Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²



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
 
Nate Nagel wrote:

> 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.


That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
vehicle.

See the compendium of studies at
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html"
 
| > 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.
|
| That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
| claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
| vehicle.

Helmet makers will *never* make that claim, even if they thought it to be
true. For that matter, helmet makers don't really make safety-related claims
at all, if you read their literature. They're scared to death of lawsuits.
The easiest way to attract lawsuits is to try and make something that will
make someone safer. You have to market it based on style and inference, but
cannot make any claim past passing xzy standard, because to do so will most
certainly put you in court when someone's killed or injured, regardless of
whether the impact was clearly beyond the design of the helmet.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> "*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
> injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
> specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
> reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.


Yes, they have some writers that have taken the edge off many of the
same anti-helmet arguments that you see endlessly posted on Usenet, and
they are smart enough to not include many of the exceptionally stupid
arguments (gardening helmets, walking helmets, driving helmets, etc.)
that would drive people away, but as you stated, 'sounding reasonable'
doesn't make it good science.

There's enough weasel words on cyclehelmets.org for anyone with any
critical thinking skills at all to realize that they have no idea what
they're talking about, but their target audience isn't those people that
have a scientific background. I liken them to the "Intelligent Design"
people, who try to sound scientific, but have no use for the
uncomfortable facts of science. They have an audience of readers that
_want_ to believe what isn't so, and want reassurance of their faith.

"Sounding reasonable" is a common tactic used by individuals and
organizations that have nothing to support their positions. You could
listen to Mike Huckabee and his minions on conservative talk radio rage
about the "Fair Tax" and think it sounded reasonable if you didn't know
the facts, when in reality there was no economic science behind it. You
could listen to the "Intelligent Design" people and think that their
arguments were reasonable if you didn't know the facts. You could
believe in Reaganomics, even though every economist will tell you that
it's completely bogus, and that it led to huge deficits and merely
postponed the day of reckoning when the spending without revenue party
would be over.

Alas, there are plenty of non-critical thinkers out there that fall for
the "sounds reasonable" ploy. What's even worse (IMVAIO) is those people
that _know_ the facts, but still parrot the false statements of
organizations and web sites such as cyclehelmets.org for their own reasons.
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
>> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
>> benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing
>> they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
>> though they take the whole population data out of context as well.
>> Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to
>> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
>> U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very
>> misleading.

>
> Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph is good
> to go.


Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.
 
SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
>>> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing
>>> a benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest
>>> thing they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER
>>> statistics, though they take the whole population data out of
>>> context as well. Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do,
>>> it's hard to
>>> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands
>>> with the U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also
>>> very misleading.

>>
>> Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph
>> is good to go.

>
> Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
> and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.


I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
its faux arguments.

HTH
 
Bill Sornson wrote:

> I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
> its faux arguments.


Actually though, maybe I was wrong. Look at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html"

It's a whose who of the people that reject all the scientific evidence
and studies regarding helmets, and who promote an agenda based on
ignorance, fraud, and subjective interpretation. Riley Geary, Avery
Burdett, Guy Chapman, etc., though apparently in a vert wise move by the
board, Frank doesn't contribute to editorial content, but is listed as a
"patron."

I'm glad that I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read their
objective: "to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of
the use of bicycle helmets, in the context of risk compensation and
sustainable transport." My g-d, have you looked at their site? It's a
compendium of unscientific conclusions, misinterpretation, and lack of
scientific basis, all designed to promote their agenda. Come on people,
there are ways to oppose helmet laws without resorting to this sort of
fraud.
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
> pay $200+ for.


The critical term is "someone".

I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.

I'm just sayin'.

Chalo
 
Chalo wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
>> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
>> pay $200+ for.

>
> The critical term is "someone".
>
> I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
> that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
> dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
> Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.


Hey, women buy $5000 purses when a $25 purse will work just as well.

The person spending $200 on a Giro Ionos helmet is doing so with the
full knowledge that it will work no better at protecting their head than
a $40 helmet. Well actually some of the $40 helmets will work slightly
better, as they are designed to a higher standard, while the more
expensive helmets are designed to the minimum legal standard.
 
>> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
>> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
>> pay $200+ for.

>
> The critical term is "someone".
>
> I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
> that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
> dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
> Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.
>
> I'm just sayin'.
>
> Chalo


People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
looks good and fits nicely than it does to pay a lot of extra $$$ to buy
pre-worn pre-torn jeans... and yet that's what a whole lot of people did not
all that many years ago.

