sound more dangerous
than it really is, Frank, and frightening off would-be cyclists. Here
you go again,
scaremongering. "Bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury
fatalities"

If a number like 0.6% scares you, you're timid indeed.

-- on what basis? Miles covered?

I'm used to questions on mathematics, but not on concepts that are
_that_ simple. Data for 2011 shows there were slightly more than 54,000
traumatic brain injury fatalities in the U.S. 325 of them were
bicyclists. That means bicyclists were only 0.6% of TBI fatalities.
The risk of TBI fatality (or even serious but non-fatal TBI) while
riding a bike is extremely low, despite your efforts to exaggerate it.

And I'll note, once again, that on a per-mile basis, the fatality risk
of cycling is less than that of walking.

2. Everyone interested knows that your "only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury
fatalities" make up 700 cyclists dead a year in the US...

Sorry, wrong again. 700 cyclists refers to the _total_ annual U.S. bike
deaths, not the number killed due to TBI. And 700 is a very small
number compared to most causes of death.

Even the frequent claim that 75% of bike fatalities "involve a head
injury" can be true only if a person with a crushed torso plus a scratch
on the head is included in the count.

Only about 45% of fatally injured U.S. cyclists have died of TBI.
Victor G. Coronado et. al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury
Related Deaths, United States, 1997 2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6,
2011 / 60(SS05); 1 32

In short, no helmet can prevent 700 annual U.S. bike deaths.

3. We all know current helmets can be improved. Therefore some cyclists die
because current helmets are ****.

Fantasizing about a magic helmet is foolish. If you really want to
reduce cyclist fatalities, helmet improvement may be the _least_
effective way. Why not give the same attention to tactics that prevent
crashes in the first place? How about enforcing cyclists' rights to the
road? How about education to reduce drunken cycling (since well over
1/4 of fatally injured cyclists are drunk)? How about laws to ensure
safe passing, and to discourage hit-and-runs (a shocking percentage of
cycling fatalities)? How about ensuring that someone who seriously
injures another by motoring will never drive again?


4. Now we have two causes of cyclists dying unnecessarily:
not wearing a helmet, and wearing a poor quality helmet.

Bull****. See above.

5. You don't want people to wear helmets,

Wear whatever you want. But when proselytizing about your choice of
hat, at least _try_ to stay away from fantasy and propaganda.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 22/07/14 01:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,
motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be
sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all
the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective
helmet, cyclists do not.

Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because
most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of
the (tiny) risk is correct.

A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For
example:

* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them
if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts
cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do
need a helmet. But any helmet will do.

Not quite. For us, the helmet must also have an Australian Standards
Approval sticker inside. Police can check for one, and if you ever get
involved in a crash with a motor vehicle, even if you don't damage your
helmet or head, you may not be properly covered by insurance.

We pay extra for our foam, to pay for a sample test of every imported
batch of helmets.

If we buy from overseas on the internet, our heads are not protected
well enough for the insurance companies...

I kid you not.

--
JS

On 7/21/2014 1:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear helmets...

I don't doubt that they do. I merely stated some of the reasons they do
- a non-exhaustive list. You haven't rebutted any of the reasons.

BTW, around here it's roughly 35%. PDX is unusual in many ways.

with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close attention to the TdF,
and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of riders dress up like
racers
because they are racers, albeit in local clubs and not European trade
teams.
If you were so inclined, you could race 7 days a week around here.

That's fine. But are you saying that PDX racers dress very differently
than Tour or other pro racers? I'd be shocked. My suspicion is that
roughly 95% of PDX racers have billboard-style jerseys touting teams or
products, as if they were sponsored; and wildly multi-colored shoes; and
aerodynamic sunglasses; and helmets that look like products of a
beginner's sculpture class serving free LSD. None of that is
functional; all of it is hero emulation and fashion.

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven-- except, perhaps,
for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers
seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers.
They wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to
great length to be, well, hip.

Interesting that you refer to the retro cap - I assume you mean cycling
cap? - as a fashion item. For some, it may be. But for many decades,
cyclists found it very valuable to have something that soaked up sweat
(far better than headbands or helmet sponges), didn't blow off one's
head in a fast descent, and had a brim that could flip up for riding
drops, down for sun or headlight glare.

