#11
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g test. Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution. From the AUSA's trial memo: The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets, respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public. -- Jay Beattie. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/16/2018 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g test. Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution. From the AUSA's trial memo: The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets, respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public. OK, that's information that wasn't mentioned in the article. It's been interesting to me that the primitive helmet certification test is so revered, despite its ignoring most TBI science since about 1970. Yes, "no helmet can protect against all foreseeable impacts" as the proudly state on the internal stickers. (IOW, "don't blame us if this thing doesn't work.") But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. As mentioned, the old Skid Lid helmets of 1974 or so accumulated lots of "saved my life!!!" stories too. That's even though they didn't come close to meeting the present standard - which some suspect was deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not. Ah well. I know questioning helmets is blasphemy... -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
Frank Krygowski wrote:
It's been interesting to me that the primitive helmet certification test is so revered, despite its ignoring most TBI science since about 1970. Yes, "no helmet can protect against all foreseeable impacts" as the proudly state on the internal stickers. (IOW, "don't blame us if this thing doesn't work.") But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. As mentioned, the old Skid Lid helmets of 1974 or so accumulated lots of "saved my life!!!" stories too. That's even though they didn't come close to meeting the present standard - which some suspect was deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not. Ah well. I know questioning helmets is blasphemy... Tho I've heard hitting your head without a helmet in bicycle accidents can affect your mind in the sense it will repeat the same brain pattern over and over? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. - Frank Krygowski I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/17/2018 2:10 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. - Frank Krygowski I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet. I avoid wrecking. I remember one mountain bike ride long ago with, oh, maybe 8 other guys. I had no helmet. All others but one (IIRC) did. The ride was in a recreation area set aside for mountain bikes, dirt motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. Sure enough, at one point the crew decided to "get big air" by riding down into a gully and up the other side, then launching into the air. I decided it was too dangerous. The helmeted guys felt protected - until one crashed and broke his collarbone. The ride ended as we walked him back to his car. I believe in risk compensation. -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/17/2018 8:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2018 2:10 PM, wrote: On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. - Frank Krygowski I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet. I avoid wrecking. I remember one mountain bike ride long ago with, oh, maybe 8 other guys. I had no helmet. All others but one (IIRC) did. The ride was in a recreation area set aside for mountain bikes, dirt motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. Sure enough, at one point the crew decided to "get big air" by riding down into a gully and up the other side, then launching into the air. I decided it was too dangerous. The helmeted guys felt protected - until one crashed and broke his collarbone. The ride ended as we walked him back to his car. I believe in risk compensation. Yes, there's that. But, as recently mentioned here, any helmet may well mitigate abrasions and such (aside from the 'thwarting death' argument). Yet designs such as Skid Lid, wildly popular, were out of business with some arbitrary standard, despite the fact that they mitigate common types of injuries as well as any. I posit that if helmet nazis were less shrill, there may well have been more helmets in more formats worn by more people than we have now despite rigid scolding and attempts at shaming, compulsion and insult along with backlash. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/17/2018 2:47 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
wrote: I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet. I think there is no doubt a helmet helps against those injuries. In boxing the saying goes a helmet will protect against scars and tears but not really if you get a haymaker straight into the planet. Perhaps the same logic applies to bike accidents? As for me, I'm not that kind of rider so I don't use a helmet but intuitively one would think a helmet would decrease the impact in more severe cases as well. Anyway there should be research on this subject not only from the bike equipment manufacturers but also from university hospitals from all over the world, if anyone cares enough to look it up what their conclusions are. There is research of two general types. Most research papers on helmet effectiveness track "head injuries" (as opposed to brain injuries) in people showing up at hospitals from bike crashes. They compare the head injury count among those reportedly wearing helmets, vs. those not wearing helmets. They find more head injuries in those without helmets. The other research looks at trends (usually long term trends) when helmet use increases. (In some cases, like New Zealand, laws and/or publicity campaigns caused rapid jumps in helmet wearing.) Those trends usually show no improvement in bike brain injuries, bike fatalities, etc. In fact, recent data showed an _increase_ of over 60% in bike-related concussions during the time when American helmet use greatly increased. Why the discrepancy between the two types of results? I think the main reason is that those who choose to wear helmets are different in many ways from those who do not choose to wear helmets. For example, one physician in Texas performed a study of the first type to help his campaign for an all-ages mandatory helmet law. But his study was unique for the time because he also recorded blood alcohol content in bicyclists who crashed. His study found that helmet use was not significantly correlated with concussion or other brain injury, but alcohol use was significantly correlated. In other words, it makes more sense to get people to stop riding drunk than to get drunks to put on helmets. In reality, brain injury while bicycling is very rare. It's more common while traveling as a pedestrian. And helmets have not caused any significant improvement. They cause negligible improvement in a mostly imaginary problem. -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/17/2018 10:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/17/2018 8:58 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2018 2:10 PM, wrote: On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote: But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. - Frank Krygowski I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades.Â* One without a helmet.Â* Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day.Â* Not a day I really care to remember.Â* Others I was wearing a helmet.Â* Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory.Â* Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident.Â* Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed.Â* Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face.Â* My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet. I avoid wrecking. I remember one mountain bike ride long ago with, oh, maybe 8 other guys. I had no helmet. All others but one (IIRC) did. The ride was in a recreation area set aside for mountain bikes, dirt motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. Sure enough, at one point the crew decided to "get big air" by riding down into a gully and up the other side, then launching into the air. I decided it was too dangerous. The helmeted guys felt protected - until one crashed and broke his collarbone. The ride ended as we walked him back to his car. I believe in risk compensation. Yes, there's that. But, as recently mentioned here, any helmet may well mitigate abrasions and such (aside from the 'thwarting death' argument). Yet designs such as Skid Lid, wildly popular, were out of business with some arbitrary standard, despite the fact that they mitigate common types of injuries as well as any. I posit that if helmet nazis were less shrill, there may well have been more helmets in more formats worn by more people than we have now despite rigid scolding and attempts at shaming, compulsion and insult along with backlash. Guy Chapman used to post here frequently. He told many times about how his life was (supposedly) saved by his "wooly cap." -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 23:00:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: which some suspect was deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not. If I recall correctly, Skid Lid was sunk by extreme horror that it gave almost no protection to the top of the head. Every time I've thunked my helmet it was in the area where Skid Lid concentrated its protection. Well, there was that time I climbed a playground slide meant for a much shorter person and didn't bother to remove my hat first. But Skid Lid would have sufficed. I wonder whether there is still a category of hard hat called a "bump cap"? Wikipedia said yes, but the link led to a page on which the word "bump" does not appear. DuckDuckGo says that I can buy dozens of different styles at Grainger. -- Joy Beeson joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELMET NEWS | datakoll | Techniques | 0 | May 7th 13 12:34 PM |
Cyclists' helmet cameras (BBC 1 News, 1pm) | brass monkey | UK | 0 | February 2nd 11 12:29 AM |
Great news on the helmet front! | Squashme | UK | 0 | May 15th 09 09:13 PM |
In the News: Sizing up the sports helmet market | Jason Spaceman | Techniques | 3 | July 28th 08 12:35 AM |
The anti Helmet on this news group | gareth price | UK | 17 | August 19th 06 04:32 PM |