? on hlemet conspiracy

gds said:

I have a question for the folks who feel that helmets are of little
protection and that their use, mandatory or otherwise is more a matter
of helmet company promotion than of true safety.

Quoted message said:

This is a key element
of the argument as it is used to discredit much of the work showing
helmet efficacy as being simply studies done by the manufacturers and
that, as such, the studies are biased and self serving.

Most of the studies on helmet efficacy are not done by manufacturers,
they are done by medical researchers, public health organizations, and
governmental organizations involved in road safey.

Quoted message said:

Along with this assertion is reference to studies that claim to show
that as helmet use goes up, bicycle ridership goes down.

There is no evidence to support this statement, any more there is
evidence to support that as seat belt use goes up, car ridership goes down.

Quoted message said:

So, my question is-- What are all the other business's in the cycling
industry doing ? That is; if helmets are worthless AND their use is
shown to decrease the number of folks riding bicycles?

The other businesses don't believe this, any more than you or I.
Bicycling use is going down in many places, but it is due to many
factors. If not for the wide availability of helmets, at very low prices.

Quoted message said:

Then why aren't
Trek, Colnago, Giant, Shimano, Pearl Izumi, etc. etc. out there
fighting helmet use and regulation?

They don't realize that sales would sky-rocket if only helmet use would
go down.

Quoted message said:

This doesn't seem either logical or realistic.

Since when did logic and realism have any place in the world of the AZH's?

gds said:

Then why aren't Trek,
Colnago, Giant, Shimano, Pearl Izumi, etc. etc. out there fighting
helmet use and regulation

Because helmets, in the USA at least, connote safety and responsibility to
the public. Go against that and you're hosed. It doesn't matter what the
facts are, all that matters is public perception. Look at the war in Iraq
for instance, the facts have come out, we went there on a lie, but the
only half the public can absorb such information. Do you really think they
can unlearn the "helmets prevent accidents" lie?

They do help in a number of accidents too, certainly not worthless. 😉 But
the public is overly obsessed with them, treating them not like tools that
*might* prevent certain types of head injury, but as magic styro-talismans.

I'd be happier if the obsession was with proper road skills instead of
foam yarmulkes...

In article <[email hidden]>,

gds said:

I have a question for the folks who feel that helmets are of little
protection and that their use, mandatory or otherwise is more a matter
of helmet company promotion than of true safety.

They are using Mike Vandeman logic. Wouldn't suprise me if Mike Vandeman
was behind the helment controversy as a way to discourage bicycling.

gds said:

Along with this assertion is reference to studies that claim to show
that as helmet use goes up, bicycle ridership goes down.

I haven't seen references to studies like that. I *have* seen references to
studies that show that enforced mandatory helmet laws yield both increased
helmet use and decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing.

Quoted message said:

That is; if helmets are worthless

Who said they're worthless? They may not offer as much protection as some
would suggest, but they do offer some protection. Whether normal cyclists
need that protection is another issue.

Although helmets are also a convenient place to attach accessories like
rear-view mirrors and blinky lights. :-)

Quoted message said:

AND their use is shown to decrease the number of folks riding bicycles?
Then why aren't Trek, Colnago, Giant, Shimano, Pearl Izumi, etc. etc. out
there fighting helmet use and regulation?

Even if helmet use did reduce bicycle ridership (see above), it doesn't
necessarily follow that helmet use would affect bicycle purchases.
--
Darin McGrew, [email hidden], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email hidden], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."

maxo wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

They do help in a number of accidents too, certainly not worthless. 😉 But
the public is overly obsessed with them, treating them not like tools that
*might* prevent certain types of head injury, but as magic styro-talismans.

I'd be happier if the obsession was with proper road skills instead of
foam yarmulkes...

Instant gratification: buy a helmet, feel safe immediately, instead of
that pesky skills development training period.

Best,
Dan

In article <[email hidden]>,

Darin McGrew said:

I haven't seen references to studies like that. I *have* seen references to
studies that show that enforced mandatory helmet laws yield both increased
helmet use and decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing.

Please post these references. Thank you.

