CPSC/Safety Test Statistics - Where?

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:02:46 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

To provide a little bakground, I have a Specialized Telluride, but don't
find it that comfortable (impulse purchase - thanks, LBS!). I'm trying,
therefore, to determine whether to buy a Giro (Atmos/Pneumo/whatever) or
other brand.

The man who runs the firm which tests helmets against standards for
the UK market will not touch anything from Bell/Giro, and will only
recommend Specialized of all the major brands.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

you know? said:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:02:46 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

The man who runs the firm which tests helmets against standards for
the UK market will not touch anything from Bell/Giro, and will only
recommend Specialized of all the major brands.

Guy

Thanks, Guy. Now I am reading all the information on your web site.

I must admit, whilst I find it hard to believe there are many cases where
wearing a helmet would do me significant harm, I was shocked when I picked
up a bicycle helmet for the first time - compared with the motorcycle
helmets I wore as a teenager twenty years ago (largely Bell, actually),
these felt little more robust than the polystyrene packaging used to
protect cameras and hi-fi in transit!

Thank you for the response; and for the site.

Glm

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:34:04 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I must admit, whilst I find it hard to believe there are many cases where
wearing a helmet would do me significant harm, I was shocked when I picked
up a bicycle helmet for the first time - compared with the motorcycle
helmets I wore as a teenager twenty years ago (largely Bell, actually),
these felt little more robust than the polystyrene packaging used to
protect cameras and hi-fi in transit!

Yes, that's essentially right. Just as you wouldn't expect a computer
to survive being hit by a car when packed in its foam packaging
(actually rather thicker than the average lid!), you would be mad to
rely on a cycle helmet to protect you against serious injury or death.
Wear one or not, just remember it's made of meringue covered in
eggshell and ride accordingly :-)

Quoted message said:

Thank you for the response; and for the site.

You're welcome.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

you know? said:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:34:04 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Yes, that's essentially right. Just as you wouldn't expect a computer
to survive being hit by a car when packed in its foam packaging
(actually rather thicker than the average lid!), you would be mad to
rely on a cycle helmet to protect you against serious injury or death.
Wear one or not, just remember it's made of meringue covered in
eggshell and ride accordingly :-)

Quoted message said:

Thank you for the response; and for the site.

You're welcome.

Guy

I spent my youth cycling around the Cheshire countryside, and never wore a
helmet. If I got hit by a car doing 80mph then I understood that that
would be that. My mother cared more than I did. Always wore one on my
motorbikes, though (which I raced off public highways, once or twice
directly into trees in friends' orchards!).

Now living in New York. Do my best to avoid metropolitan traffic, but
spent quite some time riding around the Park at night and on weekends,
when the place is closed to traffic. They have cycle lanes anyway
(largely populated by careening rollerbladers, though). Having in the
last fortnight witnessed 4 people decorate the road with lashings of blood
after falling from bikes, I observed that a helmet might be useful in this
kind of accident (six foot fall, 9.81 metres per second per second and all
that). So, now I need to find one I actually like wearing; and which
offers whatever protection is possible.

Failing that, I'll put a condom on my head. Should complement the spandex
rather well, actually.

Glm

Glm said:

I certainly don't want to rub salt into the wounds of the ongoing
helmet debate, but I was wondering whether anyone knew where I could
find statistics from safety tests (or other objective assessments)
conducted on current bike helmets.

One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.

Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.

Your spelling indicates you may be east of the Atlantic. If so, I
believe the corresponding magazine is "Which?" but I don't know if
they've done such a test.

If they have, I hope they haven't been as credulous as Consumer Reports.
While skeptical of the need for things like extended warranties and
trash compactors, CR has been yet another source of tales like "Little
Johnny toppled off his bike. If not for his helmet, he might have
died!!!"

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:56:13 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote (more
or less):

Quoted message said:

you know? said:

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:34:04 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote in
message <[email hidden]>:

Yes, that's essentially right. Just as you wouldn't expect a computer
to survive being hit by a car when packed in its foam packaging
(actually rather thicker than the average lid!), you would be mad to
rely on a cycle helmet to protect you against serious injury or death.
Wear one or not, just remember it's made of meringue covered in
eggshell and ride accordingly :-)

Quoted message said:

Thank you for the response; and for the site.

