New Bontager Helmet Material

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as 70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a sound judgement. But there is a small possibility that this could be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope the later.

On 3/21/2019 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as 70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a sound judgement. But there is a small possibility that this could be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope the later.


"this stuff weighs almost nothing "

From the guy who considered the difference between a
Campagnolo chain and a Wippermann chain to be significant.

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

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head..


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

But that doesn't even slow down the fear mongers.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, you obviously rarely fall or ride with people that do. In fact concussions are VERY common. They can just be like someone falling down and being disoriented to the point that he cannot stand properly or remember where he was going to ride to. Or like my case in which I was out of it for 2 years and having seizures until a proper neurologist treated them. I had a couple before the one that fixed me up and they didn't have a clue what they were doing. Since most neurologists end up with a large percentage of their patients suffering from aging diseases the workings of concussion go out of their mind. I have spoken to several neurologists since then who also don't even have a clue how to treat concussion. One even had the opinion that there was no such thing.

I have fallen four times in the last five years and two of those I was slightly concussed, so it isn't something to take lightly. And even though I agree with you that the present helmets are little better than nothing, we do know that it is possible to do better.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:48:52 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/21/2019 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as 70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a sound judgement. But there is a small possibility that this could be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope the later.


"this stuff weighs almost nothing "

From the guy who considered the difference between a
Campagnolo chain and a Wippermann chain to be significant.

Or a titanium seat post clamp bolt for only $9.00 and the nut
(required) for only $4.50. think of it, the lightest seat bolt clamp
bolt in town.... right there on your very own bicycle :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

On 22/3/19 10:09 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Again, the unspoken implication is that riding a bike
is SO DANGEROUS that nobody should ever do it without
first spending money so that your insurance company
might be spared paying for your medical treatment.
Except that every study done on the topic has found that
bicycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny risks.

This "bicycling is dangerous" meme needs to die.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/

- Frank Krygowski

I believe that bicycling IS dangerous if you make left turns from the
right lane in front of a truck and studies, probably the most
compressive was the CHP study done in L.A. County, have show that the
majority of bicycle accidents were the fault of the cyclist.

I think there have been a few Australian studies into who was at fault
when cars and bicycles collide, and the drivers are found to be at fault
in the majority of collisions. Up to 4 out of 5!

IIRC, one study that had cyclists riding around with video cameras
recording, found that in 87% of cases where the cyclist either had a
collision or had to take evasive action, the driver had done something
wrong initially.


Isn't it strange that the emphasis is on wearing a helmet to protect
you when you hit the car and noting is said about riding safely so
that do not hit the car?


In Australia, cyclists seem to be able to do little more to comply with
the law to stay out of trouble, yet the helmet law cabal is strong here,
and don't seem interested in fixing the driver error problem.

One well known academic says we cannot blame the drivers for making
mistakes, and the responsibility is with the engineers to design a "safe
system".

Since 1990 they could have been working on this elusive safe system, but
the road toll barely changes. Cyclist deaths have practically flatlined
(excuse the pun) but serious injuries are up 100% over the past 10
years. Perhaps lower speed limits have helped reduce fatalities and
turn them into serious injuries?

--
JS

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 13:38:13 +1100, James
wrote:

On 22/3/19 10:09 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Again, the unspoken implication is that riding a bike
is SO DANGEROUS that nobody should ever do it without
first spending money so that your insurance company
might be spared paying for your medical treatment.
Except that every study done on the topic has found that
bicycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny risks.

This "bicycling is dangerous" meme needs to die.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/

- Frank Krygowski

I believe that bicycling IS dangerous if you make left turns from the
right lane in front of a truck and studies, probably the most
compressive was the CHP study done in L.A. County, have show that the
majority of bicycle accidents were the fault of the cyclist.

I think there have been a few Australian studies into who was at fault
when cars and bicycles collide, and the drivers are found to be at fault
in the majority of collisions. Up to 4 out of 5!

IIRC, one study that had cyclists riding around with video cameras
recording, found that in 87% of cases where the cyclist either had a
collision or had to take evasive action, the driver had done something
wrong initially.


Isn't it strange that the emphasis is on wearing a helmet to protect
you when you hit the car and noting is said about riding safely so
that do not hit the car?


In Australia, cyclists seem to be able to do little more to comply with
the law to stay out of trouble, yet the helmet law cabal is strong here,
and don't seem interested in fixing the driver error problem.

One well known academic says we cannot blame the drivers for making
mistakes, and the responsibility is with the engineers to design a "safe
system".

Since 1990 they could have been working on this elusive safe system, but
the road toll barely changes. Cyclist deaths have practically flatlined
(excuse the pun) but serious injuries are up 100% over the past 10
years. Perhaps lower speed limits have helped reduce fatalities and
turn them into serious injuries?

The study done by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles County
showed that of the accidents, where it was possible to assign fault,
some 60% were essentially the fault of the cyclist.

It might be noted that a substantial number of the accidents involved
the cyclist riding the wrong way on a one way road which seems a
rather minor fault... except that it resulted in a collision between a
bicycle and an automobile.


--
Cheers,
John B.

On 22/3/19 3:30 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


The study done by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles County
showed that of the accidents, where it was possible to assign fault,
some 60% were essentially the fault of the cyclist.