The short answer is, bicycle manufacturers aren't all that interested
in ridership, they are interested in selling bicycles. The vast
majority of bicycles in the US have a few hundred miles on them. Once
the manufacturer has their money, they don't give a hoot whether the
buyer rides it.

Austin

AustinMN said:

The short answer is, bicycle manufacturers aren't all that interested
in ridership, they are interested in selling bicycles.

Don't you think there is a positive correlation between the two?

Come on now. I'm willing to listen to a serious argument- but claiming
that bike manufacturers would be un concerned about something that
decreased ridership- and thus potential and actual customers- is not a
very serious claim.

C said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Darin McGrew said:

I haven't seen references to studies like that. I *have* seen references to
studies that show that enforced mandatory helmet laws yield both increased
helmet use and decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing.

Please post these references. Thank you.

You might want to start here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1122
IIRC it supplies some references.

John Kane
Kingston ON Canada

In article <[email hidden]>,

AustinMN said:

The short answer is, bicycle manufacturers aren't all that interested
in ridership, they are interested in selling bicycles.

That might be true of Walmart bikes, but bike shops that sell higher
end bikes make a lot of money off of accessories and repeat bike sales.
Major bike manufacturers like Trek and Specialized and Cannondale also
make lots of money selling accessories under their brand names.

"AustinMN" wrote: (clip) bicycle manufacturers aren't all that interested
in ridership, they are interested in selling bicycles. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure! And bicycle manufacturers don't sell bicycles to the public. They
sell them to the stores, and once they have their money, they don't care
whether the store can resell them. In case this is going over your head, I
will add: TIC

Darin McGrew said:

gds said:

Along with this assertion is reference to studies that claim to show
that as helmet use goes up, bicycle ridership goes down.

I haven't seen references to studies like that. I *have* seen references to
studies that show that enforced mandatory helmet laws yield both increased
helmet use and decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing.

A quote from Guy in another thread can be found at

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_frm/thread/ad365807739cfd2f/1768b7fbd1c1962a?hl=en#1768b7fbd1c1962a

OK not quite there is the leap from helmet use to helmet laws.
Still the original question remains unanswered in a serious way.

gds said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Along with this assertion is reference to studies that claim to show
that as helmet use goes up, bicycle ridership goes down.

I said:

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen references to studies like that. I *have* seen references to
studies that show that enforced mandatory helmet laws yield both increased
helmet use and decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing.

gds said:

A quote from Guy in another thread can be found at

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
| The major effect of helmet laws is to reduce cycling, and the major
| effect of reduced cycling is to increase the risk for those who remain.

Like I said, Guy referred to studies that show that ENFORCED MANDATORY
HELMET LAWS yield decreased bicycle ridership. That isn't the same thing as
claiming that HELMET USE yields decreased bicycle ridership.

There's a big difference between enforced mandatory helmet laws and helmet
use itself.
--
Darin McGrew, [email hidden], http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, [email hidden], http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I used to have a handle on life, but it broke."

gds said:

I have a question for the folks who feel that helmets are of little
protection and that their use, mandatory or otherwise is more a matter
of helmet company promotion than of true safety. This is a key element
of the argument as it is used to discredit much of the work showing
helmet efficacy as being simply studies done by the manufacturers and
that, as such, the studies are biased and self serving.

I think little of it, is actually done by helmet makers, why would they
want to spend money, when there are others willing to do it for them.

Quoted message said:

Along with this assertion is reference to studies that claim to show
that as helmet use goes up, bicycle ridership goes down.

So, my question is-- What are all the other business's in the cycling
industry doing ? That is; if helmets are worthless AND their use is
shown to decrease the number of folks riding bicycles? Then why aren't
Trek, Colnago, Giant, Shimano, Pearl Izumi, etc. etc. out there
fighting helmet use and regulation? I imagine that the sale of helmets
are a very small % of the total bicycle industry. Yet the arguments
being proferred are essentially saying that the companies that
represent this small % are able to control the industry to the
detriment of every other sector of the industry and that no one is
fighting back.

The Helmet tax isn't so much of an issue on new bikes, heck if your
spending $500 or $1500, whats another $25 for a Magical Foam Hat. It's
other factors that naturally produce an uptick in bike use, where it
gets frustrated by helmet laws.

