New Bontager Helmet Material

On 3/25/2019 3:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

But strangely no one seems to be particularly upset about the 37,133
highway deaths (2017) or at least I see nothing in the news that says
so.

You must have missed the mandates for airbags, safety glass, padded
dashboards, collapsible steering columns, back-up cameras, seat belts,
TPMS, etc. None of these will prevent 100% of deaths or injuries. But
each one has some effect, and don't add much cost to a vehicle once in
high volume production.

On 3/25/2019 3:46 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

It should only seem strange to you if you believe that the sole reason
for those deaths is the lack of a helmet.

This is like the people that used to claim that cycling rates declined
when an MHL was introduced, then they backtracked and admitted that
cycling rates went up, but at a slower rate than population growth, and
insisted that the MHL was the reason. Of course cycling rates vary for a
multitude of reasons--weather, economic changes, demographic changes,
and the availability of transit alternatives.

On 3/25/2019 6:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:46:45 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

Another illustration of incomplete numbers telling us nothing.

If they didn't use incomplete data then those opposed to the use of
helmets would have no data to use at all.

We don't even have the gross number of cyclists to come up with an
injury rate. By one local metric, the number of cyclists in Portland
increased almost seven-fold between 1994-2014. I'm not going to bother
looking up the national number.

No, you are required to look up all those numbers and present the
underlying studies.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:51:29 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:46:45 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:16:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 6:34:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that "this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if they provide
proof of a specific amount of coverage of health insurance. The thought
is that the government doesn't want to have to cover the cost of medical
care for indigent people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries without
nationalized health care. Since all the research concludes that bicycle
helmets greatly reduce head injuries in accidents involving head impact...

That's false.

this would be a compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or
perhaps just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to wear a
helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for having certain
kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Would your "discount" on health insurance apply to pedestrians and
motorists who wear helmets, given that pedestrian and motorist head
injuries cost the insurance companies and/or the health care system FAR
more than the tiny number of bike-related injuries?


This is the fundamental weirdness of the helmet mania. It's applied to
bicyclists, who comprise a tiny portion of the brain injury problem.
It's the result of a carefully crafted meme started by Bell Sports and a
few other people. It's accepted by millions of people who haven't the
brains to look for data. SMS is but one example.


There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head strikes.

OK, there is plenty of proof that helmets reduce scratches, abrasions, minor
bumps etc. But helmets are never promoted on that basis. Instead, they are
promoted by 1) implying that riding a bike is very likely to cause serious or
fatal brain injury, and 2) claiming or implying that bike helmets tremendously
reduce the likelihood of such injury. And again, both of those ideas are false.

The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.

Why? Pedestrians suffer far, far more serious or fatal brain injuries than
bicyclists, so their "cost to society" is far more - and "cost to society" (or
as SMS showed, "cost to insurance agencies or national health care systems")
is one of the arguments persistently given for promoting or mandating bike
helmets.

Maybe thirty years ago Bell apparently made a push to promote groups that promoted helmets -- and certainly Trek has a profit motive, but I'm not seeing Big Helmet at work here.

I notice you switched from past tense to present tense. I think if there is
(present tense) no current "Big Helmet" effort to push the helmet meme, it's
only because their (past tense) efforts were so successful. We now have a
society that thinks riding a bike is dangerous in a general sense, and a major
source of serious brain injuries.

There is plenty of good old fashioned scientific research proving from a biomechanical standpoint that bike helmets help prevent certain injuries, and MIPS and newer designs are better at reducing concussions.

First: "Certain" injuries, yes, and "old fashioned research," yes. But if you
look at concussions or TBI fatalities among all bicyclists (not just those in
small scale hospital studies) you don't see the help that is claimed. And again,
helmets are promoted and sold based on prevention of concussion and worse TBI.

Since helmets became widely accepted, what's happened to bike-related
concussions? They've risen dramatically, not fallen. What's happened to bike-
related fatalities? They've fallen, but not as much as pedestrian fatalities -
and most of the reductions have probably been caused by better medical techniques.
IOW, better ER work saved pedestrian lives. That same improved ER work plus
bike helmets somehow seems to have saved _fewer_ lives.

