New Bontager Helmet Material

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 2:45:14 AM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.

I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a helmet that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers

I always wear a helmet but it's no business of the government.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:17 -0700 (PDT), 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


But Frank. It's NEW and they say that it is better and everyone knows
that a helmet will save your life. What's not to like?

And $149.99 (plus shipping) for the cheap one and $299.99 for the
better (one assumes) model :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Boy are they proud of their helmets. :-)

Andy

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 3:44:34 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 1:40:11 AM UTC-4, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:16:41 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 06:16:02 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:39:02 +1100, 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?


BUT! It is NEW and only costs a tiny bit more and everyone KNOWS that
helmets save lives!

(and the profit margin is fantastic)

Ignorng the requirement for that 'certification sticker", just how hard
would it be to build your own helmet?

A distorted plastic bowl with a set of straps attached, the linen with a
thick coat of spray foam. it would probably as good as the ones they sell?

I often wonder just how effective a bicycle helmet is. I have had a nasty fall where the helmet protected my head enough that I was able to continue my ride. Then again, I had a helmet that fell off the handlebar of my bicycle whilst the bicycle was motionless in my apartment and a good size chunk of the helmet broke off from the lower left side edge of the helmet. That makes me wonder.

Then there is this site that I came across just recently. After reading it, it seems that helmets don't meet many expectations. Full URL because many here don't like Tiny URLS.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyamo.../#4f36b4ee44e6

Cheers

Thanks for the link.

My helmet got 4 stars.

Andy

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.
y equipment.
I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a hel is met that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers


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.

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 14:58:51 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:17 -0700 (PDT), 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


But Frank. It's NEW and they say that it is better and everyone knows
that a helmet will save your life. What's not to like?

And $149.99 (plus shipping) for the cheap one and $299.99 for the
better (one assumes) model :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Boy are they proud of their helmets. :-)

Andy

But if they are selling them for that amount then logically someone is
buying them. Which says more about the buyer than it does about the
seller :-)

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

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:09:14 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.
y equipment.
I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a hel is met that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers


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.

But how do you decide what constitutes "proper safety
clothing/equipment"?

One major issue (among many) in this continuing debate
is the heavily promoted assumption that it is improper
to bicycle without a helmet, because A) bicycling causes
a huge number of serious brain injuries compared to other
activities, and B) helmets tremendously reduce that
brain injury count.

Neither idea is even close to being true. So why consider
helmets "proper"?

Going further, I object to the idea that "proper clothing"
should be a consideration, if that means a person should
bicycle or walk using only certain colors of clothing,
because a motorist might not see him. It's up to the
motorists to watch where they are going and look out for
other people, vehicles, animals and objects. "I didn't
see him" should be treated as an admission of guilt
and should result in fines and/or jail time, plus never
driving again.

- Frank Krygowski

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" :-)

rOn Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:07:20 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:09:14 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.
y equipment.
I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a hel is met that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers


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.

But how do you decide what constitutes "proper safety
clothing/equipment"?

The way that insurance companies have always done it. They specify
what they wish. Every contract we entered into used the term "Act of
God" which immediately after the use stated, "An Act of God shall
consist of....."

One major issue (among many) in this continuing debate
is the heavily promoted assumption that it is improper
to bicycle without a helmet, because A) bicycling causes
a huge number of serious brain injuries compared to other
activities, and B) helmets tremendously reduce that
brain injury count.

Neither idea is even close to being true. So why consider
helmets "proper"?

Going further, I object to the idea that "proper clothing"
should be a consideration, if that means a person should
bicycle or walk using only certain colors of clothing,
because a motorist might not see him. It's up to the
motorists to watch where they are going and look out for
other people, vehicles, animals and objects. "I didn't
see him" should be treated as an admission of guilt
and should result in fines and/or jail time, plus never
driving again.

- Frank Krygowski

Funny thing, here in Thailand "I didn't see 'em" isn't a legal excuse.
I gather that the law expects people who operate large things to watch
out for smaller things. As an example if you on your bicycle hits
someone walking, it is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to
be your fault. If a truck hits a car, it is the truck's fault. Or,
more accurately, the operator of the larger thing, and if a death is
involved the police immediately arrest the operator. Depending on
circumstances he will probably be able to post bail until the trial as
the intent is to prevent the operator from running away.

But in the Land of the Free and the Brave, if one reads what Andrew
posts it appears that hitting and killing a cyclist is a $40 fine :-)

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 10:07:22 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 7:09:14 PM UTC-4, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 02:45:12 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 1:54:03 AM UTC-4, James wrote:
On 23/3/19 8:48 am, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 4:37:03 PM UTC-4, James wrote:


Do your laws state that the helmet must be worn on the HEAD?

"The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely
fitted and fastened on the rider's head..."

--
JS

Bummer that.

I really think that helmet use should be up to the individual bicyclist not a government. This is especially so when one considers just how low helmet standards really are. Then too, in many case where a bicyclists is killed whilst not wearing a helmet, the fatal injuries are not head related injuries. It'd be interesting to see just how many bicyclists who died died of non-head injuries.
y equipment.
I sometimes wear a helmet but it's usually because I want to use a helmet mounted mirror. When it's very hot and humid it's hard to find a hel is met that's cool enough to prevent copious amounts of sweat from running into the eyes. Sweat burning the eyes can even be a safety hazard as the eyes water to clear it and thus vision is not as good as it would be without the sweat in the eyes and the resultant eyes watering. There have been times I've had to remove my helmet because the sweat in the eyes and resultant burning was so bad.

Cheers


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.

But how do you decide what constitutes "proper safety
clothing/equipment"?

One major issue (among many) in this continuing debate
is the heavily promoted assumption that it is improper
to bicycle without a helmet, because A) bicycling causes
a huge number of serious brain injuries compared to other
activities, and B) helmets tremendously reduce that
brain injury count.

Neither idea is even close to being true. So why consider
helmets "proper"?

Going further, I object to the idea that "proper clothing"
should be a consideration, if that means a person should
bicycle or walk using only certain colors of clothing,
because a motorist might not see him. It's up to the
motorists to watch where they are going and look out for
other people, vehicles, animals and objects. "I didn't
see him" should be treated as an admission of guilt
and should result in fines and/or jail time, plus never
driving again.

- Frank Krygowski

Regarding proper clothing and safety and fear to engage in any activity without it. Something I noticed again yesterday as I was riding my bicycle back from a nearby city. (it was a balmy 30F yesterday so a bicycle ride was nice) I see a fair number of pedestrians these days wearing the bright orange or green vest with reflective stripes that you see road repair crews or garbage collectors wearing. I guess the fear factor IS trickling down to pedestrians. The interesting thing is I very seldom see a bicyclist wearing such a vest.

Another thing in regards to helmets. A LOT of the people I see wearing a bicycling helmet are wearing it improperly - either pushed back on their head or with the retaining straps way too loose. Talking to the average person who rides a bicycle I have yet to find one who knows just what standards a helmet must pass in order to be certified. I find that quite interesting.

Thinking about pedestrians and bright clothing. I wonder if Joerg or SMS use a bright flashing light whenever they go out walking? After all a pedestrian is much harder to see than a bicyclist is. LOL

I still think that whether or not a bicycle helmet should be worn should be the individual's choice not a government's one.

Cheers