Regarding fedoras, porkpies, beanies, John Deere caps and all the rest -
people have a deep desire to wear special hats. Fashion is powerful.
But I think cyclists are one of the very few groups to don astonishingly
ugly headgear as fashion, then try to defend it based on practicality.
I'm speaking of headgear so ugly nobody else on earth chooses to wear it
for any other purpose except "safety" during this supposedly "dangerous"
activity.

When a dude in a garish bike helmet plus street clothes appears on the
cover of GQ, I'll consider myself proven wrong.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience,
they have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling,
and they see helmets as a way of reducing that risk.

Of course they do! They've been subjected to unending propaganda for
over 25 years now! There's an entire generation that doesn't understand
that Americans used to ride in ordinary hats, and that bike fatalities
were still rare!

Perhaps they over-estimate the risk (particularly the head injury
risk capable of reduction through helmet use),

No kidding!

but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet,

Rather, they've been convinced it's absolutely necessary, no matter how
much they mind it. If they really liked the way they felt, they'd leave
them on, not whip them off as soon as they park.

and if it makes them feel better, so be it.

It makes them feel better because of the propaganda, Jay.

Every time a well-meaning legislator floats a mandatory helmet law, it
gets turned-back.

You mean, in your area, for adults. You already have one for kids.

Fortunately, the trend toward MHLs has largely abated. But new ones
still pop up from time to time. And there is a cadre of do-gooders who
cheer every one.

So the fear of Big Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

As I've said, Big Helmet has won. How else would you characterize 80%
of PDX cyclists spending money on something so useless? How else would
you explain the ever-present advice that one must wear that thing every
time one rides a bicycle?

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary terrain
features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.

Yes, I've done quite a lot of it, back in the day. Yes, I fell many,
many times - I figured it was part of the game. I'm older and more
fragile now, and I avoid some of those risks.

But in all my mountain biking falls, I never hit my head nor my helmet.

Still, you need to re-read what I wrote. Nowhere am I implying that a
helmet isn't wise if someone's going to do tricky stuff on a mountain
bike. In fact, I think that's one of the very few situations where one
is fairly likely to hit one's head with an impact these fragile helmets
can actually deal with.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 7/21/2014 6:19 PM, James wrote:
On 22/07/14 01:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:


My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,
motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be
sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all
the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective
helmet, cyclists do not.

Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because
most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of
the (tiny) risk is correct.

A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For
example:

* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them
if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts
cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do
need a helmet. But any helmet will do.

Not quite. For us, the helmet must also have an Australian Standards
Approval sticker inside. Police can check for one, and if you ever get
involved in a crash with a motor vehicle, even if you don't damage your
helmet or head, you may not be properly covered by insurance.

We pay extra for our foam, to pay for a sample test of every imported
batch of helmets.

If we buy from overseas on the internet, our heads are not protected
well enough for the insurance companies...

I kid you not.

OK, I didn't know that. My "Any helmet will do" was based on the
assumption that (as here) people will note "he wore a helmet" and look
no further.

It's easy here to find motorcyclists wearing quasi-helmets that are very
unlikely to pass any standard. (As well as motorcyclists wearing no
helmet at all, of course.) Cops never, ever stop them to check.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:39 PM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear
helmets, with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close
attention to the TdF, and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of
riders dress up like racers because they are racers, albeit in local
clubs and not European trade teams. If you were so inclined, you could
race 7 days a week around here. http://obra.org/ Helmets are mandatory
for racing, and I assume some percentage of those riders are simply
accustomed to wearing their helmets.

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven -- except, perhaps,
for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers
seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers. They
wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to great
length to be, well, hip.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience, they
have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling, and they see
helmets as a way of reducing that risk. Perhaps they over-estimate the
risk (particularly the head injury risk capable of reduction through
helmet use), but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet, and if it
makes them feel better, so be it. Every time a well-meaning legislator
floats a mandatory helmet law, it gets turned-back. So the fear of Big
Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary
terrain features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.


+1 but if you didn't copy Frank's point by point delineation of how
ignorant people are when they disagree with him on each point I wouldn't
have to see it.

Although the bike helmet as a fashion statement bit was a real hoot.



Fashion is a cruel mistress:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...o3_r1_1280.jpg


Lol
--
duane

You really are a thick-skinned peasant, Frank Krygowski. But let's test your delusion that you're a polemicist and, even more ludicrously, that you understand statistics. As for your further delusion, that someone as callous as you about the lives of cyclists can be "a bicycle spokesmen", the bicycles will revolt, man.