No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash).

But golly gee, why wasn't that what was said when mandatory helmet laws were
pushed in countless states and cities? Why wasn't that and ISN'T that part of
every helmet promotion blurb in flyers, on the internet, in books and magazine
articles and radio and TV spots?

Instead, all those sources typically use the following trick: They give an
anecdote about a bike crash that resulted in a concussion or worse, then imply
that a helmet would have prevented it. A common example is the news reporting
of a cyclist death: "The bicyclist was riding south in the northbound lane at
2 AM when he was hit head-on by the tractor trailer. The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet."

And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims.

Of course they're not claiming helmets are cure-alls! Instead, they put stickers
inside the helmet saying, essentially, "This thing isn't nearly as good as
others led you to believe." But they are certainly glad that the others are
still pushing the helmeteer meme.

If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The less you know about this issue, the more reasonable that choice seems.

- Frank Krygowski

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

Another illustration of incomplete numbers telling us nothing.
We don't even have the gross number of cyclists to come up with an
injury rate. By one local metric, the number of cyclists in Portland
increased almost seven-fold between 1994-2014. I'm not going to bother
looking up the national number.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see.... the fact that of a specific number of deaths where a certain
percent were wearing helmets compared with a 4% larger number of
deaths in which a much larger number, some 700% larger, number of
those who died were wearing helmets is not significant?

Your 7 fold increase in number of cyclists does indicate that
considering the small increase in the number of deaths many, many,
cyclists are riding more safely. But it doesn't explain why, if
helmets make you safe, of a the slightly larger number of deaths far
more, some 700% more, were wearing helmets.

Another fact that might be considered is that some 45,000 were
injured in 2011 and 682 died while 45,000 were injured in 2015 and 818
died.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:57:37 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/25/2019 6:51 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:46:45 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

Another illustration of incomplete numbers telling us nothing.

If they didn't use incomplete data then those opposed to the use of
helmets would have no data to use at all.

We don't even have the gross number of cyclists to come up with an
injury rate. By one local metric, the number of cyclists in Portland
increased almost seven-fold between 1994-2014. I'm not going to bother
looking up the national number.

No, you are required to look up all those numbers and present the
underlying studies.

I've tries a number of times to determine the actual number of people
in the U.S. that ride a bicycle and I find numbers which include
everyone that has ridden a bicycle once in the past year and a many
more numbers that appear to be nothing more than a wild guess. I also
note that if the number of riders is "estimated" by an bicycle
advocacy groups they are ,surprisingly, larger. The League of
American Wheelmen seems to say that there are 57 million bicyclists in
the U.S. while U.S. Census Bureau says that in the period some 786,000
rode a bike to work.

Now, it is obvious that many ride a bike as a recreation while a
lesser number are riding as a matter of basic transportation but can
the factor be 71 times greater (assuming that none of the
transportation riders ever ride for recreation). I also find it
interesting that bicycle advocacy groups estimate numbers in the
millions while the Census Bureau talks about thousands.

I did find a list of U.S. cities by bicycling participants which lists
Davis, Ca. as the highest with 23% participants.
Note:
Davis has a population of 65,622 not including the on-campus
population of the University of California, Davis. As of 2016, there
were 35,186 students enrolled at the university.

Berkeley, California 9.7%
Boulder, Colorado 8.9%
Somerville, Massachusetts 7.4%
Cambridge, Massachusetts 7.4%
Seattle, Washington 3.7%

As a percentage of those going to work:

Seattle 4%walk, 1%bicycle, 10% use public
transportation and 77% use private transportation
San Francisco 5% 2% 20% 64%
Atlanta 1 0% 3% 86%
Baltimore 3% 0% 7% 84%
Boston 5% 1% 14% 73%
New York City 6% 1% 33% 55%
Miami 2% 1% 4% 87%

and the Champion:
Osaka, Japan 27% 21% 34% 18%
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:55:25 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/25/2019 3:46 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

It should only seem strange to you if you believe that the sole reason
for those deaths is the lack of a helmet.

