Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²

Nate Nagel wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel wrote:


I found this:

http://www.smf.org/

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90...90C_B-95C.html

which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
certified. Interesting reading.

I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
well work if required.



Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
with Snell's only marginally less weak.

Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
companies fear of selling an illegal product.

Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.

It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.

Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
bump protection is not needed.

Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
exists for the science, not to make money. Visit
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.

- Frank Krygowski


HA!

you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.

Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
within reason, isn't ludicrous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
a helmet are not a bad idea.

Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
pleasant than it needs to be.

nate


Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.

That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
vehicle.

See the compendium of studies at
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html"

| Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
| old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
| with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
| data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
| cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
| you can ride home from.
|
| That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
| claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
| vehicle.

Helmet makers will *never* make that claim, even if they thought it to be
true. For that matter, helmet makers don't really make safety-related claims
at all, if you read their literature. They're scared to death of lawsuits.
The easiest way to attract lawsuits is to try and make something that will
make someone safer. You have to market it based on style and inference, but
cannot make any claim past passing xzy standard, because to do so will most
certainly put you in court when someone's killed or injured, regardless of
whether the impact was clearly beyond the design of the helmet.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On May 18, 2:00 pm, SMS wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.

That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
vehicle.

No, of course not. They let other people make those claims for them.


See the compendium of studies at
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe..."

IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.

I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027

- Frank Krygowski

| IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
| generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
| that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
|
| I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
| tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
|
| - Frank Krygowski

Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-

"Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
anyway."

Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
support such claims. There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
trouble themselves with doing the research. In the prior paragraph, they
explain that a helmet destroys itself in 1/1000th of a second (without a
citation) and that "the absorption of initial forces during this very short
period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the
likelihood of serious injury or death."

"*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.

I am strongly against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, because I think
they severely discourage cycling, and the benefits outweigh the risks. But
that's different from being anti-helmet.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
| On May 18, 2:00 pm, SMS wrote:
| Nate Nagel wrote:
| Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
| old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
| with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly
anecdotal)
| data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
| cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
| you can ride home from.
|
| That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
| claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
| vehicle.
|
| No, of course not. They let other people make those claims for them.
|
|
| See the compendium of studies at
|
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe..."
|
| IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
| generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
| that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
|
| I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
| tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
|
| - Frank Krygowski

On May 19, 12:40 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
| IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
| generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
| that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
|
| I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
| tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
|

Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-

"Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
anyway."

Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
support such claims. There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
trouble themselves with doing the research.

Well, there's quite a lot more to doing such research than merely
troubling oneself!
In general, doing research costs money - often, serious money. And
the fact driving the current helmet propaganda is that one can make
money by marketing helmets (using the broadest sense of "marketing");
but one can't make money by showing helmets are not worth buying.

Consequently, Bell Sports can very "charitably" help fund the
Harborview Institute and anyone else who is willing to "prove" that
helmets are both necessary and valuable. They can also "charitably"
help fund Safe Kids, and any other organization willing to lobby for
mandatory helmet laws.

If they were smart, bike manufacturers should be helping fund helmet
skeptic research and groups. But that's not been the case.

In the prior paragraph, they
explain that a helmet destroys itself in 1/1000th of a second (without a
citation) and that "the absorption of initial forces during this very short
period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the
likelihood of serious injury or death."

"*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.

I admit that some of the information on the Cyclehelmets site seems
speculative, and it would be better if such speculation was either
labeled as such, or removed.

But much of the "unlikely" is buttressed by the fact that, despite
Harborview's (nee Thompson & Rivara's) promises, there never has been
an 85% drop in serious head injuries in response to radical increases
in helmet wearing. There never has been a 69% decrease, either. In
fact, the better the data, the more obvious it is that there is no
drop in serious head injuries per remaining rider. I've given copious
citations before, but I can do it again, if needed. Start with the
July 29, 2001 New York Times article, "A Bicycling Mystery." The
"mystery" they speak of is that cycling head injuries have been risen,
not fallen, with the popularity of helmets.

IOW, one can say that the helmets are "unlikely" to make a difference,
largely because they have not made a difference.

Admittedly, some of the details are speculative. For example, it's
not clear which possible causes for failure are most important: risk
compensation (or, more accurately, over compensation)? A larger
"target" leading to more head impacts? Larger diameter target
imparting more angular acceleration? Badly fitted helmets?
Insufficient impact standards and tests? Or other factors?

But what's clear is that helmets are not delivering on their
advocates' promise. It's also clear that the need for helmets is
wildly overstated - or, more properly, manufactured entirely from
propaganda.

Whatever its faults, the Cyclehelmets website is the main source
pointing these things out.