You're welcome.

Guy

I spent my youth cycling around the Cheshire countryside, and never wore a
helmet. If I got hit by a car doing 80mph then I understood that that
would be that. My mother cared more than I did. Always wore one on my
motorbikes, though (which I raced off public highways, once or twice
directly into trees in friends' orchards!).

Now living in New York. Do my best to avoid metropolitan traffic, but
spent quite some time riding around the Park at night and on weekends,
when the place is closed to traffic. They have cycle lanes anyway
(largely populated by careening rollerbladers, though). Having in the
last fortnight witnessed 4 people decorate the road with lashings of blood
after falling from bikes, I observed that a helmet might be useful in this
kind of accident (six foot fall, 9.81 metres per second per second and all
that). So, now I need to find one I actually like wearing; and which
offers whatever protection is possible.

For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
made of strips of padded leather.

Quoted message said:

Failing that, I'll put a condom on my head. Should complement the spandex
rather well, actually.

Glm

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft said:

For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
made of strips of padded leather.

Thank you for the response.

Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
death from such accidents. Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.

In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.

My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.

Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

Frank Krygowski said:

One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.

Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.

Your spelling indicates you may be east of the Atlantic. If so, I
believe the corresponding magazine is "Which?" but I don't know if
they've done such a test.

If they have, I hope they haven't been as credulous as Consumer Reports.
While skeptical of the need for things like extended warranties and
trash compactors, CR has been yet another source of tales like "Little
Johnny toppled off his bike. If not for his helmet, he might have
died!!!"

Frank, thank you. Have always been wary of consumer reports in general
but I'll take another look at these. Much appreciated.

Glm

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:45:34 GMT, Glm <[email hidden]> wrote (more
or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft said:

For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
made of strips of padded leather.

Thank you for the response.

Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
death from such accidents.

True, but then again people die putting on their socks or using
stairs. I don't think there'll ever be a major push for safety
helmets for these activities. Then again, I've been surprised before!

Quoted message said:

Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.

In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.

My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.

Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft said:

True, but then again people die putting on their socks [snip]

Quite.

However, at this point all I'm looking for is data regarding the relative
levels of protection offered by bicycle helmets. 'Consumer Reports' has
been suggested; and it seems that Specialized is preferred by the
gentleman who conducts testing in the UK.

If anyone knows of any other sources of information I'd be most grateful
(as, I am sure, would others).

Frank Krygowski said:

One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.

Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS sold
me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

Glm said:

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS
sold me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

As I recall (sorry, I'm too tired to double check) the "not recommended"
was because a buckle broke in a weight-drop test.

I'd say don't worry. One of the dozens of papers I have on file
reported on the forces on helmet straps in simulated collisions. The
conclusion was that in a typical collision, the forces are very small,
on the order of ten pounds.

And in any case, you're almost certainly going to go through your entire
cycling career without needing the helmet anyway. That's assuming
you're not into macho mountain biking, track racing or criterium racing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Glm said:

I certainly don't want to rub salt into the wounds of the ongoing
helmet debate, but I was wondering whether anyone knew where I could
find statistics from safety tests (or other objective assessments)
conducted on current bike helmets.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html

will get you started. I asked too and Peter Keller sent me this link.

-paul

Paul Cassel said:

Glm said:

I certainly don't want to rub salt into the wounds of the ongoing
helmet debate, but I was wondering whether anyone knew where I could
find statistics from safety tests (or other objective assessments)
conducted on current bike helmets.

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html

will get you started. I asked too and Peter Keller sent me this link.

-paul

Interesting; thank you.

Andrew Lang, 19th-century Scottish poet, was right, of course - "He uses
statistics as a drunken man uses lamp posts - for support rather than for
illumination." - and the thorny subject of the correlation between bicycle
safety and helmet wearing seems to be a quintessential example of this.
Pundits of either camp can draw upon many and varied sources of (often
weakly interrelated) data in support of their claims.

The point about moral hazard is well taken. It's interesting to see the
relationship between, for example, HIV statistics and common wisdom
regarding what is 'safe' that has preceded trends in people's behaviour.