Read it again. Of the 796 deaths in 1994 some 19 who died were wearing
a helmet and in 2016 there were some 835 deaths of which 137 were
wearing a helmet. So while there was a increase of about 4% in deaths
a far greater percent, some 700% greater, were wearing a helmet.

How can it be that helmets keep you safe if, of those who die today a
larger percent are wearing helmets than in previous years where the
number of deaths was nearly the same while helmet use was far less.
It would appear to be just the opposite, that if one does wear a
helmet the chance of dying is greater.

It could be, of course, that being armored with a helmet the average
bicyclist is a far braver rider and takes more chances, but for
whatever the reason a larger percent die today wearing a helmet than
died "in the old days, riding bare headed.


This is like the people that used to claim that cycling rates declined
when an MHL was introduced, then they backtracked and admitted that
cycling rates went up, but at a slower rate than population growth, and
insisted that the MHL was the reason. Of course cycling rates vary for a
multitude of reasons--weather, economic changes, demographic changes,
and the availability of transit alternatives.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:51:39 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/25/2019 3:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

But strangely no one seems to be particularly upset about the 37,133
highway deaths (2017) or at least I see nothing in the news that says
so.

You must have missed the mandates for airbags, safety glass, padded
dashboards, collapsible steering columns, back-up cameras, seat belts,
TPMS, etc. None of these will prevent 100% of deaths or injuries. But
each one has some effect, and don't add much cost to a vehicle once in
high volume production.

Yes, and now that we all have air bags it is discovered that the
airbags kill people :-)

As for not adding to the cost of the car.... I once tried to cost a
sedan without safety belts, no radio, manual shift and hand wind up
windows. I found that none of the dealers in Bangkok could quote on
such a thing and that while they could be special ordered it had to be
for a number of vehicles. Something that a taxi company might do.
I did find that 10 units without any modern refinements was
substantially cheaper then 10 units with "as usually sold" equipment.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:51:29 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:46:45 AM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 20:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:16:27 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 6:34:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 8:09 PM, sms wrote:
On 3/23/2019 4:09 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:

snip

I've always thought the the way to handle safety was through
insurance. Just note in every policy the statement that "this policy
shall be null and void should the proper safety clothing/equipment not
be in use at the time of an injury". That leaves the decision of
whether or not to wear a helmet up to the user.

Some states now allow motorcyclists to not wear a helmet if they provide
proof of a specific amount of coverage of health insurance. The thought
is that the government doesn't want to have to cover the cost of medical
care for indigent people that fail to take proper safety precautions.

The same could be applied to cyclists, at least in countries without
nationalized health care. Since all the research concludes that bicycle
helmets greatly reduce head injuries in accidents involving head impact...

That's false.

this would be a compromise that most cyclists could get behind. Or
perhaps just offer a discount to those individuals that agree to wear a
helmet while cycling, just as there are discounts for having certain
kinds of safety equipment in a motor vehicle.

Would your "discount" on health insurance apply to pedestrians and
motorists who wear helmets, given that pedestrian and motorist head
injuries cost the insurance companies and/or the health care system FAR
more than the tiny number of bike-related injuries?


This is the fundamental weirdness of the helmet mania. It's applied to
bicyclists, who comprise a tiny portion of the brain injury problem.
It's the result of a carefully crafted meme started by Bell Sports and a
few other people. It's accepted by millions of people who haven't the
brains to look for data. SMS is but one example.


There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head strikes.

OK, there is plenty of proof that helmets reduce scratches, abrasions, minor
bumps etc. But helmets are never promoted on that basis. Instead, they are
promoted by 1) implying that riding a bike is very likely to cause serious or
fatal brain injury, and 2) claiming or implying that bike helmets tremendously
reduce the likelihood of such injury. And again, both of those ideas are false.

The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.

Why? Pedestrians suffer far, far more serious or fatal brain injuries than
bicyclists, so their "cost to society" is far more - and "cost to society" (or
as SMS showed, "cost to insurance agencies or national health care systems")
is one of the arguments persistently given for promoting or mandating bike
helmets.

Maybe thirty years ago Bell apparently made a push to promote groups that promoted helmets -- and certainly Trek has a profit motive, but I'm not seeing Big Helmet at work here.

I notice you switched from past tense to present tense. I think if there is
(present tense) no current "Big Helmet" effort to push the helmet meme, it's
only because their (past tense) efforts were so successful. We now have a
society that thinks riding a bike is dangerous in a general sense, and a major
source of serious brain injuries.

There is plenty of good old fashioned scientific research proving from a biomechanical standpoint that bike helmets help prevent certain injuries, and MIPS and newer designs are better at reducing concussions.

First: "Certain" injuries, yes, and "old fashioned research," yes. But if you
look at concussions or TBI fatalities among all bicyclists (not just those in
small scale hospital studies) you don't see the help that is claimed. And again,
helmets are promoted and sold based on prevention of concussion and worse TBI.

Since helmets became widely accepted, what's happened to bike-related
concussions? They've risen dramatically, not fallen. What's happened to bike-
related fatalities? They've fallen, but not as much as pedestrian fatalities -
and most of the reductions have probably been caused by better medical techniques.
IOW, better ER work saved pedestrian lives. That same improved ER work plus
bike helmets somehow seems to have saved _fewer_ lives.

No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash).

But golly gee, why wasn't that what was said when mandatory helmet laws were
pushed in countless states and cities? Why wasn't that and ISN'T that part of
every helmet promotion blurb in flyers, on the internet, in books and magazine
articles and radio and TV spots?

Instead, all those sources typically use the following trick: They give an
anecdote about a bike crash that resulted in a concussion or worse, then imply
that a helmet would have prevented it. A common example is the news reporting
of a cyclist death: "The bicyclist was riding south in the northbound lane at
2 AM when he was hit head-on by the tractor trailer. The cyclist was not wearing
a helmet."

And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims.

Of course they're not claiming helmets are cure-alls! Instead, they put stickers
inside the helmet saying, essentially, "This thing isn't nearly as good as
others led you to believe." But they are certainly glad that the others are
still pushing the helmeteer meme.

If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

The less you know about this issue, the more reasonable that choice seems.

- Frank Krygowski

In 1994 there were 796 bicycle deaths in the U.S. In 2016 there were
835, in 1994 some 19 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet while
in 2016 137 of the deaths were while wearing a helmet. In percentages
there were some 4% more deaths in 2016 than in 1994, but, some 700%
more died while wearing a helmet.

This seems rather strange if helmets really do save lives.

Another illustration of incomplete numbers telling us nothing.
We don't even have the gross number of cyclists to come up with an
injury rate. By one local metric, the number of cyclists in Portland
increased almost seven-fold between 1994-2014. I'm not going to bother
looking up the national number.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see.... the fact that of a specific number of deaths where a certain
percent were wearing helmets compared with a 4% larger number of
deaths in which a much larger number, some 700% larger, number of
those who died were wearing helmets is not significant?

Your 7 fold increase in number of cyclists does indicate that
considering the small increase in the number of deaths many, many,
cyclists are riding more safely. But it doesn't explain why, if
helmets make you safe, of a the slightly larger number of deaths far
more, some 700% more, were wearing helmets.

Another fact that might be considered is that some 45,000 were
injured in 2011 and 682 died while 45,000 were injured in 2015 and 818
died.
--

Yes, its meaningless unless you know the number of total cyclists and the change in percentage wearing helmets and cause of death. For example, if ridership increased seven-fold or simply doubled nationally, then the death rate actually dropped dramatically, although the gross number of deaths is up. Increased voluntary use of helmets will show more people killed with helmets, and without knowing the cause of death, no conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness vel non of helmets. In 1970, I'm sure more people were shot while wearing bell-bottoms than in 2016.


