or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Re: published helmet research - not troll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: published helmet research - not troll - Page 5

post #61 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> S o r n i wrote:
>> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS wrote:
>>
>>>> JT, I'm really flattered that you consider me a master of
>>>
>>> anything--that's high praise indeed!

>>
>>
>> Hard to consider your positions when you can't even fix your user
>> name.
>>
>> Bill "multiple personalities? OK then" S.

>
> Name's Steve Bornfeld. I sometimes post from my home computer, and
> sometimes at the office.


Still takes about 13 seconds to change your Usenet account info.

Bill "nothing to do with what computer you're on" S.
post #62 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Steven Bornfeld <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> writes:


> >>Steve

> > This was also beaten to death a decade ago, and is being trotted out
> > again. The guy didn't say that helmets were ineffective. He suggested
> > that the health benefits of cycling regularly, even for "commuter" or
> > "utility" cyclists riding short distances at low speeds, exceeded the
> > risks whether helmets were used or not. That has zero to do with
> > whether helmets are effective or not. It may be a good argment
> > against mandatory helmet laws (depending on how much of a disencentive
> > a helmet requirement actually is.)
> >

<snip>
> As for actually calculating the quantitative saving of lives,
> this is always more complicated than it seems.

<snip>

Except that "saving lives" isn't the issue - the number of accidents
per year is low enough that a useful reduction in fatalities (say,
10% or so) would be lost in the noise. The real question is the
extent to which helmets reduce injuries. If they reduce them enough
to pay for the cost of the helmet through reductions in the cost of
treating an injury, the thing will pay for itself.

BTW, in terms of mandating them, the real argument against doing that
is the wide spread in annual mileage. I know people who ride many
thousands of miles each year and others whose yearly mileage rarely
exceeds 5 or 10 miles. Do you require a helmet for a person who
rides such short distances? We are talking, after all about a
factor of a 1000 in annual mileage.


In any case, this has all been beaten to death in previous discussions.
Nothing new is being brought up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #63 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Pete wrote:
> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>As long as this is not libertarian, and allowing that proper bicycle
>>maintenance and effective cycling are more important to cyclist safety,
>>what would your feelings be about:
>>1) Mandatory licensing of cyclists (as per motor vehicles)
>>2) Mandatory minimum age for cyclists on public streets and roads
>>3) Mandatory registration of bicycles and periodic bicycle inspections
>>

>
>
> This list is a perfectly good way of eliminating cycling injuries completely
> within one generation.
>
> Of course, it would also eliminate cycling in general. If you don't cycle as
> a kid, it is highly unlikely you would ever do it as an adult.
>
> Pete


Maybe. I put up with this for my car. No reason I wouldn't for my
bike. Not saying I would advocate any or all of this, but I might on
reflection. Mandatory inspection makes a lot more sense to me than
mandatory CPSC regs such as reflectorized pedals.

Steve

>
>
post #64 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Pete wrote:
> "Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:40D4F6E4.7030708@earthlink.net...
>
>>
>>Pete wrote:
>>
>>>"Steven Bornfeld" <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>As long as this is not libertarian, and allowing that proper bicycle
>>>>maintenance and effective cycling are more important to cyclist safety,
>>>>what would your feelings be about:
>>>>1) Mandatory licensing of cyclists (as per motor vehicles)
>>>>2) Mandatory minimum age for cyclists on public streets and roads
>>>>3) Mandatory registration of bicycles and periodic bicycle inspections
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This list is a perfectly good way of eliminating cycling injuries

>>

> completely
>
>>>within one generation.
>>>
>>>Of course, it would also eliminate cycling in general. If you don't

>>

> cycle as
>
>>>a kid, it is highly unlikely you would ever do it as an adult.
>>>
>>>Pete

>>
>>Maybe. I put up with this for my car. No reason I wouldn't for my
>>bike. Not saying I would advocate any or all of this, but I might on
>>reflection. Mandatory inspection makes a lot more sense to me than
>>mandatory CPSC regs such as reflectorized pedals.
>>

>
>
> Item: Brake inspection. Do you mandate two functional brakes? One? I can
> ride a no-brake fixie very well.
> Item: Lights. Required? Why?
> Item Registration. What price would you put on a years bike registration?
> $1? $5? The same as a car? Either way, its a bad choice. Either not cost
> effective, or wildly out of proportion.
> Item: Licensing and minimum age. What age would this be? 16? 14? 12? By age
> 14 or so...if they haven't ridden yet, they arent likely to.
>
> Motor vehicles are thusly regulated because of the enormous potential for
> damage. Bikes, and other forms of transport have no such potential.
>
> I have a house on a very short, 8 house cul-de-sac. Zero traffic, except for
> residents. Rules such as this would prevent my 8 year old neighbor from
> riding across the street to her friends house.
>
> Do we license pedestrians next?
>
> Pete
> Nice troll, though.


