Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????

Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty.



Martin Borsje wrote:


The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet.....


--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu

NYC XYZ wrote:

Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
see the contradiction in that!

Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets.
Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of
exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they
know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that
will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again,
whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet
replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make
both Bell and Giro helmets).

Chalo Colina

While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Sid

Sid wrote:
{somone else wrote}

While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should
probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head
against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of
a helmet.

Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit
my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common
sense after a while.)

HTH, BS

Sid wrote:
While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.



Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
Sid wrote:

Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
- hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
"common sense" is often wrong.

So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?

Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
how could they? That would require reading!

But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?

I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote in message
oups.com...

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for
decades,
and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day
of
exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
worrying about.

I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
problem.

OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
rest was fragile.

I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
convinced the magic had leaked out.

Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.

GG


- Frank Krygowski

"NYC XYZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

GaryG wrote:


Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g.,
tents,
lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.

In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to
be
light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel
helmet
that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear
it.

GG


The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment --
CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply
from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of
all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in
daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict
the very purpose of the product!

Are you a dumbass, or just a troll? Exposure to sunlight during normal use
is not the same thing as leaving a helmet on the dash of a car with the
windows rolled up. Babies and helmets can be exposed to the former, but
will perish in the latter. It's really not that difficult to see the
difference.

GG

GaryG wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.

I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.

Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin
to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will
propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a
test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a
full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn.

Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an
anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the
crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it
saved my life!!!"

By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote in message
oups.com...

GaryG wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his
VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from
UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the
issues"???
The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.

I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.

Then why waste bandwidth on them? They seem to do nothing but decrease the
signal to noise ratio.

In an earlier post today, you stated "I'd suggest learning enough about this
issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams.", and took others to task because "they need all their time to
blather on Usenet".

I'd suggest you take your own advice.

GG


Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin
to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will
propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a
test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a
full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn.

Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an
anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the
crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it
saved my life!!!"

By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.

- Frank Krygowski