Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/7/2025 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski 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?

The same answer you keep evading - it's the same reason you want to ban AR-15s

 

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.

I'm aware that the CSPC test doesn't include a rotational componenet, you're acting however as if there is no consideration in the industry for it at all.
It takes a while for standardized tests to get modified. That Rotational testing isn't now included in the certification process doesn't mean it will never be.

 

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.

lol...ok, the full retail price of the helmet is $16 - And for the record, if someone can't afford a helmet, I have no problem with them riding without one. As has been mentioned here already several time, the likely hood they will need one is rather small.

 

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.

you see it as an exaggeration. I see it as giving an alternative to those who may be concerned.

But that exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever riding,

bullshit

which puts them at far worse medical risk than riding without a funny foam cap.

As if someone who is interested in their health wouldn't take other measure? Sure, if you're the type of narcissistc twit who won't wear a helmet because it will mess up your hair, you're likely the type that won't exercise either.

 

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.

then why do you keep nagging and 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.

I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in place sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer.
--
Add xx to reply