For example a large increase in gasoline prices, or a transit issue,
like a strike, or bombing, or accident, will see people looking for
alternatives, and many will dig the old Raleigh or Schwinn out of the
garage, pump up the tires, and put it back into service. Now needing a
Helmet where you didn't need one before, will frustrate those upticks in
bicycle ridership. The Bike makers need to clue in, that some
percentage of those people will want a better, lighter or newer bike, to
replace the older one.....

One thing that will increase bike use, is that the last of the boomers
are now in their 40's and looking at their expanding waistlines are
deciding, having lovingly remembered cycling when they were younger,
that maybe getting back into cycling, would be a good fitness regime.

W

Dan B. said:

maxo wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

They do help in a number of accidents too, certainly not worthless. 😉
But the public is overly obsessed with them, treating them not like
tools that *might* prevent certain types of head injury, but as magic
styro-talismans.

I'd be happier if the obsession was with proper road skills instead of
foam yarmulkes...

Instant gratification: buy a helmet, feel safe immediately, instead of
that pesky skills development training period.

Best,
Dan

A Saint Christopher medal hot-glued to the stem is a lot more comfortable.

maxo said:

Dan B. said:

maxo wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

They do help in a number of accidents too, certainly not worthless. 😉
But the public is overly obsessed with them, treating them not like
tools that *might* prevent certain types of head injury, but as magic
styro-talismans.

I'd be happier if the obsession was with proper road skills instead of
foam yarmulkes...

Instant gratification: buy a helmet, feel safe immediately, instead of
that pesky skills development training period.

Best,
Dan

A Saint Christopher medal hot-glued to the stem is a lot more comfortable.

No good...there is a measurable risk of burn/electrocution when using a
hot glue gun. There should be a law forbidding such dastardly devices.
(Or at least requiring all users to wear heavy rubber gloves and
insulated boots...) ;-)

Just zis Guy said:

Quoted message said:

False. Actually the relationship is probably stated the wrong way

round (i.e. that helmet use is least common where riding is most
common, and that countries which have seen large rises in helmet use
have seen large decreases in cycling). I don't think the link is
entirely causal, although there is evidence that helmet promotion
deters cycling and strong evidence that helmet laws deter cycling.

OK Guy, but then without arguing over the precise language; what about
the original question. If all the "commotion" around helmet use seems
to have some impact on repressing bicycle usage, whay aren't all the
other (majority) of the bicycle industry working hard to negate the
effect.

This is a serious question. If the activity, indeed, the mere
existence, of one small componenet of the industry has negative effects
on the rest of the industry-why aren't they forming some sort of
opposition. By the standards of the auto industry or the steel
industry, etc the cycle industry is quite small. Still the major
companies of frame makers, component manufactureres, clothing
manufacturers, and retailers certainly add up to far more in economic
power than the helmet makers. So, how can they allow this small tail of
the market to wag the entire dog?

I understand public relations and liability and all but off hand can't
think of another example like this. Unless, of course, that all these
other folks don't believe either that helmet wearing is bad or neutral
or that helmet usage (mandatory or not) decreases the number cyclists.

Oh well, I'm off to get in some cycling :-)

Gary

C said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

AustinMN said:

The short answer is, bicycle manufacturers aren't all that interested
in ridership, they are interested in selling bicycles.

That might be true of Walmart bikes, but bike shops that sell higher
end bikes make a lot of money off of accessories and repeat bike sales.
Major bike manufacturers like Trek and Specialized and Cannondale also
make lots of money selling accessories under their brand names.

By being honest in their appraisal that although I probably could
afford the most expensive bike in the store it wasn't the 'right' bike
for what I wanted, my local bike shop earned themselves a regular
customer.

Without counting the things I'm going to buy but haven't yet bought, my
accessories are already up to nearly 1/3rd the cost of my bike.

Once I get things like a jersey and bike shorts (which I'll be buying
in the US) I'll have spent more on accessories than I did on my bike.

Not that buying things from other shops in other countries will bother
them. Cause when I upgrade (and I will upgrade) they know who I'll be
buying my next bike from and probably the one after that.

-M