We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
Snap-On.

Is that what you would recommend?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
> looks good and fits nicely than it does to pay a lot of extra $$$ to buy
> pre-worn pre-torn jeans... and yet that's what a whole lot of people did not
> all that many years ago.
>
> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same. We could buy generic-brand
> food. We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more. We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc. We could buy Craftsman and never lust after
> Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?


A bicycle helmet isn't like like a house, or food, or a car, or a set
of tools. It's more like a butt plug. Styling differences between
butt plugs, or bicycle helmets, are secondary to the fact that wearing
one makes the user look very silly indeed.

Chalo
 
On May 22, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >

>
> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare say
> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that arguably
> looks good...


:) And to prove how good helmets really look, you can walk or drive
through any city or suburb, go to any restaurant or mall, stop in at
any museum or concert, and count all the people that are using multi-
colored, swoopy-shaped styrofoam hats to enhance their appearance!

Face it, Mike: One has to drink a lot of special Kool-Aid to consider
this a good looking hat. http://tinyurl.com/2vjluk. Nobody but an
image-crazed bicyclist would ever wear that anywhere. It looks like
something a 1940s superhero might wear. It's a triumph of marketing.

In a few years, people will put its wearers in the same category as
these folks:
http://www.library.yale.edu/walpole/html/exhibitions/hair/index.html

> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses on
> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same.


Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
facing the street?

> We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more.


It would be harsh, wouldn't it, to give up Escalades, and pass up the
opportunity to burn hundreds of barrels of oil to get ourselves and
all our outfitter gear to those restaurants and operas that need 4-
wheel-drive off-road capability!

> We
> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
> buildings and overpasses etc.


You mean like we actually do for most buildings? Ever gaze in rapture
at the architectural elegance of a Wal-Marts or a big box electronics
store?

(And "overpasses"? Are they supposed to be customized sculptural
designs?)

> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?


I'd recommend being less materialistic, and definitely less a slave to
fashion.

Sure, there can be beauty and art in an object, and there can be some
pleasure in owning something that's particularly nice.

But it would be interesting to bring the wisest men of the year 1300
AD in for consultation, and explain that we in America no longer have
to work as hard as we can to avoid starvation; that we never worry
much about bad harvests; that wild animals don't trouble us; that most
terrible diseases are tamed; and that we have leisure that people in
1300 AD could only dream about

I think the wisest men of that period would be appalled that we spend
most of our excess time and money just acquiring... ****. That is,
possessions that we don't really need, and soon don't really want, and
quickly discard in favor of more... ****.

Is that really the best goal in life?

Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.

- Frank Krygowski
 
> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski


I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
and the planet.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 22, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >

>>
>> People have always been willing to pay something for style, and I dare
>> say
>> that it makes a lot more sense to be paying $200 for a helmet that
>> arguably
>> looks good...

>
> :) And to prove how good helmets really look, you can walk or drive
> through any city or suburb, go to any restaurant or mall, stop in at
> any museum or concert, and count all the people that are using multi-
> colored, swoopy-shaped styrofoam hats to enhance their appearance!
>
> Face it, Mike: One has to drink a lot of special Kool-Aid to consider
> this a good looking hat. http://tinyurl.com/2vjluk. Nobody but an
> image-crazed bicyclist would ever wear that anywhere. It looks like
> something a 1940s superhero might wear. It's a triumph of marketing.
>
> In a few years, people will put its wearers in the same category as
> these folks:
> http://www.library.yale.edu/walpole/html/exhibitions/hair/index.html
>
>> We could all buy the boringly-functional. We could live in little houses
>> on
>> a hillside made of ticky-tacky, all the same.

>
> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
> facing the street?
>
>> We could buy cars that were fast enough to drive at the speed limit
>> comfortably and even allow a bit of extra for passing, but little more.

>
> It would be harsh, wouldn't it, to give up Escalades, and pass up the
> opportunity to burn hundreds of barrels of oil to get ourselves and
> all our outfitter gear to those restaurants and operas that need 4-
> wheel-drive off-road capability!
>
>> We
>> could save huge amounts of money by adopting standardized designs for
>> buildings and overpasses etc.

