Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 12:18:33 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Message-ID: <vt3i8t$2jp43$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vs751k$3k5eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <87o6xkmwqn.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
 <5rteuj1mr9a65enuv3jqj7sfmpgurreaqs@4ax.com> <vs92mm$1j1nq$2@dont-email.me>
 <m4qvduFb17oU1@mid.individual.net>
 <p83hujhub0kjjqbldnkenuod55mq8uu4nt@4ax.com> <vsa9hq$2ret2$1@dont-email.me>
 <ofihujd2o07rbh7crvbght0v8q35emp49b@4ax.com>
 <87iknpxigi.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vsel0o$p14u$4@dont-email.me>
 <87tt79kodg.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vsf5o5$1f45h$1@dont-email.me>
 <62cmuj1f1dvq0kig96gflu90uat89d6ssj@4ax.com> <vsfdh3$1mqm7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vshhdj$3pl7o$5@dont-email.me> <vsjutp$2fsig$1@dont-email.me>
 <vsper9$7ia8$2@dont-email.me> <vsq973$19q77$1@dont-email.me>
 <vstr7f$27p9l$11@dont-email.me> <vsukqv$1pdqo$1@dont-email.me>
 <vt0da9$1nvus$7@dont-email.me> <vt0pss$3vguf$3@dont-email.me>
 <vt0sg4$3vi0o$7@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:18:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0712508ff08c12273f2047ab212600d3";
	logging-data="2745475"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ctZeiovlPYXrNP+6BGbOk3Lk4FRcSn48="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ePPxw+bclPls96hgIZlAMjoFL5M=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vt0sg4$3vi0o$7@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 7273

On 4/7/2025 11:54 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
> On 4/7/2025 11:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:[regarding Zen eschewing the protection of a helmet while riding in his car:]

>> You're evading. I'm referring to two very similar situations. One is 
>> the relatively rare event of TBI from a bike crash. The other is the 
>> much more common event of TBI from a car crash. You wear and advise 
>> people to wear helmets in case of the first, but you don't wear the 
>> helmet you already own in case of the second.
>>
>> Why not?
> 
> The same answer you keep evading - it's the same reason you want to ban 
> AR-15s

No, Zen, the only way you can stop evading is to actually answer the 
question. AR-15s and bike helmets are in no way similar.

I thing ARs and the like should be much more heavily controlled for many 
reasons, one of which is the immense public expense wasted on defending 
against them, like by police forced to wear armor, SWAT team expenses, 
like by schools with bulletproof glass, metal detection systems, armed 
guards on duty, etc. etc.  None of that applies to bike helmets or the 
lack of their use.

If your helmet helps in a bike crash, it would help in a car crash. Your 
decision and your promotion of helmets is at best logically inconsistent.

https://copenhagenize.com/2009/05/motoring-helmets-for-real-high-risk.html

https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-style/davies-craig-australian-car-helmet

>> To be certified for sale in the U.S., in Europe or elsewhere, the 
>> certification test is what I described. Yes, there are other details 
>> (e.g. strength of the straps, etc.) but there is no measurement of 
>> rotational effects. Look it up.
> 
> I'm aware that the CSPC test doesn't include a rotational componenet, 
> you're acting however as if there is no consideration in the industry 
> for it at all.
> 
> It takes a while for standardized tests to get modified. That Rotational 
> testing isn't now included in the certification process doesn't mean it 
> will never be.

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

> lol...ok, the full retail price of the helmet is $16 - And for the 
> record, if someone can't afford a helmet, I have no problem with them 
> riding without one. As has been mentioned here already several time, the 
> likely hood they will need one is rather small.

It's good that if someone can't afford a helmet, you have no problem 
with them riding without one. I hope you extend that same courtesy to 
me, even though I can easily afford any helmet on the market.

And I'm glad you recognize that they are likely to be never needed.

>> 40000 [motorist fatalities] vs. 1000 [bike fataliteis]. Exaggerating the likelihood of becoming one of those 
>> 1000 is the major marketing tactic of helmet promoters. 
> 
> 
> you see it as an exaggeration. I see it as giving an alternative to 
> those who may be concerned.
> 
>> But that exaggeration has the effect of scaring people away from ever 
>> riding, 
> 
> bullshit

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

>>>> Bike helmets are fussy to properly adjust and easy to wear wrong - 
>>>> commonly, tilted back like an Easter bonnet, exposing the forehead, 
>>>> and with overly loose straps. Many people find them ugly and 
>>>> uncomfortable (at least, I always have) and a nuisance to keep track 
>>>> of, take on trips, etc.
>>>
>>> Got it, so because you don't find them comfortable, no one should 
>>> wear bike helmets.

As you know, I do a lot of thinking based on advantages vs. 
disadvantages. I'm listing just a few of the disadvantages of helmets. 
You're a big helmet fan, so you discount those. Others don't.

But think about this carefully: I'm _not_ saying no on should wear a 
helmet. I've never said that. However, there certainly are plenty of 
helmet promoters who say no one should ever ride a bike without wearing 
a helmet. There are many places where helmets have been made mandatory 
by law. Those two points of view are not really symmetrical.

>> People should get to make their own choice, free of nanny nagging, 
>> free of fear mongering.
> 
> then why do you keep nagging and fear mongering?

Hah!  I'm "nagging" by saying people should have free choice? And by 
asking for realistic evaluation of data? And I'm "fear mongering" by 
saying that bicycling is a low risk activity?

You've gone through the looking glass, Zen.

>> If you had a logical reason for driving your bike to 
>> the start of a ride while leaving your helmet on the seat instead of 
>> protecting your head, you'd give us that reason.
> 
> I have given that reason several times (it's cleverly hidden in place 
> sight, even in this message). You just don't like the answer.

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


-- 
- Frank Krygowski