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:51:49 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:29 PM, Andre Jute wrote:





1. I've spoken to you before about making cycling sound more dangerous

than it really is, Frank, and frightening off would-be cyclists. Here

you go again,

scaremongering. "Bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury

fatalities"



If a number like 0.6% scares you, you're timid indeed.


Nope. What _disturbs_ me is that 0.06% of 54,000 head-injury fatalities is 325 cyclists, some of whom have died unnecessarily because of your attitude.. What disturbs me is that a loudmouth like you cannot grasp that cycling is far, far less than 0.06% of all activities that endanger one's head fatally -- and is therefore relatively more dangerous than at least some activities, almost all of which require protective clothing.

-- on what basis? Miles covered?

I'm used to questions on mathematics, but not on concepts that are

_that_ simple. Data for 2011 shows there were slightly more than 54,000

traumatic brain injury fatalities in the U.S. 325 of them were

bicyclists. That means bicyclists were only 0.6% of TBI fatalities.

The risk of TBI fatality (or even serious but non-fatal TBI) while

riding a bike is extremely low, despite your efforts to exaggerate it.

Once more I ask you, Frank Kyrgowski: How many unnecessary cyclist deaths must there be before you **** off and let us consider without your obstruction what can be done about it?

And I'll note, once again, that on a per-mile basis, the fatality risk

of cycling is less than that of walking.

Don't give me that per mile crap: I showed you how to do those stats right because I felt sorry for your stumbling efforts, which made cycling seem _more_ dangerous than it actually is. Cycling is between 3 and 11 times as dangerous as motoring -- you don't need stats to grasp the truth of those numbers, you just need to cycle the roads. To make cycling seem safe, you have to do contortions with cost-benefit analysis on very dicey, unproven sociological grounds. Those flew out of the window, sonny, once the New York compilation proved that helmets save the lives of cyclists.

2. Everyone interested knows that your "only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury

fatalities" make up 700 cyclists dead a year in the US...

Sorry, wrong again. 700 cyclists refers to the _total_ annual U.S. bike

deaths, not the number killed due to TBI. And 700 is a very small

number compared to most causes of death.

I don't see that 700 dead cyclists is a small number. What I see is that some, perhaps many, of them are dead unnecessarily because of the attitude of people like, Frank Krygowski. The New York study proved that wearing a helmet could save some of them. It isn't rocket science to conclude that a better helmet could save more. But grim ideologues like you try to stop us even discussing these possibilities.

Even the frequent claim that 75% of bike fatalities "involve a head

injury" can be true only if a person with a crushed torso plus a scratch

on the head is included in the count.

Take that up with the people who made the claim. I haven't run into them, and when I do I'll straighten them out the same way I straighten out other idiots, like you.

Only about 45% of fatally injured U.S. cyclists have died of TBI.

Victor G. Coronado et. al., "Surveillance for Traumatic Brain Injury
Related Deaths, United States, 1997 2007" Surveillance Summaries May 6,
2011 / 60(SS05); 1 32

Jesus save me from morons who think statistics is a mathematical formulation. Doesn't it strike you, dumbo, that nearly half of cycling fatalities dying from head injuries, rather than say crushed ribcages, indicates something wrong or absent in protection for their heads? Where were you educated, Krygowski, some night school that punched your ticket just to get you out of the door?

You're actually, step by step, making my case for me, Franki-boy.

In short, no helmet can prevent 700 annual U.S. bike deaths.

See above. Speak to the people who made that ridiculous claim, not to me.

3. We all know current helmets can be improved. Therefore some cyclists die

because current helmets are ****.

Fantasizing about a magic helmet is foolish.

The people who gave you an engineering degree and the people who let you loose on unformed minds as a teacher were criminally negligent. You're an idiot. Further up this thread stands several strategies for making a better helmet, all well within the bounds of physics and current manufacturing capability, with prototypes -- often built by the students of more inspirational teachers -- operating in many parts of the world. But Frank Krygowski, to protect his "right" to decide that 325 cyclists dead of head injuries aren't enough to do something about, or even to discuss, sneers about "a magic helmet". Who the **** told you you could be a politician, Franki-boy? Your momma?

If you really want to

reduce cyclist fatalities, helmet improvement may be the _least_

effective way.

That's all right, Krygo. We don't mind marginal improvements when they are counted as the lives of whole cyclists who don't die unnecessarily for the gratification of ideologues like you. What we object to is your do-nothing attitude because you _know_ nothing will work, and your obstruction of everyone else's efforts, and even of our right to speak and think on the subject.

