You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+don+t+need+an+expensive+bike+helmet+to+ride+sa fely"

On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."

Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?

- Frank Krygowski

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."

Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?

Indeed.

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does
your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" BHSI exposes the real
reasons for fearmongering the need for helmets: profit, not protection.

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested.

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does
your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their
Giro line.

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually
means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying
either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking
things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?

One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with
junk science.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 10:44:09 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?

One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with
junk science.

Dear Steven,

Er, last week, you wrote:

" . . . so the 63-88% range given by Rivara and Thompson is almost
certainly a bit lower than the actual reduction."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...d1e21f302db047

So is it "almost certainly" greater than 88%?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."

Hi there.

Ooh boy, yet another helmet thread! VBG LOL

Actually, you do *NOT* need a helmet to either ride safely or to ride
carelessly.

Cheers from Peter

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her
bike wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption
was "Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"

Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.

Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard
in court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.

Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way
you're implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As
usual. Because taking things in context, and looking objectively,
doesn't fit your agenda.

The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been
promulgating the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%-
in abeyance of any actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya
been?

One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere
with junk science.

Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. Why go there again?

On 11/04/10 2:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. Why go there again?

Still hoping that you'll open your mind and look at the facts. Hopeless
it appears.

If you change your mind, click over to
"http://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/". It's
debunked 28 myths so far.