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
  #51  
Old April 12th 10, 07:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jay Beattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,322
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI LabTests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

On Apr 11, 4:27*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:





In ,
* *wrote:


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.


Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. *Why go there again?


Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is
immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of
right-wing talk radio exhibit.


What makes his reality the alternate one? Every statistic is promoted
by a party with an agenda. None of the statistics have proven true in
my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are
down. I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however.
People are not riding more because of helmets. Injuries probably are
not down due to helmets, particularly leg injuries. I could probably
tie half of these numbers to the amount of Krusteaz sold at the local
Fred Meyer store.

However, I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last
night. I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150
degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). That is head
whackage waiting to happen. 8oz of foam will help -- at least with
preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle. -- Jay
Beattie.
Ads
  #52  
Old April 12th 10, 07:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

Per Simon Lewis:

The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder
of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and
even death.


That was Liam Niewon's wife that I referred to above.....
couldn't remember the name in my post.
--
PeteCresswell
  #53  
Old April 12th 10, 07:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

Per Jay Beattie:
That's ridiculous. We all bump our heads. I've rung my bell skiing a
number of times, and not on bunny slopes. People fall on the bunny
slopes all the time -- it is a perpetual state of carnage. Natasha
Richardson developed severe headaches an hour after the fall, along
with other symptoms. She delayed follow-up for an hour or more, and
she was remote from a major medical facility. She was also trending
toward a higher risk category, the elderly. She was not a no-symptom
case, or a fall and die case. I also question whether, with her
initial symptoms (minor headache) she would have gotten anything more
than an aspirin and an order to return if it got worse.

Really, you need to think through a no-symptom/minor headache ER visit
-- the doctor asks you if you have pain. He checks your pupils and
your cranial nerve response. He looks for blood in your ear canals
(and at the quality of your eardrums, which is secondary). He judges
your speech and orientation and asks if you were knocked out. If your
clinical picture is benign, you go home -- with a big bill and an
order to take some Tylenol and call back if symptoms worsen. It's not
like "House" where a magical doctor determines that there are sinister
implications to a totally benign exam. You're not going to get a CT
scan unless you are very old.


If you are an MD (which seems pretty plain from the post), then I
call that one a "Keeper".

Thanks.
--
PeteCresswell
  #54  
Old April 12th 10, 07:42 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
(PeteCresswell)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,790
Default You don't need an expensive bike helmet to ride safely---BHSI Lab Tests Finds no difference between expensive and cheap helmets.

Per Frank Krygowski:
...magic protection.



Until hearing from a couple of EMTs and nurses over the winter, I
had been doing my non-MTB riding bare-headed. Now I'm trying to
wear the helmet 100%. Hot weather will tell....

Seems to me like there are extremes in cycling environments.

So far, nobody has drawn a distinction between one extreme:
riding down a bikeway along a river (i.e. grass on each side of
the path, no curbs, no proximity to traffic) and the another
extreme: going downhill though a rock garden full of baby heads.

Like I said before, I profess no expertise - and probably don't
have that much functioning grey matter left - but I'd say that
immersing ones' self in scenario B without head protection is
high-risk.

Scenario A.... I'm still flip-flopping on...

As far as what is in-between....
--
PeteCresswell
  #55  
Old April 12th 10, 07:57 PM 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 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT), Jay Beattie
wrote:

On Apr 11, 4:27*pm, Tom Sherman °_°
wrote:
On 4/11/2010 4:42 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:





In ,
* *wrote:


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.


Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. *Why go there again?


Scarf lives in an alternate reality concerning bicycle foam hats and is
immune to evidence - very similar symptoms to those that followers of
right-wing talk radio exhibit.


What makes his reality the alternate one? Every statistic is promoted
by a party with an agenda. None of the statistics have proven true in
my town, where helmet use and ridership are up and injury rates are
down. I don't think any of these numbers are connected, however.
People are not riding more because of helmets. Injuries probably are
not down due to helmets, particularly leg injuries. I could probably
tie half of these numbers to the amount of Krusteaz sold at the local
Fred Meyer store.