Now, if Trek would just give a million dollars or so to the effort,
I'm sure the failure of helmets could be more perfectly explained.
But I'd prefer to use that million to spread the word that helmets
are, in fact, simply not necessary for normal cycling. In other
words, I'd use it to generate publicity to counter the fear mongering.

- Frank Krygowski

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
| IOW, see the propaganda by the professional helmet promoters who
| generated (and still swear by) the "85%" nonsense. Despite the fact
| that the benefit has never been seen in the real world.
|
| I put more trust in data and analysis by people who have no financial
| tie to the helmet industry. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1027
|
| - Frank Krygowski

Don't put too much faith in the cyclehelmets.org folk. They generate their
own agenda-driven babble, as illustrated below-

Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try to
convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing they
do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
though they take the whole population data out of context as well. Well
maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to know
where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very misleading.

"Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of
the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or
breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from
low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a
helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no
compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury
and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence
anyway."

Near as I can tell, they offer no scientific evidence on their site to
support such claims.

There is no evidence, so how could they offer it. The entire site is
supposition, anecdotes, and out of context claims.

There have certainly been enough helmeted bicycle
incidents to either support or refute such claims, *if* they wanted to
trouble themselves with doing the research.

They have no way of doing any research, nor any intention of doing any.
They threw up a web site to try to justify their own behavior, when in
fact there is no reason to justify it. The probability of an experienced
cyclist being involved in an accident where a helmet would make a
difference is pretty low. They're willing to assume the extra risk as am
I on many occasions. The difference is that I don't run around
desperately making up stories about how smart I am by not wearing a helmet!

I am strongly against mandatory helmet laws, even for kids, because I think
they severely discourage cycling, and the benefits outweigh the risks. But
that's different from being anti-helmet.

I think most of us here fall into that same category. Unfortunately
there area a bunch of AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) that aren't content to
fight MHLs with facts and logic, but that go beyond the reals reasons
that MHLs are a bad idea, and end up actually encouraging MHLs. When
someone brings up driving helmets and walking helmets then it's about
the same as Godwin's law regarding bringing up Hitler and Nazis.

In fact, it's time to formally create a Usenet law for helmet
discussions, so here's the first draft:

"As a Usenet helmet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison with the Netherlands, and the probability that someone will
inquire about why pedestrians and vehicle drivers should not be wearing
helmets, and the claim that helmet usage promote obesity, all approach one."

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.

Yes, they have some writers that have taken the edge off many of the
same anti-helmet arguments that you see endlessly posted on Usenet, and
they are smart enough to not include many of the exceptionally stupid
arguments (gardening helmets, walking helmets, driving helmets, etc.)
that would drive people away, but as you stated, 'sounding reasonable'
doesn't make it good science.

There's enough weasel words on cyclehelmets.org for anyone with any
critical thinking skills at all to realize that they have no idea what
they're talking about, but their target audience isn't those people that
have a scientific background. I liken them to the "Intelligent Design"
people, who try to sound scientific, but have no use for the
uncomfortable facts of science. They have an audience of readers that
_want_ to believe what isn't so, and want reassurance of their faith.

"Sounding reasonable" is a common tactic used by individuals and
organizations that have nothing to support their positions. You could
listen to Mike Huckabee and his minions on conservative talk radio rage
about the "Fair Tax" and think it sounded reasonable if you didn't know
the facts, when in reality there was no economic science behind it. You
could listen to the "Intelligent Design" people and think that their
arguments were reasonable if you didn't know the facts. You could
believe in Reaganomics, even though every economist will tell you that
it's completely bogus, and that it led to huge deficits and merely
postponed the day of reckoning when the spending without revenue party
would be over.

Alas, there are plenty of non-critical thinkers out there that fall for
the "sounds reasonable" ploy. What's even worse (IMVAIO) is those people
that _know_ the facts, but still parrot the false statements of
organizations and web sites such as cyclehelmets.org for their own reasons.

Bill Sornson wrote:

Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing
they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
though they take the whole population data out of context as well.
Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to
know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very
misleading.

Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph is good
to go.

Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.

Bill Sornson wrote:

I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
its faux arguments.

Actually though, maybe I was wrong. Look at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html"

It's a whose who of the people that reject all the scientific evidence
and studies regarding helmets, and who promote an agenda based on
ignorance, fraud, and subjective interpretation. Riley Geary, Avery
Burdett, Guy Chapman, etc., though apparently in a vert wise move by the
board, Frank doesn't contribute to editorial content, but is listed as a
"patron."

I'm glad that I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read their
objective: "to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of
the use of bicycle helmets, in the context of risk compensation and
sustainable transport." My g-d, have you looked at their site? It's a
compendium of unscientific conclusions, misinterpretation, and lack of
scientific basis, all designed to promote their agenda. Come on people,
there are ways to oppose helmet laws without resorting to this sort of
fraud.