Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Helmet News

105 views
Skip to first unread message

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 10:48:08 AM6/15/18
to

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 12:55:02 PM6/15/18
to
AMuzi wrote:

> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI

"The counterfeit helmets were found not to
contain roll cages or the internal
reinforcements that are standard in
high-end authentic Specialized and
Giro bicycle helmets. When placed on a head
form and dropped onto a testing surface at
approximately 11 miles per hour, the
counterfeit helmets broke into pieces
during impact testing, resulting in direct
contact between the head forms and the
testing surface," the U.S. Attorneys Office
said in a news release.

Wow, great job by the US officers!

What kind of sentence do you get for something
like that?

And what is the Alibaba doing dealing with
knock offs? Shouldn't they be trialed as well or
is that impossible to do?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 2:20:53 PM6/15/18
to
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI

So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line
helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the
line.

But those inexpensive genuine are still magic.

The real problem? These Alibaba helmets were made on a production line that
didn't feature a wizard to inject the magic.

- Frank Krygowski

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 2:38:43 PM6/15/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> So the counterfeits lacked the internal
> reinforcement in those top of the line helmet
> models. In other words, they were like
> helmets that are not top of the line.

What about the "counterfeits" that are
identical to the real deal only produced, in
the same factories, but off the record and then
sold thru other distribution channels? If those
items are truly identical, I suppose there is
no safety/health aspect anymore to it, just
a regular crime involving money like any other?

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 2:42:35 PM6/15/18
to
The real punishment is trademark violation which in civil
court can be 3x damages plus costs. It's a very expensive
crime. I've known guys who won and also guys who lost in
those suits; the money really flows.

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 6:52:53 PM6/15/18
to
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI
>
> So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line
> helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the
> line.

As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests.
>
> But those inexpensive genuine are still magic.
>
> The real problem? These Alibaba helmets were made on a production line that
> didn't feature a wizard to inject the magic.

Well, it was a mail fraud and federal counterfeiting case, so helmet safety was not really the issue, but the fact is that these knock-offs were junk.

I've smashed two or three helmets, so having one that works to the extent they can work is a good thing. No, they don't protect you from all harms, etc., etc. (please refer to last 25 years of posts), but they can protect against certain harms if well manufactured.

-- Jay Beattie.

Doug Cimperman

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 8:09:14 PM6/15/18
to
On 6/15/2018 11:54 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> AMuzi wrote:
>
>> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI
>
> "The counterfeit helmets were found not to
> contain roll cages or the internal
> reinforcements that are standard in
> high-end authentic Specialized and
> Giro bicycle helmets. When placed on a head
> form and dropped onto a testing surface at
> approximately 11 miles per hour, the
> counterfeit helmets broke into pieces
> during impact testing, resulting in direct
> contact between the head forms and the
> testing surface," the U.S. Attorneys Office
> said in a news release.
>
> Wow, great job by the US officers!
>
> What kind of sentence do you get for something
> like that?
About tree fiddy.

>
> And what is the Alibaba doing dealing with
> knock offs? Shouldn't they be trialed as well or
> is that impossible to do?
>

Probably not a lot--but then, many people don't understand how difficult
it can be to police Chinese industry.

I read an article once about counterfeit/knockoff iPods back when they
first came out. Most of the copies were coming from China, and
manufacturers in China tend not to be vertically integrated--that is,
they don't make the entire product. They just make one part, for someone
else who ordered it. So they often don't know exactly how it gets used
or where it ends up.

To make an iPod clone, there was five major 'parts' involved: the
plastic case, the LCD screen, the printed circuit boards, the
electronics assembly, and the packaging. One estimate was that there was
a total of 120,000 different companies in China capable of making at
least one of those parts.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 15, 2018, 11:04:01 PM6/15/18
to
On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI
>>
>> So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line
>> helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the
>> line.
>
> As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests.

Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to
contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g
test.

--
- Frank Krygowski

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

lou.h...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 16, 2018, 5:44:15 AM6/16/18
to
Geez Frank what is the significance of this post? Ever looked at the authentic high end helmets? I guess not. Never leave an opportunity to express your opinion about helmets heh?. Maybe you should spend that time on straightening your handlebar.

Lou

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 16, 2018, 5:26:59 PM6/16/18
to
Lou, you'd better not demand "significance" tests for posts. Your own may not
qualify.

- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 16, 2018, 8:29:54 PM6/16/18
to
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/11/kentucky-man-convicted-selling-counterfeit-helmets-ebay#.WyPRf0q99PI
> >>
> >> So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line
> >> helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the
> >> line.
> >
> > As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests.
>
> Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to
> contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g
> test.

Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution.

From the AUSA's trial memo:

The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the
destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets,
respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with
photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit
written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab
report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and
therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola
was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report
written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the
United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests
were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case.

I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public.

-- Jay Beattie.



Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 16, 2018, 11:00:25 PM6/16/18
to
OK, that's information that wasn't mentioned in the article.

It's been interesting to me that the primitive helmet certification test
is so revered, despite its ignoring most TBI science since about 1970.
Yes, "no helmet can protect against all foreseeable impacts" as the
proudly state on the internal stickers. (IOW, "don't blame us if this
thing doesn't work.") But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that
approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite
hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories.

As mentioned, the old Skid Lid helmets of 1974 or so accumulated lots of
"saved my life!!!" stories too. That's even though they didn't come
close to meeting the present standard - which some suspect was
deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not.

Ah well. I know questioning helmets is blasphemy...

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 12:38:59 AM6/17/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> It's been interesting to me that the
> primitive helmet certification test is so
> revered, despite its ignoring most TBI
> science since about 1970. Yes, "no helmet can
> protect against all foreseeable impacts" as
> the proudly state on the internal stickers.
> (IOW, "don't blame us if this thing doesn't
> work.") But nationwide data makes it fairly
> clear that approved helmets aren't making
> much of a difference at all, despite hundreds
> of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories.
>
> As mentioned, the old Skid Lid helmets of
> 1974 or so accumulated lots of "saved my
> life!!!" stories too. That's even though they
> didn't come close to meeting the present
> standard - which some suspect was
> deliberately set at a level that Bell could
> pass but Skid Lid could not.
>
> Ah well. I know questioning helmets is
> blasphemy...

Tho I've heard hitting your head without
a helmet in bicycle accidents can affect your
mind in the sense it will repeat the same
brain pattern over and over?

russell...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 2:10:15 PM6/17/18
to
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that
> approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite
> hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet.

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 2:47:39 PM6/17/18
to
russell...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I've been involved in a few bike accidents
> over the decades. One without a helmet.
> Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years
> later to remind me of that day. Not a day
> I really care to remember. Others I was
> wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of
> those accidents except my memory. Well I do
> have a scar under my eye from one accident.
> Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet
> so under my eye was exposed. Went to the
> emergency room to get some stitches put in my
> face. My experience says its better to be
> wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear
> a helmet.

I think there is no doubt a helmet helps
against those injuries.

In boxing the saying goes a helmet will protect
against scars and tears but not really if you
get a haymaker straight into the planet.
Perhaps the same logic applies to bike
accidents?

As for me, I'm not that kind of rider so
I don't use a helmet but intuitively one would
think a helmet would decrease the impact in
more severe cases as well.

Anyway there should be research on this subject
not only from the bike equipment manufacturers
but also from university hospitals from all
over the world, if anyone cares enough to look
it up what their conclusions are.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 9:58:08 PM6/17/18
to
I avoid wrecking.

I remember one mountain bike ride long ago with, oh, maybe 8 other guys.
I had no helmet. All others but one (IIRC) did.

The ride was in a recreation area set aside for mountain bikes, dirt
motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. Sure enough, at one point the crew
decided to "get big air" by riding down into a gully and up the other
side, then launching into the air.

I decided it was too dangerous. The helmeted guys felt protected - until
one crashed and broke his collarbone. The ride ended as we walked him
back to his car.

I believe in risk compensation.

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 10:09:41 PM6/17/18
to
Yes, there's that.

But, as recently mentioned here, any helmet may well
mitigate abrasions and such (aside from the 'thwarting
death' argument). Yet designs such as Skid Lid, wildly
popular, were out of business with some arbitrary standard,
despite the fact that they mitigate common types of injuries
as well as any.

I posit that if helmet nazis were less shrill, there may
well have been more helmets in more formats worn by more
people than we have now despite rigid scolding and attempts
at shaming, compulsion and insult along with backlash.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 10:11:16 PM6/17/18
to
There is research of two general types.

Most research papers on helmet effectiveness track "head injuries" (as
opposed to brain injuries) in people showing up at hospitals from bike
crashes. They compare the head injury count among those reportedly
wearing helmets, vs. those not wearing helmets. They find more head
injuries in those without helmets.

The other research looks at trends (usually long term trends) when
helmet use increases. (In some cases, like New Zealand, laws and/or
publicity campaigns caused rapid jumps in helmet wearing.) Those trends
usually show no improvement in bike brain injuries, bike fatalities,
etc. In fact, recent data showed an _increase_ of over 60% in
bike-related concussions during the time when American helmet use
greatly increased.

Why the discrepancy between the two types of results? I think the main
reason is that those who choose to wear helmets are different in many
ways from those who do not choose to wear helmets. For example, one
physician in Texas performed a study of the first type to help his
campaign for an all-ages mandatory helmet law. But his study was unique
for the time because he also recorded blood alcohol content in
bicyclists who crashed. His study found that helmet use was not
significantly correlated with concussion or other brain injury, but
alcohol use was significantly correlated. In other words, it makes more
sense to get people to stop riding drunk than to get drunks to put on
helmets.

In reality, brain injury while bicycling is very rare. It's more common
while traveling as a pedestrian. And helmets have not caused any
significant improvement. They cause negligible improvement in a mostly
imaginary problem.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 17, 2018, 10:13:42 PM6/17/18
to
Guy Chapman used to post here frequently. He told many times about how
his life was (supposedly) saved by his "wooly cap."