Why not give the same attention to tactics that prevent

crashes in the first place?

Holy ****, now I've heard everything. This dumb ****** Krygowski, who cannot even persuade his own natural allies that the sun shines right outside an uncurtained window at twelve noon on a bright summer's day, tries to instruct me about tactics.

How about enforcing cyclists' rights to the

road?

You do that, Franki-boy. I see no reason the two strands, enforcing cyclists' rights (which I normally do with the 300mm version of the Abus Granit-X U-lock, a right useful knuckleduster) and a better lid shouldn't proceed side by side. And it'll keep you busy and out of everybody else's hair.

How about education to reduce drunken cycling (since well over

1/4 of fatally injured cyclists are drunk)?

You do that too, Franki-boy. I don't go into bars to harangue strangers but if you do that you might learn something useful.

How about laws to ensure

safe passing, and to discourage hit-and-runs (a shocking percentage of

cycling fatalities)? How about ensuring that someone who seriously

injures another by motoring will never drive again?


Good ideas, those, Franki-boy, but how do they justify your continuous obstruction of our discussions? To me, in these circumstances, you just look like a little boy screeching "my way way or no way".

4. Now we have two causes of cyclists dying unnecessarily:

not wearing a helmet, and wearing a poor quality helmet.

Bull****. See above.

The New York compilation of serious cycling injuries proved conclusively that not wearing a helmet drastically increases a cyclist's probability of dying in a cycling accident (here's an opening for you to make another of your laughable semantic attacks, Franki-boy -- note the contempt with which I don't bother to rewrite the sentence to obviate the likelihood of you once more making a public ass of yourself). You yourself provided the fact that almost half of cyclist fatalities in the US are from head injuries, clearly too high a number. We all agree that current helmets are not very effective. So it makes sense to consider whether people should be advised to wear helmets, or forced to wear them, and whether cyclists should spend energy, time and money to obtain better helmets. Where's the bull**** in that logic, Franki-boy?

5. You don't want people to wear helmets,

Wear whatever you want.

Oh, I don't need your permission, Krygowski. But I'd like to wear a cycling helmet that does a bit more than protect my head from road rash. Do you think you could just for a minutes shut the **** up in my thread so we can at least discuss it?

But when proselytizing about your choice of
hat, at least _try_ to stay away from fantasy and propaganda.

You hurt my feelings, Franki-boy. And after I showed you how to use the government's own figures in the furtherance of your fantasy and propaganda. Besides being crude and callous, you're an ingrate.

- Frank Krygowski

Just in case you haven't got it yet, Krygowski, you have nothing to contribute here except a sewer-full of negativity. Bugger off until you have something useful to say.

Andre Jute

On Monday, July 21, 2014 3:35:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 6:19 PM, James wrote:

On 22/07/14 01:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



Not quite. For us, the helmet must also have an Australian Standards

Approval sticker inside. Police can check for one, and if you ever get

involved in a crash with a motor vehicle, even if you don't damage your

helmet or head, you may not be properly covered by insurance.



We pay extra for our foam, to pay for a sample test of every imported

batch of helmets.



If we buy from overseas on the internet, our heads are not protected

well enough for the insurance companies...



I kid you not.



OK, I didn't know that. My "Any helmet will do" was based on the

assumption that (as here) people will note "he wore a helmet" and look

no further.

And except for the fact that you can't sell a bicycle helmet in the US unless it meets CPSC standards.

As an aside, I was at a product inspection yesterday with my expert engineer and plaintiff's attorney. All of us were current or former racers. We were looking at the plaintiff's crushed helmet, and we all had stories of ruining helmets and head injuries. Plaintiff's attorney just bought MIPS ski helmets for his kids: http://www.pocsports.com/en/content/...w-technologies The expert was recovering from a concussion, collapsed lung, many broken ribs, clavicle fracture, all from a non-vehicle related crash. He did the OTB, pile-driver, head and shoulder in to the concrete thing. Yes, he is convinced his helmet saved him from more serious head injury. Being that he is an engineer, he has to be correct.

So, as I was writing this post, one of the secretaries tells me that one of my work-mates and bicycling cohort crashed descending in the parking garage -- maybe a 20 percent down slope with a steel drain grate half-way down. It rained today for the first time in a month (maybe), and it's slicker than sh** out there. He slipped on the drain grate and somehow went OTB, whacked his head, broke his helmet. He's going home for the day. I tried to convince him that he did not crash; that bicycling is absolutely safe; that his helmet did not help him in any way and that he was not hurt. It didn't work.

