Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/6/2025 3:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/6/2025 8:14 AM, zen cycle wrote:

>
You keep glossing over "the vast majority of people who ride bikes will never need a helmet, just like the vast majority of people who drive will never need a seat belt.

 Right. I think seat belts should be a matter of personal choice. And I have no problem riding in my friend's two historic cars with no seatbelts.
 

The issue is - if there comes a time when you do crash, a helmet/ seatbelt can be extremely beneficial. "

 Likewise, you gloss over the fact that for a person inside a crashing car, a helmet might be extremely beneficial. And you already own a helmet, but (I'm betting) choose not to wear it while driving!

Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation

 FWIW, there are factors in favor of seatbelts that don't apply to helmets. Number one is their designed and tested effectiveness. That is, seat belts are tested in realistic crashes of actual cars into concrete barriers at 35 mph, during which tests the seatbelts (and airbags) are required to protect realistic, full-body crash test dummies. Yes, the tests still aren't perfect - that is, motorists still get injured - but at least the tests are somewhat realistic.
 By contrast, bike helmets are certified with just a 14 mph impact of a model of decapitated human head, no body attached. The impact is perfectly straight and linear, despite the long standing knowledge that rotational acceleration of the head is the biggest contributor toward TBI. It's an _extremely_ unrealistic test.

Right....
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
"We compute concussion risk from measured peak linear acceleration and rotational velocity for each test."
Try and keep up Frank.

 Also, seatbelts add, I'm sure, far less than 1% to the cost of a car, and last the life of the car. But for many low income people, the cost of a bike helmet may exceed the cost of their bike,

really?
https://www.walmart.com/ip/24-Huffy-Rock-Creek-Mountain-Bicycle-12-to-19-Years-Old-18-Speeds-Grey/719506752?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1200
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Concord-Adult-Bicycle-Helmet-Sand-Ages-14/958460226?classType=VARIANT&athbdg=L1103&from=/search
Try and keep up, Frank.

and people are still being told to replace their helmet every three years - or something similar. And they are fragile enough to be broken by mistake, requiring replacement.
 And seatbelts are trivially easy to properly fasten, always available and impose negligible discomfort.

...After hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. Imagine if that effort would have been put into bike helmets

Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to wear wrong - commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet, exposing the forehead, and with overly loose straps. Many people find them ugly and uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep track of, take on trips, etc.

Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one should wear bike helmets.

You may not perceive those disadvantages. Your bike helmet may be comfortable for you, you may think it's very stylish, you may have it perfectly adjusted, you certainly have no problem affording it, etc.

True.

 Yet even though car occupant TBI totally dwarfs bike TBI, you (doubtlessly) don't take advantage of its miraculous (hah!) protection when riding in a car.

Conflation duly noted and dismissed as conflation

 Why?

The same reason you want to ban AR-15s