Joy Beeson

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 12:01:26 AM6/18/18
to
On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 23:00:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> which some suspect was
> deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not.

If I recall correctly, Skid Lid was sunk by extreme horror that it
gave almost no protection to the top of the head. Every time I've
thunked my helmet it was in the area where Skid Lid concentrated its
protection.

Well, there was that time I climbed a playground slide meant for a
much shorter person and didn't bother to remove my hat first. But
Skid Lid would have sufficed.

I wonder whether there is still a category of hard hat called a "bump
cap"? Wikipedia said yes, but the link led to a page on which the
word "bump" does not appear. DuckDuckGo says that I can buy dozens of
different styles at Grainger.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 1:40:54 AM6/18/18
to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:01:08 -0300, Joy Beeson
<jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:

>I wonder whether there is still a category of hard hat called a "bump
>cap"? Wikipedia said yes, but the link led to a page on which the
>word "bump" does not appear. DuckDuckGo says that I can buy dozens of
>different styles at Grainger.

They're very much still alive. I have one. Basically, a bump cap is
rather thin plastic safety helmet, sometimes with a cloth cover making
it look something like a very large baseball cap.
<https://www.google.com/search?q=bump+cap&tbm=isch>
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=bump+cap>
<https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=bump+cap+baseball+-insert>
They're not made to deflect falling objects, but rather to deal with
clumsy fools like me that have a tendency to smash into overhanging
construction elements. None of them are DOT, ECE, or SNELL rated. I
have no idea if they are suitable for bicycle riding. Probably not as
there's almost no ventilation and would probably be like wearing a
sauna.



--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 1:57:40 AM6/18/18
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:40:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
wrote:
(...)

I was hoping to find something in the way of a fashionable bump cap.
They all seems to looks like baseball caps. This is as close to
something fashionable that I could find:
<https://www.ishn.com/articles/100645-new-bump-cap-styles-by-bon-mar-textiles>
Nothing in the way of foil coverings to protect the brain from evil
cell phone signals. No paint on Skid Lids. No dazzle camouflage.
Nothing resembling a derby or top hat. All I found were very boring.
I think there may be a fashion opportunity here for bump cap covers.

sms

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 4:06:04 AM6/18/18
to
On 6/15/2018 3:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Well, it was a mail fraud and federal counterfeiting case, so helmet safety was not really the issue, but the fact is that these knock-offs were junk.
>
> I've smashed two or three helmets, so having one that works to the extent they can work is a good thing. No, they don't protect you from all harms, etc., etc. (please refer to last 25 years of posts), but they can protect against certain harms if well manufactured.

Left unsaid was:

a) did the counterfeit helmets pass or fail the CPSC test.
b) did they test the genuine helmets in the same way.

The fact that a helmet breaks upon impact is not new or something bad,
they are single impact devices. They are not like football helmets.

"In an inelastic collision, the objects in the collision absorb energy.
In this case, the bike helmet should absorb as much of the energy as
possible. It should slow your head down as gradually as possible,
without sending it back in the opposite direction from the point of impact.

In the process, that bike helmet is probably going to crush, and not
bounce back. In fact, it may break into pieces. In any case, it’s not
going to keep the shape it had before the crash.

That’s a good thing."

sms

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 4:15:01 AM6/18/18
to
On 6/17/2018 11:47 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> I think there is no doubt a helmet helps
> against those injuries.

The data is clear that helmets are making a big difference.

"five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide
a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury
for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels
of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes
from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid
facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not
prevent lower facial injuries."

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 8:49:13 AM6/18/18
to
On 6/18/2018 12:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:40:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
> (...)
>
> I was hoping to find something in the way of a fashionable bump cap.
> They all seems to looks like baseball caps. This is as close to
> something fashionable that I could find:
> <https://www.ishn.com/articles/100645-new-bump-cap-styles-by-bon-mar-textiles>
> Nothing in the way of foil coverings to protect the brain from evil
> cell phone signals. No paint on Skid Lids. No dazzle camouflage.
> Nothing resembling a derby or top hat. All I found were very boring.
> I think there may be a fashion opportunity here for bump cap covers.
>

we have a smattering of these:
https://img0.etsystatic.com/187/0/6850025/il_340x270.1283481052_kk5u.jpg

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/272212472348-0-1/s-l1000.jpg

https://www.baggersmag.com/sites/baggersmag.com/files/styles/small_1x_/public/images/2016/08/street_steel_.png?itok=k2UmOVnl&fc=50,50

Pressed steel, 'just for looks', meet no standards of any
sort, $29.95.

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 9:59:05 AM6/18/18
to
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/17/2018 2:10 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 10:00:25 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >> But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that
> >> approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite
> >> hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories.
> >>
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > I've been involved in a few bike accidents over the decades. One without a helmet. Still have the scar on my forehead 35+ years later to remind me of that day. Not a day I really care to remember. Others I was wearing a helmet. Nothing to remind me of those accidents except my memory. Well I do have a scar under my eye from one accident. Helmet was not a full face motorcycle helmet so under my eye was exposed. Went to the emergency room to get some stitches put in my face. My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck that not wear a helmet.
>
> I avoid wrecking.

Yes, we know.

>
> I remember one mountain bike ride long ago with, oh, maybe 8 other guys.
> I had no helmet. All others but one (IIRC) did.
>
> The ride was in a recreation area set aside for mountain bikes, dirt
> motorcycles, four wheelers, etc. Sure enough, at one point the crew
> decided to "get big air" by riding down into a gully and up the other
> side, then launching into the air.
>
> I decided it was too dangerous. The helmeted guys felt protected - until
> one crashed and broke his collarbone. The ride ended as we walked him
> back to his car.
>
> I believe in risk compensation.

Yes, we know. So how does that work with getting hit by a car, wiping out on ice, going OTB after getting hung up in a dog leash? Basically all of my riding would be considered risk compensation. The times I've crushed helmets, I was doing what I did decades ago without a helmet. I don't care if you or anyone else wears a helmet, but I have gotten good use out of mine, if only avoiding scalp lacerations.

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 10:03:23 AM6/18/18
to
+1
No one wakes up in the morning planning to die in a bike wreck:

https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/ap-news/chicago-tv-host-athlete-elizabeth-brackett-dies-76-after-bike-fall

To call her 'inexpert' or 'deficit in cycling skills' or
'should have completed the Effective Cycling course' and so
on is ridiculous.

Duane

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 10:45:53 AM6/18/18
to
+1

Jeff Liebermann

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 11:54:54 AM6/18/18
to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 07:49:06 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/18/2018 12:57 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 22:40:59 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>> (...)
>>
>> I was hoping to find something in the way of a fashionable bump cap.
>> They all seems to looks like baseball caps. This is as close to
>> something fashionable that I could find:
>> <https://www.ishn.com/articles/100645-new-bump-cap-styles-by-bon-mar-textiles>
>> Nothing in the way of foil coverings to protect the brain from evil
>> cell phone signals. No paint on Skid Lids. No dazzle camouflage.
>> Nothing resembling a derby or top hat. All I found were very boring.
>> I think there may be a fashion opportunity here for bump cap covers.

>we have a smattering of these:
>https://img0.etsystatic.com/187/0/6850025/il_340x270.1283481052_kk5u.jpg

Horse riding helmet:
<https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=horse+riding+helmet>
The better one's seem rather expensive. Most are ASTM/SEI approved.
<https://www.troxelhelmets.com/pages/helmet-certifications>

>http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/272212472348-0-1/s-l1000.jpg

WWII German army helmet. The WWI helmets were better because they
included a pickelhaube on top.

>https://www.baggersmag.com/sites/baggersmag.com/files/styles/small_1x_/public/images/2016/08/street_steel_.png?itok=k2UmOVnl&fc=50,50

Salad bowl with a chin strap? Kinda crude and certainly not very
fashionable.

>Pressed steel, 'just for looks', meet no standards of any
>sort, $29.95.

Yes, but lacking in style, fashion, and elegance. The British seem to
know how to design proper helmets. For example:
<http://www.linkorient.com/ceremonial-helmet/>

If you're going to specify or design a bicycle helmet, think style,
fashion, unique, and looking cool first. Once those are established
and there's any money left, you can deal with price and protection.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 1:13:43 PM6/18/18
to
On 6/18/2018 10:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/18/2018 8:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>> I avoid wrecking.
>>
...
>>>
>>> I believe in risk compensation.
>>
>> Yes, we know. So how does that work with getting hit by a car, wiping
>> out on ice, going OTB after getting hung up in a dog leash?

It does work out somehow, Jay. I take measures to prevent all those
things, successfully. In some cases (riding on ice) the measure is to
avoid it. Note, you seem to sometimes get ice when we might get snow -
but I do ride in snow. Very carefully. Falls have been rare and injuries
nonexistent, except for an "ouch!" bump on the back of my head when I
was about 16. (I suppose if I'd worn a bike helmet then, people would
have said it saved my life.)

I'm willing to slow down for a dog on a leash, including the last one
that came out after me about five days ago. It's a known hazard; I watch
for it. The same is true for gravel on turns, potholes, motorists who
may turn left across my path, etc.

I don't care much for the story that goes "I goofed up and crashed, and
that proves helmets are great."

> No one wakes up in the morning planning to die in a bike wreck:
>
> https://wbbm780.radio.com/articles/ap-news/chicago-tv-host-athlete-elizabeth-brackett-dies-76-after-bike-fall
>
> To call her 'inexpert' or 'deficit in cycling skills' or 'should have
> completed the Effective Cycling course' and so on is ridiculous.

Apparently nobody knows the cause of her crash. We can't say if it was
due to a mistake that she made, or something else.

But I note that every cycling photo of her on several sites showed her
wearing a helmet. So what's the lesson here? "Always wear your helmet
because this lady died despite wearing a helmet?"

