Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 11:10:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 4/7/2025 7:35 AM, zen cycle wrote:

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

>
You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar situations. One is the
relatively rare event of TBI from a bike crash. The other is the much
more common event of TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise people to
wear helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the helmet you
already own in case of the second.
>
Why not?
>

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.

>
Oh, I've been aware of Virginia Tech's work for many years. Virginia
Tech has concocted a nice little program that generates publications and
publicity. But their test has no legal standing, any more than Consumer
Reports' tests on bath towels.
>
To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or elsewhere, the
certification test is what I described. Yes, there are other details
(e.g. strength of the straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of
rotational effects. Look it up.
>

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.

>
Zen, our bike club used to do an event in which we harvested unclaimed
bikes from police departments, got them running and gave them away to
low income families who could not afford even $20 for a bike. Many
people buy their bikes not at Walmart but at garage sales. And you're
quoting an unusual clearance price for that helmet, not a normal price.
>

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

>
Hundreds of millions into seatbelts is probably an exaggeration. Still,
why has society not put hundreds of millions of dollars into development
of bike helmets? What's the justification for spending so much more on
protecting car occupants?
>
It's easy, Zen. There are something like 35000 to 40000 people killed
inside cars each year. When we hit 1000 bicyclist deaths in a year, it's
a recent record. And most of those bike deaths are caused by impacts
with cars at speeds no bike helmet will ever be able to handle.
>
40000 vs. 1000. Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one of those
1000 is the major marketing tactic of helmet promoters. But that
exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever riding,
which puts them at far worse medical risk than riding without a funny
foam cap.
>

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.

>
People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging, free
of fear mongering.
>
>

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

>
Evasion noted. If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to the
start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of
protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.

"People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging,
free of fear mongering."

Shouldn't that apply to people choosing to have a gun in their home?

--
C'est bon
Soloman