Not at all. You can make the rules as draconian as you wish, or not.
One might regulate driving on public roads, or designate certain areas
that might be exempt (like snowmobiles, for example). You may set a
reasonable age (say 10) but mandate passing a test. One could tax
bicycle components and dedicate funds for enforcement.
I'm not a legislator, but the choice shouldn't be between no regulation
and stupid over-regulation. Of course if you believe there is no safety
issue to speak of, there's no reason to speak about this at all.

Steve

>
>
post #65 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:31:00 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
<dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Mandatory inspection makes a lot more sense to me than
>mandatory CPSC regs such as reflectorized pedals.


Who and how many people would this help? In talking about public
policy, you've got to ask what is the benefit and what is the cost? I
see benefit for an extremely small amount of people and cost for an
extremely large number of people. So I don't understand the point of
this suggestion.

JT
post #66 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 22:31:00 -0400, Steven Bornfeld
> <dentaltwinnospam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Mandatory inspection makes a lot more sense to me than
>>mandatory CPSC regs such as reflectorized pedals.

>
>
> Who and how many people would this help? In talking about public
> policy, you've got to ask what is the benefit and what is the cost? I
> see benefit for an extremely small amount of people and cost for an
> extremely large number of people. So I don't understand the point of
> this suggestion.
>
> JT


I don't know the answer to this. One might think that self-interest
would make automobile inspections unnecessary as well--maybe you agree.
But if you don't, I do not see a fundamental difference in principle.

Steve

>
post #67 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:mrvad09qqr7nogfrp384jfqlbhtn45cofn@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:34:30 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <944Bc.71708$eu.12036@attbi_s02>:
>
> >Casual observation would imply the opposite. Helmets are more slippery

than
> >skin,

>
> Er, not quite. That only really applies to hard shell helmets.


If you say so.

> >and they have a larger radius than the skull.

>
> Correct. This amplifies rotational forces.


The rate of rotation is diminished with the larger radii. And it's the
acceleration to that rate that matters not the torque.

> >Also, the helmet is not
> >as tightly coupled to the head as the skin is

>
> Incorrect. A correctly fitted helmet will not rotate on the head.


I wasn't talking about the helmet spinning freely here, I'm talking about a
small rotation on impact. Surely you don't fasten your helmet to your head
with epoxy?


Shayne Wissler
post #68 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 23:34:30 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <944Bc.71708$eu.12036@attbi_s02>:
>

Some of the following is yet more grasping at straws and more
repetition of arguments that were shot down a decade ago.

> >Casual observation would imply the opposite. Helmets are more slippery than
> >skin,

>
> Er, not quite. That only really applies to hard shell helmets.
>
> >and they have a larger radius than the skull.

>
> Correct. This amplifies rotational forces.


The increased moment arm does not produce a major change, but as a
result of the added material, you get better protection against an
impact and protection against abrasion (which causes unslightly road
rash to the head.) Until a 'road-rash look' comes into style, you
might want temporary head hair removal left to your barber.

> >Also, the helmet is not
> >as tightly coupled to the head as the skin is

>
> Incorrect. A correctly fitted helmet will not rotate on the head.


A correctly fitted helmet will rotate slightly. It is not
glued in place.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #69 of 1258
Thread Starter 

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Shayne Wissler wrote:

> "VC" <vc9898@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a8f21602.0406191115.609b328a@posting.google.com...
>
>>"Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:<TQJAc.135474$Ly.96010@attbi_s01>...
>
> <snip of implication that helmets may increase risk of rotational brain
> injury>
>
>>Not everything is what it seems to be. A helmet may indeed not be so
>>good for your health.

>
>
> Nice imagination, but do you have any actual reason to believe that helmets
> increase the rotational forces involved?
>
> Casual observation would imply the opposite. Helmets are more slippery than
> skin...


I doubt that bike helmets are more slippery than skin - or, more
properly, skin covered with a good layer of hair. It's been my guess
that human evolution left hair on the head partly for that reason - to
reduce the effect of a glancing blow (whether in accident or on combat).

When the hair alone can't handle it, the scalp is pretty easily torn,
exposing the well-lubricated scalp layers - a messy but effective second
line of defense.