This all by way of saying, YMMV.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 7/22/2014 12:03 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 3:35:07 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 6:19 PM, James wrote:

On 22/07/14 01:54, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



Not quite. For us, the helmet must also have an Australian Standards

Approval sticker inside. Police can check for one, and if you ever get

involved in a crash with a motor vehicle, even if you don't damage your

helmet or head, you may not be properly covered by insurance.



We pay extra for our foam, to pay for a sample test of every imported

batch of helmets.



If we buy from overseas on the internet, our heads are not protected

well enough for the insurance companies...



I kid you not.



OK, I didn't know that. My "Any helmet will do" was based on the

assumption that (as here) people will note "he wore a helmet" and look

no further.

And except for the fact that you can't sell a bicycle helmet in the US unless it meets CPSC standards.

As an aside, I was at a product inspection yesterday with my expert engineer and plaintiff's attorney. All of us were current or former racers. We were looking at the plaintiff's crushed helmet, and we all had stories of ruining helmets and head injuries. Plaintiff's attorney just bought MIPS ski helmets for his kids: http://www.pocsports.com/en/content/...w-technologies The expert was recovering from a concussion, collapsed lung, many broken ribs, clavicle fracture, all from a non-vehicle related crash. He did the OTB, pile-driver, head and shoulder in to the concrete thing. Yes, he is convinced his helmet saved him from more serious head injury. Being that he is an engineer, he has to be correct.

So, as I was writing this post, one of the secretaries tells me that one of my work-mates and bicycling cohort crashed descending in the parking garage -- maybe a 20 percent down slope with a steel drain grate half-way down. It rained today for the first time in a month (maybe), and it's slicker than sh** out there. He slipped on the drain grate and somehow went OTB, whacked his head, broke his helmet. He's going home for the day. I tried to convince him that he did not crash; that bicycling is absolutely safe; that his helmet did not help him in any way and that he was not hurt. It didn't work.

This all by way of saying, YMMV.





Woman riding with us Sunday hit one of the stupid poles that mark bike
lanes. On this lane (about 5km long) they removed all but one. She
must have sided to the left a bit and it clipped her bar. Went down
sideways and landed on her back. You could hear her head smack the
tarmac for blocks. I didn't tell her that she wouldn't have hit her
head if it wasn't for the helmet. And no one remarked on whether Frank
somebody or other on some newsgroup somewhere would have been displeased
when she said that she was glad the helmet was cracked and not her head.
YMM indeed V.

Duane writes:

Woman riding with us Sunday hit one of the stupid poles that mark bike
lanes. On this lane (about 5km long) they removed all but one. She
must have sided to the left a bit and it clipped her bar. Went down
sideways and landed on her back. You could hear her head smack the
tarmac for blocks. I didn't tell her that she wouldn't have hit her
head if it wasn't for the helmet. And no one remarked on whether
Frank somebody or other on some newsgroup somewhere would have been
displeased when she said that she was glad the helmet was cracked and
not her head. YMM indeed V.

A cracked helmet isn't indicative of much; helmets crack fairly easily
and don't dissipate significant energy doing so. The energy dissipation
comes from crushing. How detectable is a crushed liner following an
impact? Has anyone seen the before/after of a helmet test?

--
Joe Riel

On 7/22/2014 2:22 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
Duane writes:

Woman riding with us Sunday hit one of the stupid poles that mark bike
lanes. On this lane (about 5km long) they removed all but one. She
must have sided to the left a bit and it clipped her bar. Went down
sideways and landed on her back. You could hear her head smack the
tarmac for blocks. I didn't tell her that she wouldn't have hit her
head if it wasn't for the helmet. And no one remarked on whether
Frank somebody or other on some newsgroup somewhere would have been
displeased when she said that she was glad the helmet was cracked and
not her head. YMM indeed V.

A cracked helmet isn't indicative of much; helmets crack fairly easily
and don't dissipate significant energy doing so. The energy dissipation
comes from crushing. How detectable is a crushed liner following an
impact? Has anyone seen the before/after of a helmet test?


Not sure how easily is fairly easily. I've had falls when the helmet
broke and falls when it didn't. I think it takes a pretty good beating.

Anyway, she went down pretty hard and there was no blood. And she
didn't have any bumps or scrapes on the back of her head.

Like I said, YMMV.