Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/8/2025 11:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 4/7/2025 11:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 4/7/2025 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:[regarding Zen eschewing the protection of a helmet while riding in his car:]

 

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

 No, Zen, the only way you can stop evading is to actually answer the question. AR-15s and bike helmets are in no way similar.
 I thing ARs and the like should be much more heavily controlled for many reasons, one of which is the immense public expense wasted on defending against them, like by police forced to wear armor, SWAT team expenses, like by schools with bulletproof glass, metal detection systems, armed guards on duty, etc. etc.  None of that applies to bike helmets or the lack of their use.
 If your helmet helps in a bike crash, it would help in a car crash. Your decision and your promotion of helmets is at best logically inconsistent.
 https://copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real- high-risk.html
 https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-style/davies-craig- australian-car-helmet
 

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.

 The current helmet standard is effectively written into law. It's never going to be changed, in part because the helmet manufacturing industry would lobby hard against any changes, and lawmakers have no motivation to wade into that battle. There's no consumer demand for better helmets in part because people tend to think the current styrofoam caps are miraculously protective.
 

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.

 It's good that if someone can't afford a helmet, you have no problem with them riding without one. I hope you extend that same courtesy to me, even though I can easily afford any helmet on the market.
 And I'm glad you recognize that they are likely to be never needed.
 

40000 [motorist fatalities] vs. 1000 [bike fataliteis]. 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

 In surveys asking why people don't bicycle more, fear is usually one of the top explanations. People have succumbed to decades of propaganda.
 

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.

 As you know, I do a lot of thinking based on advantages vs. disadvantages. I'm listing just a few of the disadvantages of helmets. You're a big helmet fan, so you discount those. Others don't.
 But think about this carefully: I'm _not_ saying no on should wear a helmet. I've never said that. However, there certainly are plenty of helmet promoters who say no one should ever ride a bike without wearing a helmet. There are many places where helmets have been made mandatory by law. Those two points of view are not really symmetrical.
 

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?

 Hah!  I'm "nagging" by saying people should have free choice? And by asking for realistic evaluation of data? And I'm "fear mongering" by saying that bicycling is a low risk activity?
 You've gone through the looking glass, Zen.
 

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.

 No, you're playing games. If you had a good reason explaining why you drive without wearing the helmet you have in the car, you'd have given it explicitly.
 

In fairness, the present bicycle helmet standards are not enforced by any law (yes I know you meant virtually not literally) or regulation.  Some coercion/incentive from insurers probably.  But nothing stops anyone from riding a bicycle in a full face motorcycle or auto racing helmet, which are designed for much higher impact levels.
The truth is more probably that the present impact amelioration levels are clustered around the nexus of weight, price, vision and effectiveness where some viable volume of sales will support them.
--
Andrew Muzi
am@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971