N
Nate Nagel
Guest
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I found this:
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html
>>>
>>> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
>>> certified. Interesting reading.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
>>> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
>>> well work if required.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
>> is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
>> with Snell's only marginally less weak.
>>
>> Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
>> companies fear of selling an illegal product.
>>
>> Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.
>>
>> It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
>> CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
>> vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.
>>
>> Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
>> just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
>> bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
>> bump protection is not needed.
>>
>> Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
>> exists for the science, not to make money. Visit
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>>
>> Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> HA!
>
> you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.
>
> Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
> seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
> see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
> my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
> within reason, isn't ludicrous.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
> just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
> a helmet are not a bad idea.
>
> Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
> lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
> they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
> got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
> beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
> blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
> pleasant than it needs to be.
>
> nate
>
Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I found this:
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-90A_B-95A_B-90C_B-95C.html
>>>
>>> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
>>> certified. Interesting reading.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
>>> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
>>> well work if required.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
>> is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
>> with Snell's only marginally less weak.
>>
>> Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
>> companies fear of selling an illegal product.
>>
>> Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.
>>
>> It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
>> CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
>> vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.
>>
>> Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
>> just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
>> bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
>> bump protection is not needed.
>>
>> Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
>> exists for the science, not to make money. Visit
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>>
>> Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> HA!
>
> you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.
>
> Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
> seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
> see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
> my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
> within reason, isn't ludicrous.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
> just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
> a helmet are not a bad idea.
>
> Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
> lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
> they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
> got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
> beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
> blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
> pleasant than it needs to be.
>
> nate
>
Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel