New Bontager Helmet Material

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 11:05:32 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 18:53:58 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:52:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 8:10:03 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Columbus, Ohio installed a "parking protected" bike
lane on a mile of Summit Street about two years ago.
In the previous two years, there were three car-bike
crashes, total - so 1.5 per year. In the year the lanes
were completed, there were 13 car-bike crashes, IIRC.
I leave computing the percentage increase as a lesson.

- Frank Krygowski

Come on Frank; you know that there are so few bicycle accidents that you can't develop any statistics from a year. And you don't know the causes of them unless you look each and every one of them up.

When annual crashes jump from 1.5 per year without a
"protected" cycle track, to 13 per year with the
supposed "protection," it doesn't take much statistical
sense to tell that the "protection" was actually much
more dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski

I suggest that it is largely a political move. "See Guys, I built you
a special bicycle road" fits right in there with, "vote for me and
I'll ensure jobs for everyone", which used to be a common claim of
every politician in the world although I now understand that it has
been modified to something like "vote for me and I will guarantee
greater unemployment benefits" :-)

I think that one of the biggest problems with most bicycle paths is that the person(s) designing them are NOT dedicated bicyclists. Most of the bicycle paths I see in my region (a number of cities) are "Door Zone" bicycle lanes or lanes that end with little or no advance warning. A traffic lane that ends is signed in advance of the ending so that motorists know it ends. Why not do the same with bicycle lanes? So there is a bicyclist riding in the bicycle lane and the bicycle is traveling at 30 MPH with traffic on the left and all of a sudden the bicycle lane just ends. The bicyclist had better been paying attention to what's in front of them and have good brakes. I've had that happen here in town and could not merge into the traffic lane. I avoid riding in most bicycle lanes here in town.

Cheers

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,
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.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care, and b) do have
a mandatory helmet law for adults?

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 17:09:49 -0700, 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.

Doesn't that apply to Sikh's also as their religion mandates they must
never cut their hair?

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,
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.

Are there places that a) don't have national health care, and b) do have
a mandatory helmet law for adults?

Yes, Thailand which has a universal health care plan doesn't mandate
helmets for bicycles. For anyone :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

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.


Are there places that a) don't have national health care, and b) do have
a mandatory helmet law for adults?

There are quite a few U.S. cities with mandatory helmet laws for adults.
From what I can tell, enforcement is spotty at best - and probably
selective.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/24/2019 5:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I think that one of the biggest problems with most bicycle paths is that the person(s) designing them are NOT dedicated bicyclists.

That's certainly true around here. The worst cycling facility in our
area was specified in concept by a park superintendent with details
designed by a freshman landscape architect. I invited the architect for
a bike ride to show him the many problems. He accepted, but worried
because he hadn't been on a bike for over ten years.

From the seat of the bike, he saw the blind curves, the collision
hazards, the results of the wrong-side-of-the-road design, etc. But he
changed only some of those features.

Within the past month, I was able to dissuade a different designer from
putting bikes on a sidewalk where the downhill cyclists would be
entering six or seven intersections at (probably) over 15 mph going the
"wrong" direction. It was a definite recipe for disaster.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/24/2019 5:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

snip

Are there places that a) don't have national health care, and b) do have
a mandatory helmet law for adults?

Yes, Thailand which has a universal health care plan doesn't mandate
helmets for bicycles. For anyone :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.


You misread my question. What is of interest are places without
universal health car that do have mandatory helmet laws for adults.

It's understandable why a country with national health care would have
an mandatory helmet law. But in a country without national health care,
an individual that wants to engage in risky behavior is only going to be
a burden to society if they don't have private health insurance and are
seriously injured.

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. The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless. 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. 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. No helmet can eliminate concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash). And manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable health claims. If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 25/3/19 1:16 pm, jbeattie wrote:



There is plenty of proof that helmets reduce the effects of head
strikes. The fact that walkers don't wear helmets is meaningless.
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. 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. No helmet can eliminate
concussions even in minor accidents since a person can get a
concussion without even hitting his head (i.e whiplash). And
manufacturers are not claiming that helmets are cure-alls, having
learned from lawsuits not to over-promote or make unsustainable
health claims. If you ride a lot and in traffic -- car or bike
traffic -- wearing a helmet is a perfectly reasonable choice.


"Choice" being the operative word. It's something legislators have, in
some places, taken away.

--
JS

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2019 5:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

I think that one of the biggest problems with most bicycle paths is that
the person(s) designing them are NOT dedicated bicyclists.

That's certainly true around here. The worst cycling facility in our
area was specified in concept by a park superintendent with details
designed by a freshman landscape architect. I invited the architect for
a bike ride to show him the many problems. He accepted, but worried
because he hadn't been on a bike for over ten years.

From the seat of the bike, he saw the blind curves, the collision
hazards, the results of the wrong-side-of-the-road design, etc. But he
changed only some of those features.

Within the past month, I was able to dissuade a different designer from
putting bikes on a sidewalk where the downhill cyclists would be
entering six or seven intersections at (probably) over 15 mph going the
"wrong" direction. It was a definite recipe for disaster.


I rode a trail last summer that connected two areas that had been separated
years ago when the old rail bed (max grade 2%) was fenced off as part of
the Victoria watershed. That trail was obviously designed by a person who
had never used either a bicycle or a topographic map. My GPS was reporting
20%+ grades on some of the numerous hills, and it could have been steeper
because there were parts where I couldn't push my bike up the hill fast
enough for they GPS to register that I was moving.

https://www.crd.bc.ca/parks-recreati...lls-wilderness

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