No-shell bike helmets were taken off the market when it was claimed they
grabbed the asphalt. The microshells that are now popular don't look
very convincing to me. I'd think they would conform to, and lock to,
asphalt roughness. Perhaps not... but AFAIK, they haven't been tested
for this. Certainly the standards don't address it.

> ... and they have a larger radius than the skull.


This causes two effects, one probably beneficial, one probably
detrimental. On the good side, the speed of the glancing surface
corresponds to less angular velocity. On the down side, the increased
moment arm means increased torque to cause angular acceleration.
Perhaps the effect is a more rapid acceleration for a shorter period of
time - but again, it hasn't been tested, AFAIK, and it's not addressed
in the standard.

> Also, the helmet is not
> as tightly coupled to the head as the skin is...


Well, tight straps are demanded by the helmet promoters, and it seems to
me the coupling is enough to induce some serious angular acceleration.
Scalp skin seems (deliberately?) loose. But again: no testing, no
standard.

> ... and if the helmet got a large
> impulse of rotational force from a localized postion on the helmet, it would
> tend to be ripped apart, damping the force.


That could certainly help. I wish there were testing or a standard that
addressed it precisely.

But it's interesting - if this is really what saves a person from
excessive angular acceleration of the brain, then helmet proponents may
need a new song. Instead of "My helmet broke, so it saved my life!!!!"
they may need to say "Thank God my helmet broke, so it didn't kill
me!!!"

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
post #70 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
news:40d5b252@news.ysu.edu...

> > Casual observation would imply the opposite. Helmets are more slippery

than
> > skin...

>
> I doubt that bike helmets are more slippery than skin - or, more
> properly, skin covered with a good layer of hair. It's been my guess
> that human evolution left hair on the head partly for that reason - to
> reduce the effect of a glancing blow (whether in accident or on combat).


It's far more biologically plausible to speculate that the hair is for looks
or for protection from the sun or both.

<snip>

> Perhaps not... but AFAIK, they haven't been tested
> for this. Certainly the standards don't address it.


The helmet research I've seen so far is junk--it focuses on population
statistics not physics, and is motivated to social change not truth.

If researchers really cared about the truth of the matter, they would take
some of this casual analysis and more and begin formulating good models for
this so they'd have more to go by than mere emergency room statistics, and
also have a means of specifying better helmets. Maybe the manufacturers do
this, I don't know.


Shayne Wissler
post #71 of 1258
Thread Starter 

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Bill Z. wrote:

> Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> writes:
>
>>As for actually calculating the quantitative saving of lives,
>>this is always more complicated than it seems.

>
> Except that "saving lives" isn't the issue - ... The real question is the
> extent to which helmets reduce injuries.


IIRC, every helmet promotion I've ever encountered has talked about
saving lives. If that's not the issue, someone needs to inform the
"safety industry."

And regarding injuries - did you ever read that 1996 paper by Scuffham,
that detected no difference in serious injuries?

> If they reduce them enough
> to pay for the cost of the helmet through reductions in the cost of
> treating an injury, the thing will pay for itself.


"An Economic Evaluation of the Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Legislation in
Western Australia" by Hendrie, Legge et. al. found that the Australian
helmet law almost certainly did not pay for itself.

> BTW, in terms of mandating them, the real argument against doing that
> is the wide spread in annual mileage. I know people who ride many
> thousands of miles each year and others whose yearly mileage rarely
> exceeds 5 or 10 miles. Do you require a helmet for a person who
> rides such short distances? We are talking, after all about a
> factor of a 1000 in annual mileage.


This is a good point. A helmet is more likely to be of value to a high
mileage cyclist than to a neighborhood cruiser - although IMO it's not a
"must" for any but the most extreme cyclists.

Still, the helmet promoters don't agree. They tend to say "Wear a
helmet for EVERY ride," or [quoting from the biggest helmet-promotion
site:] "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports carefully drawn
mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups..."

Of course, "carefully drawn" intends no exceptions for low mileage!

Got a bike you ride five miles per year? Gotta buy a helmet!!!!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
post #72 of 1258
Thread Starter 

Re: published helmet research - not troll

Shayne Wissler wrote:

> The helmet research I've seen so far is junk--it focuses on population
> statistics not physics, and is motivated to social change not truth.
>
> If researchers really cared about the truth of the matter, they would take
> some of this casual analysis and more and begin formulating good models for
> this so they'd have more to go by than mere emergency room statistics, and
> also have a means of specifying better helmets. Maybe the manufacturers do
> this, I don't know.


I seriously doubt the manufacturers do anything that won't improve their
bottom line!

