Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30

jtaylor wrote:
(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30


and who did they ask to come up with the estimate?
No study will convince everyone to wear one.
I don't wear one now, but perhaps someday in the future I will.

I'm out.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300 someone who may be "jtaylor"
wrote this:-

(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30

Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300 someone who may be "jtaylor"
wrote this:-

(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30

Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

It's an overblown magazine which purports to select the "best" of an
amazingly large number of things, based on questionable research. As
you might expect, they most closely resemble the "jack of all trades,
master of none" label.

In this case, they have probably assembled a list of all the newspaper
and magazine articles based on the original (suspect) paper from the
1970s. I mean, really, don't you go right to the Sun for authoritative
information? Out comes the biggest statistic you can find!

Pat

My posting on h**m*ts is done for the year.

"Pat Lamb" wrote in message
...
David Hansen wrote:

In this case, they have probably assembled a list of all the newspaper
and magazine articles based on the original (suspect) paper from the
1970s.

Why didn't they just find one and copy it?

David Hansen wrote:


Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"

CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
pushes the fairy tales.

FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!

- Frank Krygowski

On 4 May 2006 14:37:29 -0700, wrote:


David Hansen wrote:


Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"

CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
pushes the fairy tales.

FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!

Dear Frank,

You say it as if it were a bad thing.

http://www.wgmd.com/newspost/fullnews.php?id=911

[close enough to what you said, anyway ;-)]

Pat Lamb wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

It's an overblown magazine which purports to select the "best" of an
amazingly large number of things, based on questionable research. As
you might expect, they most closely resemble the "jack of all trades,
master of none" label.

To bring in a bit of bicycle content:

Way, way back when I first got into bicycling, in the 1970s, CR did a
comparative test of ten speed bikes. (That's ten, count 'em, ten
speeds _total_.)

Anyway, one of their most important rating criteria was rolling
resistance. They built a little ramp, had the test rider coast down
the ramp, and measured how far he could coast before stopping. This
made a big difference in their ratings.

Despite listing tire information explicitly, they did not comment on
the fact that all the bikes that coasted further came with the then-new
90 psi tires. All the bikes that didn't coast as far came with 70 psi
tires, which were the norm in those days.

The odds are that they didn't realize there was a connection. They put
it all off to differences in the quality of the bikes.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
David Hansen wrote:


Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"

CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
pushes the fairy tales.

FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!

- Frank Krygowski

There may be a market for that!
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

jtaylor wrote:
(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30

A bit earlier it also said running headlights in daytime is a 'safety'
item which is demonstrably asinine. CR is a decent read - for
information, but don't make a religion out of any source including it.

-paul