It might be noted that a substantial number of the accidents involved
the cyclist riding the wrong way on a one way road which seems a
rather minor fault... except that it resulted in a collision between a
bicycle and an automobile.


I think I may have seen someone in Australia do that once. Our road use
culture/habits are different. We drive on the correct side of the road
to begin with ;-)

--
JS

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 17:37:39 +1100, James
wrote:

On 22/3/19 3:30 pm, John B. Slocomb wrote:


The study done by the California Highway Patrol in Los Angeles County
showed that of the accidents, where it was possible to assign fault,
some 60% were essentially the fault of the cyclist.

It might be noted that a substantial number of the accidents involved
the cyclist riding the wrong way on a one way road which seems a
rather minor fault... except that it resulted in a collision between a
bicycle and an automobile.


I think I may have seen someone in Australia do that once. Our road use
culture/habits are different. We drive on the correct side of the road
to begin with ;-)

That was one of the big problems - people riding on the wrong side of
the road :-)

But here I do see quite a lot of bicycles, very obviously used for
transportation, not pleasure, traveling on the "wrong" side of the
road. Sort of like your Mama told you to always walk facing traffic, I
guess.

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:10:37 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 19:48:52 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/21/2019 7:46 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 2:39:08 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head..


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

James - there are serious injuries and there are injuries. The serious injuries not caused by concussion are in general VERY serious - being hit by a car is foremost. There is no safety equipment of any kind that can prevent these. Also those that we can classify "injuries" are almost never very serious and we certainly are not going to go about wearing carbon fiber armor to prevent minor injuries.

The serious injuries that are single or multiple bicycle injuries are foremost head injuries causing concussion which can range from causing death to giving you a headache with the vast majority in between.

So, yes, most bicycle deaths and serious injuries are caused by auto accidents but there is no cure for that. But the injuries that can be mollified are all those a helmet could perhaps reduce and the old style helmets cannot do that. So perhaps as much as 70-80% of these injuries could be either greatly reduced in severity or eliminated with this newly designed material. Also this stuff weighs almost nothing - a small fraction of what your Styrofoam bucket does. That alone can convince some people to use it.

Now, like all new products, we can't tell the real efficacy of it and it will PROBABLY take years to gather enough data to make a sound judgement.. But there is a small possibility that this could be so effective that it turns up almost immediately. Let's hope the later.


"this stuff weighs almost nothing "

From the guy who considered the difference between a
Campagnolo chain and a Wippermann chain to be significant.

Or a titanium seat post clamp bolt for only $9.00 and the nut
(required) for only $4.50. think of it, the lightest seat bolt clamp
bolt in town.... right there on your very own bicycle :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Just out of curiosity - do you wear a helmet? A lot of people, including me that do find the weight of them tiring on the neck. So if you think that a lighter material is good because it makes your overall weight less perhaps you ought to rethink something. That is on the off-hand guess that you can think at all.

But then I don't often see postings on this group that require any more thought than you could get from a 12 year old. Let Frank tell us all again that I didn't watch my speedo go up after I went onto a smooth surface when it took hardly a minute before the Physics forum determined why that was.

And I have verified their determination since by accelerating hard from a stop light and then watch the speed increase after I started coasting. Perhaps you've nothing better than to play with yourself because you're worn out..

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 7:38:20 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 22/3/19 10:09 am, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 07:39:03 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 9:30:33 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Again, the unspoken implication is that riding a bike
is SO DANGEROUS that nobody should ever do it without
first spending money so that your insurance company
might be spared paying for your medical treatment.
Except that every study done on the topic has found that
bicycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny risks.

This "bicycling is dangerous" meme needs to die.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/urban-cycling/

- Frank Krygowski

I believe that bicycling IS dangerous if you make left turns from the
right lane in front of a truck and studies, probably the most
compressive was the CHP study done in L.A. County, have show that the
majority of bicycle accidents were the fault of the cyclist.

I think there have been a few Australian studies into who was at fault
when cars and bicycles collide, and the drivers are found to be at fault
in the majority of collisions. Up to 4 out of 5!

IIRC, one study that had cyclists riding around with video cameras
recording, found that in 87% of cases where the cyclist either had a
collision or had to take evasive action, the driver had done something
wrong initially.


Isn't it strange that the emphasis is on wearing a helmet to protect
you when you hit the car and noting is said about riding safely so
that do not hit the car?


In Australia, cyclists seem to be able to do little more to comply with
the law to stay out of trouble, yet the helmet law cabal is strong here,
and don't seem interested in fixing the driver error problem.

One well known academic says we cannot blame the drivers for making
mistakes, and the responsibility is with the engineers to design a "safe
system".

Since 1990 they could have been working on this elusive safe system, but
the road toll barely changes. Cyclist deaths have practically flatlined
(excuse the pun) but serious injuries are up 100% over the past 10
years. Perhaps lower speed limits have helped reduce fatalities and
turn them into serious injuries?

--
JS

I'm sure that this is correct James. Active sports cyclists ride always with the fear of a collision whereas every time I ride through the cities I see the most bizarre behaviors. The other day, on a busy street, there was a kid riding down the wrong side of the road with no hands and texting on his phone.

Even homeless people rarely commit such stupid acts and then I suppose because they're high.