BTW, gross numbers of crashes are up in Portland since 1994, but like I said, the number of cyclists increased almost seven-fold, so the injury rate is down. The likelihood that you will get injured, however, isn't based on averages unless you ride an average amount, in an average place in average weather at an average speed with average car/bike/pedestrian/skateboard/walkers with twelve dogs/eScooters traffic.


-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/25/2019 7:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 14:51:39 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 3/25/2019 3:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

But strangely no one seems to be particularly upset about the 37,133
highway deaths (2017) or at least I see nothing in the news that says
so.

You must have missed the mandates for airbags, safety glass, padded
dashboards, collapsible steering columns, back-up cameras, seat belts,
TPMS, etc. None of these will prevent 100% of deaths or injuries. But
each one has some effect, and don't add much cost to a vehicle once in
high volume production.

Yes, and now that we all have air bags it is discovered that the
airbags kill people :-)

As for not adding to the cost of the car.... I once tried to cost a
sedan without safety belts, no radio, manual shift and hand wind up
windows. I found that none of the dealers in Bangkok could quote on
such a thing and that while they could be special ordered it had to be
for a number of vehicles. Something that a taxi company might do.
I did find that 10 units without any modern refinements was
substantially cheaper then 10 units with "as usually sold" equipment.

I know less than nothing about Thai law.

In USA you can drive without all the mandated crap in any
vehicle manufactured 1967 or earlier. Easy choice for me.

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

On 26/3/19 12:00 pm, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 4:21:03 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Another fact that might be considered is that some 45,000 were
injured in 2011 and 682 died while 45,000 were injured in 2015 and
818 died. --

Yes, its meaningless unless you know the number of total cyclists and
the change in percentage wearing helmets and cause of death. For
example, if ridership increased seven-fold or simply doubled
nationally, then the death rate actually dropped dramatically,
although the gross number of deaths is up. Increased voluntary use
of helmets will show more people killed with helmets, and without
knowing the cause of death, no conclusions can be drawn about the
effectiveness vel non of helmets. In 1970, I'm sure more people were
shot while wearing bell-bottoms than in 2016.


BTW, gross numbers of crashes are up in Portland since 1994, but like
I said, the number of cyclists increased almost seven-fold, so the
injury rate is down. The likelihood that you will get injured,
however, isn't based on averages unless you ride an average amount,
in an average place in average weather at an average speed with
average car/bike/pedestrian/skateboard/walkers with twelve
dogs/eScooters traffic.


Indeed.

In Australia, the National Participation Survey that has been conducted
every 2 years from 2011, found in the 2017 survey that "15.5% of the
Australian population had ridden in the previous week". About 80%
cycled for recreation, and 30% for transport. Note that some ride both
for transport and recreation.

Also "While bicycle ownership has remained steady in comparison to the
2011 National Cycling Participation Survey, there has been a
statistically significant decrease in the level of cycling participation
in Australia between 2011 and 2017."

So if 30% of 15.5% of the population rode for transport in the last
week, that would be about 4.65% of the population riding for transport.
I assume this means riding to school and the shops as well as riding
to work, because I believe census data shows a lower percentage (~2%)
ride to work.

Population has increased from 22.6 million in 2011 to 24.7 million in 2017.

With the relatively small increase in population countered by the small
decrease in participation, the actual change in the number of people
cycling is fairly small. A couple hundred thousand more riders at most,
in a few million total.

Yet fatalities have remained very stable at about 40 per year, while
serious injuries have increased dramatically, almost 100% over the last
decade.

It is difficult to make sense of the reasons. We are slowly getting
more restricted speed limits, so crash outcomes may be less life
threatening. There are certain city areas where the number of people
riding has increased, and there may be fewer riding in areas where
fatalities are more likely (high speed roads). Maybe there are more
non-fatal collisions because slower distracted city drivers are making
more mistakes.

Regardless, 9 times as many pedestrians are killed each year in
Australia, and hospital ER data shows they are most likely to arrive at
the ER with a head injury - if they survive that long. Fewer
pedestrians make it to the ER than cyclists because I assume they are
more likely dead than just alive, and because cycling injuries are
generally far less serious.

None of the road safety experts call for pedestrian helmets though.

--
JS