A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 11th 10, 02:59 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+don+t+need+an+expensive+bike+helmet+to+ride+sa fely"
  #2  
Old April 11th 10, 06:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."


Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?

- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old April 11th 10, 06:46 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

In article
,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:
They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.

"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"

"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."


Wow. According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?


Indeed.

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does
your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?" BHSI exposes the real
reasons for fearmongering the need for helmets: profit, not protection.

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested.
  #4  
Old April 11th 10, 06:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was "Does
your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"


Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in their
Giro line.

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be tested.


Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that actually
means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're implying
either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual. Because taking
things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't fit your agenda.
  #5  
Old April 11th 10, 05:28 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

In article ,
SMS wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"


Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.


Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.


Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.


The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?
  #6  
Old April 11th 10, 06:44 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On 11/04/10 9:28 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On 10/04/10 10:46 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:

I remember the Bell Helmet ad of a little girl sitting on her bike
wearing shiny new athletic shoes of some sort. The caption was
"Does your child have $100 feet and a $10 head?"


Except that Bell is making $10 helmets as well as $200+ helmets in
their Giro line.


Whooosh!

Sooner or later, though, they will be hoist by their own petard in
court. Just ask Riddell. Those 85% prevention claims will be
tested.


Bell has never claimed an "85% prevention rate" whatever that
actually means. Of course no study ever claimed 85% in the way you're
implying either. You're taking stuff out of context. As usual.
Because taking things in context, and looking objectively, doesn't
fit your agenda.


The agenda belongs to the helmet industry which *has* been promulgating
the notion that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%- in abeyance of any
actual proof to back up that claim. Where ya been?


One study showed _up to_ 85%, not an absolute 85%, and that study was
not conducted by the helmet industry.

Those damn statstically sound case studies. They always interfere with
junk science.
  #7  
Old April 12th 10, 05:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Rathmann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On Apr 10, 10:11*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:

They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.


"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"


"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+...."


Wow. *According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?


I also like this more recent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823
where the abstract gives their results as:
"RESULTS: Of 324 patients with bicycle-related head injuries, 90
(27.8%) had severe head injuries. Boys compared with girls had a
higher proportion of severe head injuries (34.1% vs 23.4%; P = .048).
Children aged 5 to 9 years had a higher proportion of severe head
injuries compared with ages 10 to 14 years (65.2% vs 6.4%; P = .043).
Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head
injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors (69.0% vs 5.7%; P = .
004). Bicyclists carrying goods (such as backpacks or weighted toward
the road) and speeding were associated with severe head injury (P .
05). Collisions with vehicles of a larger size resulted in a higher
rate of severe head injury compared with collisions with pedestrians
(76.9% vs 3.6%; P = .043)."

Note the apparent effectiveness of having a reflector on the bike -
the chance of a severe head injury dropped from 69% to 5.7%, so the
presence of the reflector was over 90% effective in preventing severe
head injury. More effective than a helmet, much less expensive, and
far more convenient to use (just install once and leave it on the
bike).

Once again showing the problems associated with taking case-control
studies (and their inherent self-selection bias) at face value.
  #8  
Old April 12th 10, 06:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,934
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 21:34:12 -0700 (PDT), Peter Rathmann
wrote:

On Apr 10, 10:11*pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Apr 10, 9:59*pm, SMS wrote:

They tested six helmets, priced between $10 and $207, and found no
difference in simulations of real-world impacts.


"http://www.bhsi.org/testbycost.htm"


"http://www.hometownlife.com/article/20100408/NEWS10/4080579/1027/You+..."


Wow. *According to that article, "Medical research shows that bike
helmets can prevent 85 percent of cyclists' head injuries."

Isn't that astonishing?


I also like this more recent study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19944823
where the abstract gives their results as:
"RESULTS: Of 324 patients with bicycle-related head injuries, 90
(27.8%) had severe head injuries. Boys compared with girls had a
higher proportion of severe head injuries (34.1% vs 23.4%; P = .048).
Children aged 5 to 9 years had a higher proportion of severe head
injuries compared with ages 10 to 14 years (65.2% vs 6.4%; P = .043).
Bicycles without reflectors had a higher proportion of severe head
injuries compared to bicycles with reflectors (69.0% vs 5.7%; P = .
004). Bicyclists carrying goods (such as backpacks or weighted toward
the road) and speeding were associated with severe head injury (P .
05). Collisions with vehicles of a larger size resulted in a higher
rate of severe head injury compared with collisions with pedestrians
(76.9% vs 3.6%; P = .043)."

Note the apparent effectiveness of having a reflector on the bike -
the chance of a severe head injury dropped from 69% to 5.7%, so the
presence of the reflector was over 90% effective in preventing severe
head injury. More effective than a helmet, much less expensive, and
far more convenient to use (just install once and leave it on the
bike).

Once again showing the problems associated with taking case-control
studies (and their inherent self-selection bias) at face value.


Dear Peter,

Thanks for a nice example!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #9  
Old April 12th 10, 04:32 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Simon Lewis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 441
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:


I also find it interesting that (at least in my observation) the
younger children are far more likely to be wearing helmets, yet they
are apparently more likely to have head injuries.



You find that interesting? You have to having a laugh????????????????
Have IQs dried up around here??????????

Youngsters are more likely to crash/fall off for a start. Secondly,
youngsters have far softer skulls and are probably far less able to
protect themselves in the event of a fall.

I know that any and all bike injuries I had were as a kid doing stupid
things on my bike. Whether pretending to be Evil Knievel or just
generally being a carefree tit.

  #10  
Old April 12th 10, 05:22 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSILab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On 12/04/10 8:32 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
Phil W Leephil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk writes:


I also find it interesting that (at least in my observation) the
younger children are far more likely to be wearing helmets, yet they
are apparently more likely to have head injuries.



You find that interesting? You have to having a laugh????????????????
Have IQs dried up around here??????????


You have to realize that, with people like Phil, there is a hypocritical
divide between what they say in public and what they actually know to be
true.

Youngsters are more likely to crash/fall off for a start. Secondly,
youngsters have far softer skulls and are probably far less able to
protect themselves in the event of a fall.


Yes, this is true. That's why even in the Netherlands and Denmark there
are campaigns for helmets for children.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
This is getting expensive (helmets) Mike Jacoubowsky General 34 December 16th 07 11:13 PM
This is getting expensive (helmets) Tom Sherman[_2_] Recumbent Biking 15 December 12th 07 04:14 AM
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) Ken Aston General 20 November 14th 06 05:14 PM
How about a Marin bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) Ken Aston UK 6 November 9th 06 04:59 PM
How about this bike? (was: Why are expensive bikes better than cheap ones?) Ken Aston Australia 3 November 9th 06 02:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.