Of course, they can improve their bottom line by giving money to Snell,
which can give money to Safe Kids Inc. and various lobbyists, who can
lobby legislators to mandate their products, whether or not they work!

But manufacturers charge over $150 for gossamer-thin racing helmets that
have significantly less impact protection than average bike helmets,
while still (barely) passing the test standards.

Clearly, they're not in the protection business; they're in the business
of selling helmets.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
post #73 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news8fbd01qcl1bgucq76v65n86go2394du5m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:04:19 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <7AiBc.85246$Sw.42132@attbi_s51>:
>
> >The helmet research I've seen so far is junk--it focuses on population
> >statistics not physics, and is motivated to social change not truth.

>
> For varying values of "junk" - small scale prospectiuve studies are
> certainly prone to error, but whole population evidence is harder to
> ignore. That's what proved the link between smoking and cancer.


It's not the same thing. Different helmet designs are going to have
different effects. Those statistics completely ignore that factor. And
people who wear helmets might be more cautious anyway, or less skillful,
which would distort the statistic one way or the other. Without a
cause-effect analysis, the statistics--on both sides of the argument--are
worthless junk. With the social agenda bias in either direction they should
be ignored.

> >If researchers really cared about the truth of the matter, they would

take
> >some of this casual analysis and more and begin formulating good models

for
> >this so they'd have more to go by than mere emergency room statistics,

and
> >also have a means of specifying better helmets. Maybe the manufacturers

do
> >this, I don't know.

>
> The manufacturers don't care a damn as far as I can tell. They have
> pushed through lower standards and it's almost impossible to find a
> helmet made to Snell B95.


Snell B95 isn't the standard. The right standard is a good physical model
built from causal analysis and experiment.

Most manufacturers probably make what they think they can sell instead of
making the best they can create. Since the public is largely uncritical and
apathetic to real science, and many businessmen are cynical and deaf to the
better part of the public (which I think can be successfully appealed to),
some or all of the manufacturers may not bother with the verifiable and
instead come up with designs that are good enough to make a buck off of or
that are pretty or mainly designed for comfort--the aspects of design that
most people can relate to.

If I'm being overly harsh then point me to the manufacturer who has a good
research paper published on this topic.


Shayne Wissler
post #74 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Frank Krygowski" <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
news:40d5c136@news.ysu.edu...
> Shayne Wissler wrote:
>
> > The helmet research I've seen so far is junk--it focuses on population
> > statistics not physics, and is motivated to social change not truth.
> >
> > If researchers really cared about the truth of the matter, they would

take
> > some of this casual analysis and more and begin formulating good models

for
> > this so they'd have more to go by than mere emergency room statistics,

and
> > also have a means of specifying better helmets. Maybe the manufacturers

do
> > this, I don't know.

>
> I seriously doubt the manufacturers do anything that won't improve their
> bottom line!
>
> Of course, they can improve their bottom line by giving money to Snell,
> which can give money to Safe Kids Inc. and various lobbyists, who can
> lobby legislators to mandate their products, whether or not they work!


A good example of how the current form of government distorts what should be
a free market.

> But manufacturers charge over $150 for gossamer-thin racing helmets that
> have significantly less impact protection than average bike helmets,
> while still (barely) passing the test standards.
>
> Clearly, they're not in the protection business; they're in the business
> of selling helmets.


Assuming a free market, it would be in a helmet manufacturers best interest
to be in the business of both, for the same reasons. In the current
mixed-economy it still makes sense for a helmet manufacturer to be
principally concerned with the performance of the helmet and to let profits
flow from that--it's the only honest way, and it in fact still could lead to
becoming a market leader.


Shayne Wissler
post #75 of 1258

Re: published helmet research - not troll

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:gmibd0hkmlan86f0iujibjivasc17pkuu2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:17:39 GMT, "Shayne Wissler"
> <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> <TEjBc.149003$Ly.90993@attbi_s01>:
>
> >Assuming a free market, it would be in a helmet manufacturers best

interest
> >to be in the business of both, for the same reasons. In the current
> >mixed-economy it still makes sense for a helmet manufacturer to be
> >principally concerned with the performance of the helmet and to let

profits
> >flow from that--it's the only honest way, and it in fact still could lead

to
> >becoming a market leader.

>
> Why bother when you can use dodgy statistics and emotional blackmail
> to coerce the government into mandating the existing, flawed product?


Because it's a whole lot more fun and rewarding to create a great product
and succeed because of its merits than it is to invent schemes for tricking
people into giving you their money.


Shayne Wissler
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Re: published helmet research - not troll