Bike fatalities are rare - far more rare than pedestrian fatalities, for
example. But in that small population of bike fatalities, helmeted
fatalities are not uncommon.

You can usually spot them in the news reports. When a person wearing a
helmet dies, the helmet is often not mentioned, as in this case. When a
person without a helmet dies, the news says "He was not wearing a
helmet," to put partial blame on the victim.

Of course, bicyclists and motorcyclists are the only ones subject to
that blame. The far greater numbers of dead pedestrians and motorists
are not shamed about their lack of plastic headwear, for some reason.

Ned Mantei

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 1:45:12 PM6/18/18
to
On 18-06-18 04:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> In reality, brain injury while bicycling is very rare. It's more common
> while traveling as a pedestrian. And helmets have not caused any
> significant improvement. They cause negligible improvement in a mostly
> imaginary problem.

My helmet story: In 1989 I was stopped at a traffic light to the right
of tram tracks that were wet from rain. As the light turned green I
wanted to turn left. The front wheel slipped on the wet track and I came
crashing down hard on the road/other track, breaking my left collar
bone*. Also my head came crashing down onto the pavement or other track,
hitting on the side. At that time probably less than one in a thousand
riders wore a helmet in Zurich, and I had bought my Bell helmet while on
vacation in the USA. I still clearly remember how the helmet took up the
shock of the blow, and am convinced that without it I would have had at
least a concussion and quite possibly ended up as a vegetable in a
nursing home for the rest of my life. It's true that nowadays, with more
experience from riding every day all these years, I would have realized
that the tracks would be slippery and would have crossed them more
carefully. But still I always where a helmet when riding.

Ned

* Further experience from that accident: If you are going to break a
bone, the collar bone may be the best bone to break. You don't need a
cast, and it generally heals well. Disadvantage: It's intensely painful.

Duane

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 2:38:51 PM6/18/18
to
Here we go...

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 2:49:47 PM6/18/18
to
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 10:13:43 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/18/2018 10:03 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 6/18/2018 8:59 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> >> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I avoid wrecking.
> >>
> ...
> >>>
> >>> I believe in risk compensation.
> >>
> >> Yes, we know. So how does that work with getting hit by a car, wiping
> >> out on ice, going OTB after getting hung up in a dog leash?
>
> It does work out somehow, Jay. I take measures to prevent all those
> things, successfully. In some cases (riding on ice) the measure is to
> avoid it. Note, you seem to sometimes get ice when we might get snow -
> but I do ride in snow. Very carefully. Falls have been rare and injuries
> nonexistent, except for an "ouch!" bump on the back of my head when I
> was about 16. (I suppose if I'd worn a bike helmet then, people would
> have said it saved my life.)

>
> I'm willing to slow down for a dog on a leash, including the last one
> that came out after me about five days ago. It's a known hazard; I watch
> for it. The same is true for gravel on turns, potholes, motorists who
> may turn left across my path, etc.
>
> I don't care much for the story that goes "I goofed up and crashed, and
> that proves helmets are great."

Hmmm. Yes, many crashes result from "goof-ups" -- by riders, drivers, pedestrians, manufacturers, etc. I crashed on UmmaGumma tires because of Specialized's choice of tread compound. That was a serious goof-up. God goofed-up and created invisible and localized black-ice on my way to work one morning. Racers have goofed-up in front of me, crashing and piling-up like cord wood. I cartwheeled over my son who goofed-up and crashed in front of me on a wet descent -- which was due in part to slippery tread compound. I won't even get into the goof-ups by motorists.

-- Jay Beattie.





Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 3:12:37 PM6/18/18
to
On 6/18/2018 1:45 PM, Ned Mantei wrote:
> On 18-06-18 04:11, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> In reality, brain injury while bicycling is very rare. It's more
>> common while traveling as a pedestrian. And helmets have not caused
>> any significant improvement. They cause negligible improvement in a
>> mostly imaginary problem.
>
> My helmet story: In 1989 I was stopped at a traffic light to the right
> of tram tracks that were wet from rain. As the light turned green I
> wanted to turn left. The front wheel slipped on the wet track and I came
> crashing down hard on the road/other track, breaking my left collar
> bone*. Also my head came crashing down onto the pavement or other track,
> hitting on the side. At that time probably less than one in a thousand
> riders wore a helmet in Zurich, and I had bought my Bell helmet while on
> vacation in the USA. I still clearly remember how the helmet took up the
> shock of the blow, and am convinced that without it I would have had at
> least a concussion and quite possibly ended up as a vegetable in a
> nursing home for the rest of my life. It's true that nowadays, with more
> experience from riding every day all these years, I  would have realized
> that the tracks would be slippery and would have crossed them more
> carefully. But still I always where a helmet when riding.
>
> Ned

Yep. "My helmet saved me" stories are a dime a dozen. Yet there is no
corresponding reduction in cycling fatalities nor concussion counts.

I'm not saying that no helmet has ever reduced injuries. But adding an
inch of fragile styrofoam to one's head is very likely to produce false
claims of benefit. Again, if my 16 year old self had worn a helmet on
that icy day, it would have certainly cracked. Most helmet proponents
would have said it prevented serious injury. But there was no serious
injury at all - nothing beyond "Ouch, that really hurt!"

We once had a tandem crash. It was at low speed, when the fork blades
suddenly broke off upon hitting a pothole, because the custom builder
was in a rush to finish the bike before his honeymoon. Without telling
me, he substituted thin track-gage forks whose metal was one third that
of the proper tandem gage forks. Anyway, my wife cracked the super-thin
plastic shell on the helmet. I had to buy her a new one just to prevent
the "See? It saved her life!" stories. And of course, the manufacturer
says the magic leaks out if you're in any crash at all.

And again, even if it _were_ proven that styrofoam helmets are
marvelously protective, why should they be promoted only for the group
that makes up just 0.6% of America's TBI fatalities? Pedestrians' counts
are far higher, and are higher on a per-mile basis. Motorists' counts
are also far higher, and car helmets would be far, far cheaper than
explosive airbags.

Society's medical costs would be reduced far more if the funny hats were
applied to the groups with the biggest injury counts. Instead, they've
applied a myth of brain injury to a very safe and beneficial activity.
And cyclists are keen to promote the "Danger! Danger!" myth. Go figure.

--
- Frank Krygowski

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 3:20:44 PM6/18/18
to
Right.
After a lifetime of road rash, stitches and a nice selection
of screws and hardware[1] I qualify as an expert, as much as
anyone.

Bad things happen to good riders. Some were by my error,
either by omission or commission, but some were not
avoidable in any practical sense. And there you have life's
randomness. Chaos doesn't emote.

Yes, critical analysis of riding helps. That and experience
are good, but not sufficient to avoid all injuries. Yes, at
the margin helmets do something[2], but are not a panacea
either.

[1] some neat scars; great conversation starter
[2] not interested in that argument today

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 3:22:09 PM6/18/18
to
Yes, I understand. None of those were foreseeable. It's just normal
behavior to fly through wet descents, to be unaware of freezing
temperatures, to test the limits of new tires' traction, to push to the
limit in races...

Look, if I were to enter races, I'd wear a helmet. That's true for bike
racing, motorcycle racing or car racing. That's beside the point.
(Although the two road races I entered way back when featured no
helmets. Same was true for most races around the world. Oh, the humanity!)

And I suppose if you really have a compulsion to explore the limits of
traction, it might be reasonable to wear a helmet, although some very
smart people have disagreed.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stronglight/5460047009

But I've always been a pretty careful rider, and it's paid off. YMMV.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 3:32:46 PM6/18/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> In fact, recent data showed an _increase_ of
> over 60% in bike-related concussions during
> the time when American helmet use
> greatly increased.

Perhaps other things changed during that time
as well? More people riding, traffic getting
even more out of hand, and so on.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 5:46:29 PM6/18/18
to
On 6/18/2018 3:32 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> In fact, recent data showed an _increase_ of
>> over 60% in bike-related concussions during
>> the time when American helmet use
>> greatly increased.
>
> Perhaps other things changed during that time
> as well? More people riding, traffic getting
> even more out of hand, and so on.

I've seen no evidence. The popularity of riding goes up and down with
fashion, but there's been no 60% increase.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/08/bicycle_commuting_still_not_that_popular.html

Regarding helmet use and brain injury: Rare as it is, the needle isn't
even moving in the right direction. How many excuses for the helmet
mania can people make?

It should be last on the list of tactics to improve bicycling.


--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 8:42:11 PM6/18/18
to
How dramatic! All the sudden I'm flying through wet corners and pushing it to the limit in races! I should have my own YouTube channel.

The fact is that ordinary people just riding along can get whacked or crash. Black ice is invisible and localized, and riding in temperatures below 32F is SOP for year-round commuters in the PNW.

Race crashes can occur when people are bunched up and not pushing it to the limit -- or a dog runs into the field or someone hits road furniture or railroad tracks. Crashes are not confined to the finishing sprint or hair-raising descents.

I live in a wet environment that is hilly and has bad roads. People can crash just riding along -- even the mayor. https://bikeportland.org/2017/11/16/portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-breaks-ribs-in-bicycle-crash-254716

And people can get whacked by cars or other bicyclists for no reason. Shit happens -- except to you, which is amazing. You should should have your own shrine, right along with the cheese sandwich with the image of the Virgin Mary.

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 8:58:12 PM6/18/18
to
Dog indeed. Joachim Agostinho finished his career, and life,
leading with just meters to the finish line when a dog did
him in. Nothing in 'Effective Cycling' or any amount of
prudence would have helped him. He was among the oldest
Pros at the time, with as much riding experience as anyone
on earth.

In a similar vein, my ex employee Carl Zach, a fine young
man and a schoolteacher, was leading a race, his mother
watching at the finish line, when an ambulance, not on call,
sailed around a barricade and across the course and killed
him despite his helmet.

Tim McNamara

unread,
Jun 18, 2018, 10:33:15 PM6/18/18
to
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT), russell...@yahoo.com
<russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck
> that not wear a helmet.

I had a concussion while wearing a helmet and my head never even hit
anything. No headgear could have prevented the concussion because of
that. But even so, the CPSC standards are so low that aduts riding at
adult speeds (say 15+ mph) will gwt little protection against
concussions and TBIs. A helmet that did provide adequate protection
would be unsuitable for use while riding a bike. Maybe someday someone
will come up with a practical cycling helmet design that actually works.
Speaking of which, anyone know if the MIPS helmets actually provide any
benefits over conventional designs?

Helmets are probably pretty good at preventing injuries like scalp
lacerations and abrasions to the areas they cover. They're less good at
protecting the brain. But this is just a rehashed argument that's been
going on for decades, with people adopting their usual postures, and
will again resolve nothing.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 12:05:19 AM6/19/18
to
On 6/18/2018 10:33 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 11:10:11 -0700 (PDT), russell...@yahoo.com
> <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> My experience says its better to be wearing a helmet when you wreck
>> that not wear a helmet.
>
> I had a concussion while wearing a helmet and my head never even hit
> anything. No headgear could have prevented the concussion because of
> that. But even so, the CPSC standards are so low that aduts riding at
> adult speeds (say 15+ mph) will gwt little protection against
> concussions and TBIs. A helmet that did provide adequate protection
> would be unsuitable for use while riding a bike. Maybe someday someone
> will come up with a practical cycling helmet design that actually works.
> Speaking of which, anyone know if the MIPS helmets actually provide any
> benefits over conventional designs?

Randy Swart, AKA the Bicycle Helmet Research Institute and probably the
heaviest promoter of bike helmets in the U.S., seems to think MIPS is
little more than a marketing ploy. (As if the rest of helmet pitches are
somehow different.)

See https://helmets.org/mips.htm


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 12:27:42 AM6/19/18
to
Jay, I don't think I'm all that amazing. Yes, I've had almost no bike
crashes or injuries. But there are lots and lots of people whose worst
lifetime bike injury is a skinned knee. That's true of my wife and my
two kids, plus dozens of people I ride with.

Yes, I have some friends, avid riders, who crashed and who claimed
their helmets certainly saved them. Examples? The guy who tied his
jacket around his handlebars and had a sleeve come loose and tangle in
his front spokes. The guy who was speeding down an unfamiliar curvy hill
with gravel on the road. One guy who claimed he was "just riding along"
on a smooth straight road and suddenly fell for no reason. (???) Are we
really supposed to prioritize plastic hats over "get some sense, please!"?

But I have many more friends who crashed and incurred no head strike nor
helmet damage, despite other injuries like broken collar bones or broken
ribs. It's a myth that most bike crashes are TBI events, just as it's a
myth that in the pre-styrofoam days, TBI events were common.

And I have friends and family who have had TBI injuries that had nothing
to do with bicycling, like one who ran into a fence playing outfield.
One who was hit in the head by a thrown bat. Several who were TBId while
riding in cars or pickup trucks. And so on.

I have had, at last count, seven friends who died in car crashes, most
probably from TBI. (It's seldom mentioned for car crashes.) And one who
died while riding the same model motorcycle I ride. Yes, he wore a helmet.

Stuff happens. It happens to motorists, pedestrians, people walking
around their houses, people playing various team sports, people hiking,
people swimming, people working, people just lying in bed - or more
precisely, falling out of bed, a cause of death about as common as
bicycling. But somehow almost none of those people are shamed if they
choose not to wear a funny plastic hat.

Any impartial examination of data will show that many of those
activities impose more risk of death or serious TBI than does bicycling.
And most of those activities don't have bicycling's tremendous benefit
to risk ratio. So why is it we assume bicyclists, and only bicyclists,
must "always wear a helmet"?

--
- Frank Krygowski

Sepp Ruf

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 2:52:11 AM6/19/18
to
jbeattie wrote:
> People can crash just riding along -- even the mayor.
> <https://bikeportland.org/2017/11/16/portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-breaks-ribs-in-bicycle-crash-254716>

The mayor's statement indicates that his braking action could have been
executed in a more careful manner. Just as a random $89.85 for a "quality"
helmet could have been better spent on tires working well in Portland
November, the 5.885 extra seconds (compared to a wet-weather hat) Mr. Walker
spent adjusting his foam hijab would have been better spent to initiate his
braking earlier. And, as this thread has already been driven deep into ribs
helmet advocacy territory, I'll boldly claim there is a corresponding 85%
chance Mr. Wheeler was not using the area of the road regularly cleaned by
car tires in his maneuver.

--
iudex non calculat.

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 7:09:05 AM6/19/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Regarding helmet use and brain injury: Rare
> as it is, the needle isn't even moving in the
> right direction. How many excuses for the
> helmet mania can people make?

Again, I'd like to see professionally conducted
studies with tables, charts, and figures...

John B Slocomb

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 8:05:34 AM6/19/18
to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 13:09:01 +0200, Emanuel Berg <moa...@zoho.com>
wrote:

>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Regarding helmet use and brain injury: Rare
>> as it is, the needle isn't even moving in the
>> right direction. How many excuses for the
>> helmet mania can people make?
>
>Again, I'd like to see professionally conducted
>studies with tables, charts, and figures...

One of the problems is that it isn't a simple A=B equation. Was the
guy with (or without) the helmet drinking or taking dope? Were the
helmet wearers (non wearers) obeying the traffic code? Was it night
(day), did that make a difference?

This isn't a helmet problem at all, almost every study I've read
eliminated some variables in order to attempt to get a viable answer
to the question of Why?

Or, to be honest, in some cases to the question, "Is this going to
show what I want it to"?

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 12:33:27 PM6/19/18
to
You can boldly claim whatever you want, but as you can see, Mr. Wheeler rides big rubber. He was riding the same roads where I fell and broke ribs and whacked my head, which is the usual fall mechanism when you have a low side crash on 100 year old broken cement pavement that has been reduced to polished rock -- with a river running down a 7-15% grade. Wheel tracks are just channels. Alternative route to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&t=119s (including trail). Coming down is tricky when it is storming. I was doing nothing unusual when I crashed -- on worn-in 28mm tires, JRA. Scene of the crime: https://tinyurl.com/yagxzbws Flip around and check out the pavement -- it's enough to loosen your fillings.

I've been riding next to skilled riders who crashed on the same road in the same place in the same turn at the same moderate speed just because they hit some unseen turtle shit or moss. You try to stay out from under the trees, but some places that's impossible. Whatever you views on helmets, every crash is not a matter of rider ineptitude.


-- Jay Beattie.




Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 12:57:02 PM6/19/18
to
On 6/19/2018 7:09 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Regarding helmet use and brain injury: Rare
>> as it is, the needle isn't even moving in the
>> right direction. How many excuses for the
>> helmet mania can people make?
>
> Again, I'd like to see professionally conducted
> studies with tables, charts, and figures...

There is information available.

I'd suggest starting with data on the magnitude bicycling's traumatic
brain injury (TBI) risk, especially relative to other sources of risk.
Is bicycling really an important source of traumatic brain injury?
Google for causes of TBI, ranked by annual frequency. Unless you're
hitting a bike helmet propaganda site, bicycling will not normally
appear on the list. (As an example: In the U.S., bicyclists comprise
only 0.6% of TBI fatalities. If bike helmets could prevent all of those,
it would make negligible difference in the nation's medical costs.) That
data should make you wonder why so much attention is given to hats on
bicyclists when the problem is really so small.

If for some reason (why??) you think it's necessary to further reduce
the tiny risk of bicycling TBI - but ignore the much greater number of
TBI cases from other causes - then you can dig into the countless
studies on helmet effectiveness. This site is the most prominent pro
helmet site in America. Its author wants mandatory helmet laws for all
ages in all circumstances. He also provides a handy list of insults one
can use against riders who choose not to use helmets. (Such a nice guy!)
https://helmets.org/

Here are two of the more prominent helmet skeptic sites. Please note
that, unlike that pro-helmet site, these people do not want to use laws
to impose their views on others. In other words, they don't want to make
helmets illegal; they just want to allow personal choice, and they don't
want bicycling demonized with "Danger! Danger!" propaganda.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is an older site, and while it has links to
hundreds of research papers both pro and con, it has not been well
maintained for several years.

http://cycle-helmets.com/ is currently maintained. It tends to be more
specific to Australia and New Zealand (the only countries with current
all-ages mandatory helmet laws, IIRC). It tends to have reams and reams
of data, much of which requires some work to understand.

When you read the pro-helmet propaganda, carefully note the propaganda
tricks. For example, understand that the terms "brain injury" and "head
injury" are NOT equivalent. Much propaganda on risk of TBI and on helmet
effectiveness purposely conflates the two terms.

Also be careful of "weasel words" like "up to..." or "as many as..."
which are used in selling helmets, just as in selling miracle diets,
deodorants or snake oil. Beware of injury counts that span decades in
order to use larger scarier numbers; or of injury counts that are not
compared to counts for other activities, like pedestrian travel or
motorist travel.

Happy reading ... for the next year, if you really want to get into it. ;-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 1:00:31 PM6/19/18
to
On 19/06/2018 12:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:52:11 PM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
>> jbeattie wrote:
>>> People can crash just riding along -- even the mayor.
>>> <https://bikeportland.org/2017/11/16/portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-breaks-ribs-in-bicycle-crash-254716>
>>
>> The mayor's statement indicates that his braking action could have been
>> executed in a more careful manner. Just as a random $89.85 for a "quality"
>> helmet could have been better spent on tires working well in Portland
>> November, the 5.885 extra seconds (compared to a wet-weather hat) Mr. Walker
>> spent adjusting his foam hijab would have been better spent to initiate his
>> braking earlier. And, as this thread has already been driven deep into ribs
>> helmet advocacy territory, I'll boldly claim there is a corresponding 85%
>> chance Mr. Wheeler was not using the area of the road regularly cleaned by
>> car tires in his maneuver.
>
> You can boldly claim whatever you want, but as you can see, Mr. Wheeler rides big rubber. He was riding the same roads where I fell and broke ribs and whacked my head, which is the usual fall mechanism when you have a low side crash on 100 year old broken cement pavement that has been reduced to polished rock -- with a river running down a 7-15% grade. Wheel tracks are just channels. Alternative route to work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&t=119s (including trail). Coming down is tricky when it is storming. I was doing nothing unusual when I crashed -- on worn-in 28mm tires, JRA. Scene of the crime: https://tinyurl.com/yagxzbws Flip around and check out the pavement -- it's enough to loosen your fillings.
>

Meh, that would be a luxury road in Quebec. Check around Morin Heights,
Sutton or more north toward Tremblant. You spend hours climbing and
then have to brake on the descents because of the potholes.

> I've been riding next to skilled riders who crashed on the same road in the same place in the same turn at the same moderate speed just because they hit some unseen turtle shit or moss. You try to stay out from under the trees, but some places that's impossible. Whatever you views on helmets, every crash is not a matter of rider ineptitude.
>
>

Well you could have been creeping along looking for the turtle shit or
moss. Or you could refuse to ride roads with tree cover.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 1:11:48 PM6/19/18
to
OK, aside from the crash caused by the tandem fork suddenly breaking
off, my only other moving on-road fall happened like this:

It was winter. I was riding home from work down a short steep downtown
hill. (The grade is over 15%, the hill is only 200 feet long, and the
road's since been closed to traffic.) There was lots of road salt on the
surface so I was descending very slowly, less than 10 mph.

I suddenly noticed that the patch of stuff just in front of me wasn't
road salt. Instead it was broken glass. I swerved rightward to avoid it.
My front tire slipped on the road salt and I fell. I scratched my knee
and tore my windbreaker.

I didn't say "That was an act of God." I didn't say "Nobody could have
avoided that." Instead I said "Damn; I screwed up."

I try hard to not screw up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 1:37:43 PM6/19/18
to
I'm actually a level four instructor (with oak leaf cluster) of turtle-shit/moss detection, certified by the Slick Roads Cycling Academy. I now train other instructors -- "Listen up group -- tree level five, moss hazard orange!" We also have special hand signals. I can send you course materials if you're interested. We also have a certification in pot hole detection and avoidance. "Group -- pot hole level six, maximum hazard avoidance protocol!" I can't disclose the protocol because it is copyrighted, but it will prevent you from hitting another pot hole in your life, even in Quebec, or up there, le hole du pot.

-- Jay Beattie.

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 3:54:55 PM6/19/18
to
I hit a submerged pot hole, went OTB, separated my shoulder, knocked myself out and cut my face -- but not my head or anywhere under my helmet, which was wrecked. I did not blame myself for being unable to see through standing water at night in a rainstorm. I suppose I could have walked home. I don't think Garmin makes sonar. I'll look into that.

BTW, low-side crashes (like my crash in the West Hills) can just happen and may or may not result in a head strike -- usually not, but they can. I'm not talking about a situation where you screw up, try to correct and then go down. You just go down due to loss of traction, often when traction was previously good. Culprits can be invisible like oil or even a change in pavement surface, crack seal, black ice, etc. There is no warning, no nothing. You hope the whole road is slick so you can just hockey puck and not get torn up. The skill move is not locking up the front brake and turning a relatively innocuous low-side crash into a high side crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpymMb2M4OE&t=34s


-- Jay Beattie.



Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 4:35:33 PM6/19/18
to
John B Slocomb wrote:

> One of the problems is that it isn't a simple
> A=B equation. Was the guy with (or without)
> the helmet drinking or taking dope? Were the
> helmet wearers (non wearers) obeying the
> traffic code? Was it night (day), did that
> make a difference?
>
> This isn't a helmet problem at all, almost
> every study I've read eliminated some
> variables in order to attempt to get a viable
> answer to the question of Why?
>
> Or, to be honest, in some cases to the
> question, "Is this going to show what I want
> it to"?

Nah, I think it is possible to conduct
investigations that aren't biased and give
a good enough indication. I think there are
plenty enough of good researchers around the
globe to carry that off.

Duane

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 5:59:05 PM6/19/18
to
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:00:31 AM UTC-7, duane wrote:
>> On 19/06/2018 12:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 11:52:11 PM UTC-7, Sepp Ruf wrote:
>>>> jbeattie wrote:
>>>>> People can crash just riding along -- even the mayor.
>>>>> <https://bikeportland.org/2017/11/16/portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-breaks-ribs-in-bicycle-crash-254716>
>>>>
>>>> The mayor's statement indicates that his braking action could have been
>>>> executed in a more careful manner. Just as a random $89.85 for a "quality"
>>>> helmet could have been better spent on tires working well in Portland
>>>> November, the 5.885 extra seconds (compared to a wet-weather hat) Mr. Walker
>>>> spent adjusting his foam hijab would have been better spent to initiate his
>>>> braking earlier. And, as this thread has already been driven deep into ribs
>>>> helmet advocacy territory, I'll boldly claim there is a corresponding 85%
>>>> chance Mr. Wheeler was not using the area of the road regularly cleaned by
>>>> car tires in his maneuver.
>>>
>>> You can boldly claim whatever you want, but as you can see, Mr. Wheeler
>>> rides big rubber. He was riding the same roads where I fell and broke
>>> ribs and whacked my head, which is the usual fall mechanism when you
>>> have a low side crash on 100 year old broken cement pavement that has
>>> been reduced to polished rock -- with a river running down a 7-15%
>>> grade. Wheel tracks are just channels. Alternative route to work:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJRnwgPa6rM&t 9s (including trail).
>>> Coming down is tricky when it is storming. I was doing nothing unusual
>>> when I crashed -- on worn-in 28mm tires, JRA. Scene of the crime:
>>> https://tinyurl.com/yagxzbws Flip around and check out the pavement --
>>> it's enough to loosen your fillings.
>>>
>>
>> Meh, that would be a luxury road in Quebec. Check around Morin Heights,
>> Sutton or more north toward Tremblant. You spend hours climbing and
>> then have to brake on the descents because of the potholes.
>>
>>> I've been riding next to skilled riders who crashed on the same road in
>>> the same place in the same turn at the same moderate speed just because
>>> they hit some unseen turtle shit or moss. You try to stay out from
>>> under the trees, but some places that's impossible. Whatever you views
>>> on helmets, every crash is not a matter of rider ineptitude.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well you could have been creeping along looking for the turtle shit or
>> moss. Or you could refuse to ride roads with tree cover.
>
> I'm actually a level four instructor (with oak leaf cluster) of
> turtle-shit/moss detection, certified by the Slick Roads Cycling Academy.
> I now train other instructors -- "Listen up group -- tree level five,
> moss hazard orange!" We also have special hand signals. I can send you
> course materials if you're interested. We also have a certification in
> pot hole detection and avoidance. "Group -- pot hole level six, maximum
> hazard avoidance protocol!" I can't disclose the protocol because it is
> copyrighted, but it will prevent you from hitting another pot hole in
> your life, even in Quebec, or up there, le hole du pot.
>

Nah le hole du pot might have a new meaning here lately but potholes are
“des nids-de-poule.”

But anyway I’d be happy to help translate your material. More education is
needed to stem the flow of stupid cyclists getting rear ended by drunks and
idiots. If those cyclists would only learn!

--
duane

Tim McNamara

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 6:40:52 PM6/19/18
to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:27:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Are we really supposed to prioritize plastic hats over "get some
> sense, please!"?

Well... yes. Products instead of sense is a profitable approach, and
that is the bedrock of capitalism. Common sense usually reduces profits
for the sale of non-essential products.

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 8:40:22 PM6/19/18
to
I have both -- common sense and a plastic hat. I got my plastic hat on sale, which is just common sense. It is gray and goes with everything -- common sensical and fashion sensible!

PS -- I was talking to Richard Painter on Friday. What a hoot. I'd vote for him. I know he's the super dark-horse with a "unique" affect, but its Minnesota! He could win!

He gave a presentation to a bunch of lawyers in Sunriver, Oregon -- no notes, no PowerPoint and totally enthralling. The focus was on ethics (he was ethics counsel for Bush 43), but it meandered into a Trump rant. I talked to him for a while afterwards. He's amazingly social for a guy with such a pedigree. He had a really funny bit about running into Dick Cheney in a White House bathroom. The national-class speakers often talk and run. I talked to John Dean last year at the same shindig, and he was also amazingly accessible and engaging.

Then I jumped on my bike and rode up Mt. Bachelor. https://localfreshies.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Peak_2014_V1-1024x768.jpg That's the 19 mile mark -- three miles to go to the closed ski resort with no open bathrooms.

I didn't die on the descent because I was wearing my plastic hat. It saved my life.

-- Jay Beattie.

John B Slocomb

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 10:44:49 PM6/19/18
to
On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 22:35:29 +0200, Emanuel Berg <moa...@zoho.com>
wrote:
Well "Biased"? One study I recently read about here linked helmet use
and alcohol use. i.e., those who wore helmets and those who wore
helmets and drank alcohol.

(Perhaps Frank quoted it?)

It seemed to say that those who drank alcohol and rode bicycles were
at a greater danger then those that wore helmets and rode a bicycle.

There was a California Highway Patrol of a year or so ago that showed
that of the bicyclist/auto impact rate related to unlawful bicycle use
in excess of 50 percent of the events.

Given that neither of these findings were likely to be quite what the
usual helmet study is designed to discover, do we ignore the data?

I might add that a good friend (now dead) worked the last 8 or ten
years of his like as a financial consultant making studies of new
project feasibility. His comment was that "It is damned hard to be
totally objective".

By the way, I seem to remember that the drunk cyclist factor seems to
have been reported by both the New York and the San Francisco
Coroner's offices.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 11:03:53 PM6/19/18
to
On 6/19/2018 3:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 19, 2018 at 10:11:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> OK, aside from the crash caused by the tandem fork suddenly breaking
>> off, my only other moving on-road fall happened like this:
>>
>> It was winter. I was riding home from work down a short steep downtown
>> hill. (The grade is over 15%, the hill is only 200 feet long, and the
>> road's since been closed to traffic.) There was lots of road salt on the
>> surface so I was descending very slowly, less than 10 mph.
>>
>> I suddenly noticed that the patch of stuff just in front of me wasn't
>> road salt. Instead it was broken glass. I swerved rightward to avoid it.
>> My front tire slipped on the road salt and I fell. I scratched my knee
>> and tore my windbreaker.
>>
>> I didn't say "That was an act of God." I didn't say "Nobody could have
>> avoided that." Instead I said "Damn; I screwed up."
>>
>> I try hard to not screw up.
>
> I hit a submerged pot hole, went OTB, separated my shoulder, knocked myself out and cut my face -- but not my head or anywhere under my helmet, which was wrecked. I did not blame myself for being unable to see through standing water at night in a rainstorm. I suppose I could have walked home. I don't think Garmin makes sonar. I'll look into that.

Good plan. You gotta be safe!

> BTW, low-side crashes (like my crash in the West Hills) can just happen and may or may not result in a head strike -- usually not, but they can.

Yes, they can. Lots of things _can_ cause head strikes. Most have
nothing at all to do with bicycles. But only for bicycles and
motorcycles does "It can happen" translate to "so you really should wear
a helmet."

> I'm not talking about a situation where you screw up, try to correct and then go down. You just go down due to loss of traction, often when traction was previously good.

Yep. That's what happened to me in that incident I described. It felt
like a judo throw.

FWIW, it's also happened to me mountain biking off road, including at
least once due to ice. Back in those days, I figured falling was a
normal part of mountain biking, because I was trying to see what I could
get away with on the bike. Sometimes that involved riding at "eleven
tenths," as they say.

But oddly, while I often wore a helmet mountain biking, I never hit one
on anything other than twigs.

> Culprits can be invisible like oil or even a change in pavement surface, crack seal, black ice, etc. There is no warning, no nothing.

I suspect I'm a much more conservative rider than you are. I suspect I
was much more careful even back when I was your age.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 19, 2018, 11:12:55 PM6/19/18
to
Back in my most avid motorcycling days, my riding buddies and I had a
sort of hand signal to warn following riders about gravel patches.
Again, on a motorcycle I'm also very careful.

My crash record on motorcycles is very similar to my bicycle experience.
One low speed fall when a bungee holding my briefcase popped loose and I
did a bad job bringing the bike to a stop while trying to keep the
briefcase out of the wheel. One low speed off-road fall pulling out from
under a bridge after a thunderstorm, when I learned that wet railroad
tracks have zero coefficient of friction. Never an injury, except a
minor burn from a hot engine or exhaust pipe.

I leave it to the reader to guess how many car crashes I've had. ;-)

--
- Frank Krygowski

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 12:41:43 AM6/20/18
to
What would more careful look like? Using a walker? I'm on blood thinners from a ski accident and a couple PEs, so its not like I'm channeling Marty Ashton. I'm still doing 100-200 miles a week and have been for >40 years, with higher mileage for 20 years when I was racing, so my injury rate per mile is still low -- particularly in light of my super risk-taking behavior, like riding a bike downhill in the rain or on a rain-soaked road. Me and the rest of the Pacific Northwest.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 9:56:08 AM6/20/18
to
My "more careful" still includes 40 mph downhills, riding in groups,
drafting, riding in city and suburban traffic, and a bit of riding in
the woods, on gravel, etc.

But for me, it includes lots and lots of "what if" anticipation and
attention to the road surface. What if there's gravel around that
downhill bend? What if that motorist tries to push into the roundabout
while I'm in the circle? What if that puddle is really a deep pothole?
What if the meeting goes late and I have to ride home in the dark? What
if that squirrely rider suddenly weaves into my path? What if that mud
across the bike trail is really slippery?

I'm sure you do more miles than I do. (A recent health issue has all but
stopped my riding for a while.) I'm positive you ride more miles in the
rain than I ever will. But I still suspect that if I could match you
mile for mile, I'd arrive a bit later than you, but with fewer crash tales.

We used to have a dude here who bragged about riding drunk, about
getting big air entering an intersection from a sidewalk, about riding
wrong-way or riding at night without lights, etc. He claimed I didn't
know as much as he did about riding because he had crashed a lot more. I
think that logic is perfectly backwards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Radey Shouman

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 10:18:35 AM6/20/18
to
jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com> writes:

> On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

[...]

>> I believe in risk compensation.
>
> Yes, we know. So how does that work with getting hit by a car, wiping
> out on ice, going OTB after getting hung up in a dog leash? Basically
> all of my riding would be considered risk compensation.

Exactly right. Not only all of your riding, but just about all of your
waking activity involves risk compensation, which isn't a mental
pathology, but just a fancy way of describing normal human behavior.

Risk compensation becomes a problem only when our mental estimates of
risk lose their base in reality. I suspect that neither you nor Frank
have risk estimators that are too far out of whack -- the differences lie
on the reward side.

--

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 11:49:46 AM6/20/18
to
On 6/18/2018 12:32 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> In fact, recent data showed an _increase_ of
>> over 60% in bike-related concussions during
>> the time when American helmet use
>> greatly increased.
>
> Perhaps other things changed during that time
> as well? More people riding, traffic getting
> even more out of hand, and so on
That's an issue you often see. People ignoring other changes, and not
looking at the big picture. Or citing false data without references, as
Frank did in this case, and has a long history of doing.

Be very wary when you see statements like "Studies show," "some people
say," or "data shows" without any reference to back up those statements.
It's Faux News type journalism at its worst. I see it more often now
with reports designed to promote the passage of a law or ordinance being
full of unverifiable claims designed to promote the idea that there is
some serious problem that must be addressed with the passage of a new
law. I was tremendously impressed to receive a letter from a middle
school class asking that some useless city laws on the books be
repealed, since I'm so used to seeing requests for more laws to make
everything safe for everyone.

The real-world data is overwhelming. For example, in
<https://web.archive.org/web/20160507103722/http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf>
(PDF page 18, report page 16) it states:

"Among the fatalities with documented helmet use, 97% of the bicyclists
were not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash. Only 4 bicyclists
who died (3%) were wearing a helmet. All child or teen bicyclists who
died were not wearing helmets. Helmet usage is required by law for all
children under 14 in New York."

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 11:58:04 AM6/20/18
to
Well maybe that happens to your mayor. I have ridden with the Mountain
View mayor Lenny Siegel, and Cupertino mayor Darcy Paul and in neither
case did they crash.

<https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/01/cycling-siegel-to-offer-a-mayors-eye-view-of-mountain-view-streets/>

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 12:18:53 PM6/20/18
to
There's also the question of whether you go with data solely based on
crashes and look at the helmet versus no helmet data, which shows an
overwhelming benefit to helmet use, or data that looks at the number of
injuries or fatalities as helmet use has increased.

The latter is more easily manipulated by including or leaving out
contributing factors such as the changes in ridership due to various
factors (weather changes, increases in mass transit availability,
economic factors, etc.).

In my own city we have seen a tremendous increase in unhelmeted cyclists
but it's due to one huge company deploying thousands of bicycles for
employee use. I was talking to someone from that company yesterday about
the bicycles they use and he said that one reason for the single-speed
bicycles was to keep speeds down. Some residents have complained that
the lack of helmets sets a bad example, but when you look at the data
the number of head impact crashes where a helmet would make a difference
is pretty small, it's when you look at the ER data that you see the
overwhelming advantages of a helmet.

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 12:30:19 PM6/20/18
to
On 6/19/2018 12:54 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> I hit a submerged pot hole, went OTB, separated my shoulder, knocked myself out and cut my face -- but not my head or anywhere under my helmet, which was wrecked. I did not blame myself for being unable to see through standing water at night in a rainstorm. I suppose I could have walked home. I don't think Garmin makes sonar. I'll look into that.

The helmet just mitigated a problem which you should have addressed in
other ways. What is the PCI in the city in which you hit the pot hole?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavement_Condition_Index>.

You should check the PCI of any city you expect to ride in. In fact
Garmin should program in the PCI for everyplace in the world for which
that data is available. It's often available for individual streets as
well, and they should program that in too
<http://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=20763>. It would also be
a good crowd-sourced app for smart phones where a database of problem
areas are maintained. If you've used Waze, it warns of potholes based on
crowd-sourced data.

I was recently on a ride with our Public Works director, and it went
into San Jose from Cupertino. You immediately could tell which city is
spending the money to bring their PCI up. San Jose is at 63, while
Cupertino is at 78, but the average doesn't tell the whole story. The
major bicycle route to downtown San Jose has some sections that are
clearly below 50. Two years ago I could not even spell PCI and now I
think about it often.

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 12:34:39 PM6/20/18
to
OMG, there have been endless studies, all that show a benefit to helmet
usage to some degree. The problem is not a lack of studies, it's that
those that are opposed to helmet usage will ALWAYS nitpick some aspect
of even the most rigorous study, and proclaim that the results are invalid.

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 2:40:20 PM6/20/18
to
sms wrote:

> OMG, there have been endless studies, all
> that show a benefit to helmet usage to some
> degree. The problem is not a lack of studies,
> it's that those that are opposed to helmet
> usage will ALWAYS nitpick some aspect of even
> the most rigorous study, and proclaim that
> the results are invalid.

What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
else is doing?

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 2:48:08 PM6/20/18
to
Except for those who ride blindfolded, most of us DO plan ahead. BTW, I probably see more squirrely riders in a day than you do in a week or a month. I live among the squirrels. The number of cyclists on the cycletrack yesterday was positively Amsterdamish.

> I'm sure you do more miles than I do. (A recent health issue has all but
> stopped my riding for a while.) I'm positive you ride more miles in the
> rain than I ever will. But I still suspect that if I could match you
> mile for mile, I'd arrive a bit later than you, but with fewer crash tales.

More miles in the rain and at night -- 35 years in PDX with different lights, most of which were (or are, i.e. my Luxos) useless on rain soaked streets. With glasses, it's like Braille riding. I suppose the conservative thing to do would be to drive.

BTW, you equate low speed with safety, which is not always the case. This was my commute this morning -- https://tinyurl.com/ybfcd69h, spin around and look down the hill. This is an arterial. When its raining hard, you can brake to a stop on the polished aggregate near the top and continue sliding down the hill, particularly if its oily after a dry spell. I accommodate by carrying a little speed until the pavement improves, which some may view as "risk taking." The same goes with some trail spots on the way home or out on a ride where I avoid disaster by carrying a little speed over obstacles. Being overly timid can lead to disaster, particularly riding in a group.

-- Jay Beattie.

sms

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 3:39:41 PM6/20/18
to
On 6/20/2018 11:40 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
>> OMG, there have been endless studies, all
>> that show a benefit to helmet usage to some
>> degree. The problem is not a lack of studies,
>> it's that those that are opposed to helmet
>> usage will ALWAYS nitpick some aspect of even
>> the most rigorous study, and proclaim that
>> the results are invalid.
>
> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
> help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
> a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
> else is doing?

It's because if others choose to use a helmet it implies that there is a
benefit, and part of choosing to not wear a helmet is to promote the
narrative that there is no benefit. Yet even some individuals that have
spoken out passionately against the uselessness of helmets actually wear
them!

I also think that part of the narrative is to promote the unsupported
claim that helmet use, either mandated or encouraged, leads to reduced
cycle use. Even that is rather amusing because there is no data to
support that claim.

The fallback retort to data showing the benefits of helmet use is to
claim that the rate of increase in cycling has been lower than the
population increase in countries with all-ages mandatory helmet use.
This claim is true, at least in some countries, though it's a stretch to
claim that the reason that the population increased at a greater rate
than the cycling rate is because of a mandatory helmet law. With or
without helmet laws or helmet promotion, cycling rates vary for multiple
reasons.

Joy Beeson

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 10:18:30 PM6/20/18
to
On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:40:16 +0200, Emanuel Berg <moa...@zoho.com>
wrote:

> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
> help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
> a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
> else is doing?

Why isn't it enough just to use a helmet oneself and ignore whatever
anyone else is doing?

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net



Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 20, 2018, 11:44:57 PM6/20/18
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:40:20 PM UTC-4, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> sms wrote:
>
> > OMG, there have been endless studies, all
> > that show a benefit to helmet usage to some
> > degree. The problem is not a lack of studies,
> > it's that those that are opposed to helmet
> > usage will ALWAYS nitpick some aspect of even
> > the most rigorous study, and proclaim that
> > the results are invalid.
>
> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
> help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
> a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
> else is doing?

First, understand this disagreement has been debated here and in dozens of
other forums for decades. Over those years, people who promote or demand
helmet use have put out reams of lies and distortions.

Example: Stephen M. Scharf, who posts as "sms" claims there is still no
evidence that mandating helmets reduces cycling. He sometimes claims that
observed decreases (as in Australia and New Zealand) are coincidences, caused
by people playing more video games, or by increases in car traffic, or
whatever. He ignores the fact that the drops in cycling were quite sudden,
and happened exactly when helmets became mandatory; and that telephone surveys
confirmed that the helmet law was a major deterrent to cycling. Newer surveys
continue to corroborate that fact. Recently, when surveys were done to diagnose
the reasons for the failure of Melbourne's bike share scheme, the biggest
reason given was the helmet requirement.

And this matters to me. I don't think that we should be dissuading people from
riding bikes, either by imposing useless restrictions on riders, or by spouting
propaganda that makes cycling seem terribly risky. We don't push for helmets
for walkers, even though they suffer many more serious or fatal brain injuries
than bicyclists. We don't push for helmets for motorists, even though in the
U.S., well over 35,000 of them die despite seat belts and air bags. Why on
earth should we scare people about dying while bicycling, when in the U.S.
there are only about 800 bike fatalities per year, with fewer than half by
T.B.I.? (There are about 4500 annual pedestrian deaths in America, with
about 40% due to TBI. More pedestrians than bicyclists die per mile traveled.)

All this fear mongering is done to sell a plastic product that, despite some
cooked research, has brought no detectable improvement in fatalities or
concussions. People have wasted millions and millions of dollars on fragile
foam hats, and people now believe that every time the styrofoam is dented, it's
proof that they made a wise purchase, even a life-saving one. But despite
thousands of "It saved my life" stories, there simply has been no corresponding
drop in deaths. There has been an _increase_ in bike concussions. That should
tell us that most of the "saved my life" or "prevented a concussion" stories
must be mistaken.

So in summary: When there's nonsense spread about how terribly dangerous it is
to ride a bike, and how common brain injury is; about how wonderfully protective
a low-standard, expensive and fragile hat is; about how "Danger! Danger!"
warnings do no harm; about how mandating weird hats can't possibly discourage
riding... Well, sorry, but I respond.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 12:13:45 AM6/21/18
to
On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:48:08 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 6:56:08 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > My "more careful" still includes 40 mph downhills, riding in groups,
> > drafting, riding in city and suburban traffic, and a bit of riding in
> > the woods, on gravel, etc.
> >
> > But for me, it includes lots and lots of "what if" anticipation and
> > attention to the road surface. What if there's gravel around that
> > downhill bend? What if that motorist tries to push into the roundabout
> > while I'm in the circle? What if that puddle is really a deep pothole?
> > What if the meeting goes late and I have to ride home in the dark? What
> > if that squirrely rider suddenly weaves into my path? What if that mud
> > across the bike trail is really slippery?
>
> Except for those who ride blindfolded, most of us DO plan ahead.

It's not a binary thing, Jay. There are degrees of planning and levels of skill.
Some do it better than others. I think one way to tell who does it better is to
count crashes - ideally, crashes per mile.

Yes, we might make allowances for riding conditions. Perhaps a crash in a
criterium or road race shouldn't count against a person nearly as much. And
perhaps if a person is 100% committed to riding in any weather, they should
get a bonus. But I've known more than one person who gave up riding because
they crashed too much. That tells me there is very likely a bell curve at
work here. I try to be at the good end of that curve.

Does it equate to slowing down? Only sometimes. Most often it means being
observant, knowing how to prepare and be ready in case something comes up.
Preparing and being ready may be things like changing lane position (usually
further left) and covering the brakes. It means pedaling continuously when
approaching a motorist who may pull out, so he doesn't expect me to stop for
him. It means looking way ahead to plan the best path through all the
potholes, not just the one in front. It means downshifting before a stop so
I'm in a good starting gear, and knowing how to start quickly when needed.
And so on.

I'm not saying you're not a good rider. But I think it's likely that one's
crash history is determined by the balance between the risks one takes and
one's skill level. I think some people take more risks than their skill level
justifies. (Hell, I've seen that for sure.)

Above all, if a person has a good riding record, I wouldn't put it off to luck,
any more than I'd say LeBron James is just lucky at shooting baskets.

- Frank Krygowski

Duane

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 6:22:22 AM6/21/18
to
Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 20:40:16 +0200, Emanuel Berg <moa...@zoho.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
>> help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
>> a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
>> else is doing?
>
> Why isn't it enough just to use a helmet oneself and ignore whatever
> anyone else is doing?
>

+1

--
duane

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 8:03:25 AM6/21/18
to
Joy Beeson wrote:

>> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do
>> not help? Why isn't it enough just to not
>> use a helmet oneself and ignore whatever
>> anyone else is doing?
>
> Why isn't it enough just to use a helmet
> oneself and ignore whatever anyone else
> is doing?

Personally I don't use a helmet, but isn't that
what happens? Who is ranting about helmet use?
No one here and no one I know. But perhaps in
the road bike and MTB world people do that,
what do I know.

Duane

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 8:17:03 AM6/21/18
to
On 21/06/2018 8:03 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Joy Beeson wrote:
>
>>> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do
>>> not help? Why isn't it enough just to not
>>> use a helmet oneself and ignore whatever
>>> anyone else is doing?
>>
>> Why isn't it enough just to use a helmet
>> oneself and ignore whatever anyone else
>> is doing?
>
> Personally I don't use a helmet, but isn't that
> what happens? Who is ranting about helmet use?
> No one here and no one I know. But perhaps in
> the road bike and MTB world people do that,
> what do I know.
>

In my experience, the ranting goes on mostly here on RBT. In the real
world people use helmets or don't. I guess the argument is really about
mandatory helmet laws but it becomes a religious discussion here. It's
not that difficult to search past posts...

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 8:18:51 AM6/21/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> All this fear mongering [...]

Perhaps this is an American issue. Here, the
streets are filled with people who ride their
bikes every day, many several times a day, and
very, very few use helmets. Riding a bike is
not considered dangerous!

The road bike people and the MTB people use
helmets but they are a very small minority.

Intuitively, I feel like if you ride a road
bike at that speed and have an accident
involving traffic, that sounds like a very
serious situation with or without a helmet, but
I think I'd use one anyway.

With the MTB people, I don't see why you can't
simply trip over a stock, and hit your head
into a rock. I don't see why a helmet wouldn't
reduce the impact?

John B Slocomb

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 8:59:35 AM6/21/18
to
On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:17:01 -0400, Duane <duane...@videotron.ca>
wrote:
True, although I did once have another cyclist demand to know why I
wasn't wearing my helmet. It was a cross language thing with him not
speaking much English and me not admitting to speak anything :-)

I smiled and nodded and he did, upon leaving, tell me that "helmets
were much safer" with me smiling and nodding all round the place.

I would also say that I've been in crashes severe enough to break
bones twice i the past 8 or 9 years and in neither case was my head
injured. Laying there with my hip in traction but my head never took a
bump :-)

jbeattie

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 10:08:15 AM6/21/18
to
Oh god, now you're LeBron James. And yes, you are saying that I and everyone else who has crashed more than you is not as good a rider as you. That is the clear and pompous message.

Sure, if I spent all my time on the bunny slopes, I would never crash. Regrettably, my world is not a bunny slope -- particularly during fall, winter and spring. The Portland study showed an inverse correlation between experience and injury rate, probably because those who actually ride -- and ride in inclement weather with uncertain traction -- are at more risk. https://tinyurl.com/y86dashy In contrast, the sunny day creep-along riders will have lower injury rates.

I am about to go to work in some of the loudest thunder I've heard in 30 years and, of course, pouring rain -- but it's warm-ish rain. After a dry spell, the roads will be slippery where they are not submerged. I am hoping that my super-Frank sonar will help me locate submerged potholes and other obstacles.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 11:35:21 AM6/21/18
to
On 6/21/2018 8:17 AM, Duane wrote:
> On 21/06/2018 8:03 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>> Joy Beeson wrote:
>>
>>>> What is the hangup with claiming helmets do
>>>> not help? Why isn't it enough just to not
>>>> use a helmet oneself and ignore whatever
>>>> anyone else is doing?
>>>
>>> Why isn't it enough just to use a helmet
>>> oneself and ignore whatever anyone else
>>> is doing?
>>
>> Personally I don't use a helmet, but isn't that
>> what happens? Who is ranting about helmet use?
>> No one here and no one I know. But perhaps in
>> the road bike and MTB world people do that,
>> what do I know.
>>
>
> In my experience, the ranting goes on mostly here on RBT.  In the real
> world people use helmets or don't.

Oh, get real, Duane! How can you pretend that the "ranting" goes on only
here?

How often have you signed up for an invitational bike ride that did not
say "You MUST wear a helmet!"?

Are you unaware of the many bike clubs having rules requiring helmets on
all rides?

Can you enter a bike race anywhere without putting on a helmet?

Have you not seen the dozens, perhaps hundreds of "bike safety"
publications that begin with "Always wear a helmet"? Many of them even
stop there, saying nothing about lights at night, rules of the road,
watching for road hazards, etc. Just "Always wear a helmet."

And the True Believers here and elsewhere probably never ride without
the magic hat; but I can assure you, when I ride I sometimes get
"Where's your helmet??" Sometimes it's an honest question, but more
often it's an obnoxious attack. The last time I got that, maybe a month
ago, it was from a woman who blared her horn trying to get me off the road.

And yes, some of the issue is about laws forbidding bicycling without
helmets. Helmet skeptics never try to pass laws forbidding helmets; but
the helmet fanatics have passed laws in many jurisdictions making it
illegal to ride a bike at all without that weird hat, even in the tamest
circumstances.

Since you're in Canada, Duane: A few years ago, my wife and I were
stopped in some tiny New Brunswick town. We had biked from our B&B about
three blocks to a restaurant (probably the only one in town). After
dinner on that Sunday evening, we biked back by totally quiet, zero
traffic residential streets. About a block from our B&B, a policewoman
came upon us and hit the cruiser lights. Here's how it went:

She: "Where are you from?" Us: "Ohio, in the United States."

She: "Don't you know you must have a helmet to ride a bicycle?" Us:
"Even ADULTS???" (Disclosure: I already knew that.)

She: "Yes! That's the law everywhere in Canada!" Me: "No it's not! I
_know_ that's not the law in Ontario!"

She: "Well, they must have some special law. Helmets are required
everywhere else in Canada. Where are you going?" Me: "Our B&B is right
there." She: "Well, don't let me see you riding without a helmet."

(So what effect do you think this has on the amount of bicycling in that
little town?)

Oh, and note again: There's never been a cop saying "Hey you! Take off
that helmet if you're riding a bike!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 11:51:43 AM6/21/18
to
On 6/21/2018 8:18 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> All this fear mongering [...]
>
> Perhaps this is an American issue. Here, the
> streets are filled with people who ride their
> bikes every day, many several times a day, and
> very, very few use helmets. Riding a bike is
> not considered dangerous!

Here, it is. Some helmet promotion sites have sections where they
attempt to rebut helmet skeptic arguments. In response to "But bicycling
isn't dangerous" they say "The U.S. is not the Netherlands. Riding here
is much more dangerous." It's fear mongering.

And BTW, I've seen websites that claimed that it can be fatal to even
fall off your bike while standing in your driveway. The fear mongering
here can be ludicrous.

> The road bike people and the MTB people use
> helmets but they are a very small minority.

These days, in my area, if you go to a paved bike trail - the kind that
Americans drive their cars to, mount their bikes and ride a few miles up
and back - about half the riders will wear helmets. Even more weird, on
those trails I've passed riders on low recumbent tricycles like this:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuvrBlsaaVuwDiRZtDX5WV7uDdircO1gU99vjzt-iSeZBR0L5y

Again, a helmet for a trike you cannot possibly fall from, used on a
car-free bike trail! Are they afraid they'll trip when they try to get
off the bike? It's ludicrous.

> Intuitively, I feel like if you ride a road
> bike at that speed and have an accident
> involving traffic, that sounds like a very
> serious situation with or without a helmet, but
> I think I'd use one anyway.

I believe you can make a case that performance oriented riders
"training" (that is, pushing for speed) might have more likelihood of
some helmet benefit. But then you get into risk compensation. I _know_
friends of mine take risks they would not take without the helmet, and
I'm sure those extra risks easily exceed the tiny protective capacity of
a bike helmet.

> With the MTB people, I don't see why you can't
> simply trip over a stock, and hit your head
> into a rock. I don't see why a helmet wouldn't
> reduce the impact?

I won't argue against a bike helmet for challenging mountain bike riding
- except to say (as Mayer Hillman did) that you may be safer with the
helmet, if you can just pretend that you're not wearing one.

Many years ago, Bell Sports (then the biggest helmet manufacturer and
promoter) had a notorious advertisement: "Bell - Courage for your Head."
It showed a "first person" view from a guy looking down a steep, steep
cliff at buddies who had apparently just ridden down it. The
implication? Put on our certified-for-14-mile-per-hour helmet, then risk
your life.

I no longer do that sort of mountain biking. When I do ride my mountain
bike, I wear an ordinary cap.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 12:03:19 PM6/21/18
to
No, that is NOT the message. The message is that I do a good job of
balancing the risks I take with the skills I have.

One way I do that is by passing up the chance to take some risks. I
described the time I skipped the "big air" mountain bike adventure that
broke one guy's collar bone. I can tell about taking a safer path
through a long field of potholes that caused one club rider to crash. I
can talk about slowing way down for curves with gravel, or in general
avoiding Jobst-like cornering angles even on dry pavement.

There are things I'm still good at on a bike, probably better than most
riders. One example seems to be jumping the bike. But while that's saved
me from at least one crash, I don't think it's a major thing. I think my
biggest skill is anticipating potential hazards and taking rather
ordinary measures to reduce those risks.

Again, when I slid out on road salt and scratched my knee, I figured I
screwed up. I'd figure the same thing if I slipped on a rainy road. I
certainly wouldn't say "Gee, there was nothing I could have done."


--
- Frank Krygowski

Emanuel Berg

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 2:34:22 PM6/21/18
to
Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Perhaps this is an American issue. Here, the
>> streets are filled with people who ride
>> their bikes every day, many several times
>> a day, and very, very few use helmets.
>> Riding a bike is not considered dangerous!
>
> Here, it is. Some helmet promotion sites have
> sections where they attempt to rebut helmet
> skeptic arguments. In response to "But
> bicycling isn't dangerous" they say "The U.S.
> is not the Netherlands. Riding here is much
> more dangerous." It's fear mongering.

~"It's a campaign of fear and consumption"?

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marilyn_Manson

AMuzi

unread,
Jun 21, 2018, 2:49:34 PM6/21/18
to
Check this out for a classic 'everyone oughta' buttinski:

https://nypost.com/video/masked-vigilante-patrols-the-mean-streets-of-new-haven/

If some guy in a truck pulled up next to me and told me how
to ride my bicycle I'd tell him to piss off as well.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


Duane

unread,
Jun 26, 2018, 8:50:51 AM6/26/18
to
On 21/06/2018 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:

> Check this out for a classic 'everyone oughta' buttinski:
>
> https://nypost.com/video/masked-vigilante-patrols-the-mean-streets-of-new-haven/
>
>
> If some guy in a truck pulled up next to me and told me how to ride my
> bicycle I'd tell him to piss off as well.
>
We were stopped at a stop sign waiting to turn onto a highway and this
pickup truck turns off the highway and slows to tell us "yea, you better
stop at the fucking stop sign." WTF?

But generally I don't get told how to ride my bike, but where to ride my
bike. Usually the imaginary bike path that eiter doesn't exist or
doesn't go anywhere. My response is usually, "If you're in that much of
a hurry, the autoroute(1)is just over there..."

(1) autoroute = interstate

Frank Krygowski

unread,
Jun 26, 2018, 11:48:08 AM6/26/18
to
Yep. In response to "Get on the bike path!" I have yelled "Get on the
freeway."

Not that it's productive, I suppose...

--
- Frank Krygowski

Joy Beeson

unread,
Jun 27, 2018, 12:21:27 AM6/27/18
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Yep. In response to "Get on the bike path!" I have yelled "Get on the
> freeway."

I'm amazed that you can respond -- I've rarely heard the entire remark
from a speeding car, and I've never had one hang around to hear a
reply.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

0 new messages