A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Helmet News



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 17th 18, 01:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,298
Default 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  
Old June 17th 18, 04:00 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,163
Default 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  
Old June 17th 18, 05:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 922
Default 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  
Old June 17th 18, 07:10 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,334
Default 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.
  #15  
Old June 17th 18, 07:47 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Emanuel Berg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 922
Default Helmet News

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.

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
  #16  
Old June 18th 18, 02:58 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,163
Default 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  
Old June 18th 18, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,640
Default 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  
Old June 18th 18, 03:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,163
Default 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  
Old June 18th 18, 03:13 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,163
Default 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.* 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.


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  
Old June 18th 18, 04:01 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joy Beeson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,137
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.