However, I was watching the UCI World Cyclocross Championships last
night. I would not ride that course without a helmet (snow, ice, 150
degree corners with metal barriers all over the place). That is head
whackage waiting to happen. 8oz of foam will help -- at least with
preventing scalp injury and skull fracture on some obstacle. -- Jay
Beattie.


Dear Jay,

Just to remind you, the typical serious head injury in a bicycle
accident is a rotational injury, not a skull fracture.

A bicycle helmet increases the chance of that kind of injury.

And if the 8 ounces of foam are distributed on the front, top, back,
and two sides, how many ounces of sytrofoam lie between your skull and
whatever it might hit?

I've always wondered why most of the styrofoam is on the _back_ of the
bike helmet. Aerodynamics?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #56  
Old April 12th 10, 08:13 PM 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 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:41:04 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per Frank Krygowski:
_If_ helmets kept people from showing up in the hospital, it would be
detected by the reduction in percentage hospitalized due to head
injury. Seriously - Isn't that clear?


Maybe it was covered somewhere and I didn't see it, but the first
thing that jumps into my mind is the World War I anecdote where
some government (Great Britain?) introduced protective helmets
for their troops and saw the number of head injuries skyrocket.

The explanation being that soldiers that would have been dead
without the helmet were showing up in hospitals.


Dear Pete,

That's an interesting situation, but it doesn't really apply to the
New Zealand bike study.

The question that you raise is whether helmets shift injuries so well
that their effect is masked.

Riders who previously were killed are now saved by helmets, but still
badly injured enough to show up at the hospital.

Those riders replace the victims who used to survive and show up at
the hospital, but are now so well protected by helmets that they don't
go to the hospital and vanish from the statistics.

The reason that this doesn't apply to the New Zealand study is that it
silently assumes that the death toll drops--lots of riders who used to
die in accidents now survive and go to the hospital.

But the death rate didn't drop in the New Zealand study. It's a case
of what seems like an obvious solution failing to produce the expected
results.

As an analogy, in the World War I anecdote, the killed-in-action
figures would have dropped if soldiers who were previously killed
began to survive and show up in the hospital.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
  #57  
Old April 12th 10, 08:26 PM 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 Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:42:51 +0200, Simon Lewis
wrote:


ANY head injury which is more than a tap should be checked out.

The actress Natasha Richardson's untimely death being a great reminder
of how seemingly innocuous head injuries can lead to pain, paralysis and
even death.

Suggesting that someone telling someone to have a head injury checked is
"fear mongering" borders on the criminally insane.


Dear Simon,

Richardson was taken to a hospital within 3 hours of her accident.

Unfortunately, it didn't save her.

"On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell
while taking a skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec,
about 130 kilometres (81 mi) from Montreal. The injury was followed by
a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to
talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially
responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left.[17]
Refusing medical attention, she returned to her hotel room and about
three hours later was taken to a local hospital in
Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache. She was
transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur,
Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours
after the fall.[18][19] The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill
Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March.[1] An autopsy
conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March
revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt
impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident.[17]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha...jury_and_death

Every member of a high-school football team refuses to be carried off
the field in a stretcher after apparently much worse impacts.

Carl Fogel
  #58  
Old April 12th 10, 08:35 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andrew Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 828
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 16:42:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

Oh, Steven, we've been down this road so many times with you and you
just don't learn. Why go there again?


Do you really expect to obtain a rational answer from him? I didn't,
so the kill-file was the easiest solution.
  #60  
Old April 12th 10, 09:50 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 11:42 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

snip

Seems to me like there are extremes in cycling environments.

So far, nobody has drawn a distinction between one extreme:
riding down a bikeway along a river (i.e. grass on each side of
the path, no curbs, no proximity to traffic) and the another
extreme: going downhill though a rock garden full of baby heads.


The distinction is drawn every time someone brings up cycling in the
Netherlands and Denmark, but the people bringing it up as an example of
why helmets are unnecessary don't get the fact that there are different
cycling environments.
 




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 10:07 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.