>
> You mean like we actually do for most buildings? Ever gaze in rapture
> at the architectural elegance of a Wal-Marts or a big box electronics
> store?
>
> (And "overpasses"? Are they supposed to be customized sculptural
> designs?)
>
>> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>>
>> Is that what you would recommend?

>
> I'd recommend being less materialistic, and definitely less a slave to
> fashion.
>
> Sure, there can be beauty and art in an object, and there can be some
> pleasure in owning something that's particularly nice.
>
> But it would be interesting to bring the wisest men of the year 1300
> AD in for consultation, and explain that we in America no longer have
> to work as hard as we can to avoid starvation; that we never worry
> much about bad harvests; that wild animals don't trouble us; that most
> terrible diseases are tamed; and that we have leisure that people in
> 1300 AD could only dream about
>
> I think the wisest men of that period would be appalled that we spend
> most of our excess time and money just acquiring... ****. That is,
> possessions that we don't really need, and soon don't really want, and
> quickly discard in favor of more... ****.
>
> Is that really the best goal in life?
>
> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
>> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
>> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski

>
> I can't tell if you're making or missing my point. In the end, I think $200
> helmets rate pretty darned low on the list of ways we've wronged humanity
> and the planet.


And of course Frank's statement is incorrect to begin with.

First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
scientific studies have shown to be valuable.

Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.

Third, it's not a hat.

As you pointed out in an earlier post, "cyclehelmets.org" is a
collection of agenda-driven babble, with no scientific basis for most of
their statements, and almost no citations. Take anything that they, or
their promoters write with many, many grains of salt. Sadly, if anyone
actually took their site seriously, it could result in a lot more
cycling deaths.

It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
helmet. A 13 year old in San Ramon was hit by a drunk driver, and she
suffered a concussion, but her helmet saved her from much more serious
injuries. There were three other non-fatal accidents as well.
 
On May 23, 3:16 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> Spending $200 on a weird looking, multi-colored plastic disposable hat
> >> that doesn't actually do anything functional, and that we promise to
> >> throw away in three years... that's just an extreme example.

>
> And of course Frank's statement is incorrect to begin with.
>
> First of all, the helmet does have a specific function that numerous
> scientific studies have shown to be valuable.


As has been pointed out many times before: Most "case-control"
studies have claimed benefits for helmets, up to the record prediction
of "85% reduction in head injuries." But such studies cannot help but
be flawed by using self-selected subjects - a problem that would void
any serious study. When non-self-selected data is used, helmets are
NOT seen to help.

Example: Kids in all of New Zealand were forced to wear helmets.
Helmet use by kids suddenly jumped from about 30% to about 90%. There
was NO detectable benefit in hospitalizations. But there was the
usual decrease in bike riding.

Case-control studies predict wonderful benefits if everyone wears
helmets. But actual studies of entire populations find no benefit
when everyone wears helmets. Guess which style of studies the helmet
industry funds?

See http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1131

> Second, it isn't made out of plastic (at least not the bulk of it), it's
> mainly impact absorbing expanded polystyrene.


Try googling "define: polystyrene"

Results:

"A lightweight plastic often used in food service..."

"A plastic that comes in two forms - solid and expanded..."

"A type of plastic foam. It is often used in insulation, plates, egg
cartons, coffee cups and disposable food containers. Anything made of
this product is not very biodegradable and is also difficult to
recycle..."

"A plastic material..."

> Third, it's not a hat.


:) And where do you wear _yours_?


> It's been a bad week in the Bay Area as far as bicycle accidents go.
> Yesterday a bicycle messenger in San Francisco died from head injuries
> that doctors think would not have been fatal had he been wearing a
> helmet.


Annually in the US, there are about 75,000 deaths from head
injuries.

Roughly 35,000 of them happen inside cars. Most of the rest happen in
simple falls around the home.

A maximum of about 600 happen to cyclists, probably less.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in
bicycle deaths caused by massive helmet wearing, despite the doctors
who have bought the publicity, but not read the real research.

Will those doctors get behind this campaign?

http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html

- Frank Krygowski
 
On May 22, 1:32 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> We could buy Craftsman and never lust after Snap-On.
>
> Is that what you would recommend?


Now I'm gonna have nightmares.

nate

(jealously hoarding all the S-K tools that I inherited from my late
grandfather...)
 
On May 22, 10:58 pm, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
> facing the street?


If I could buy a mcmansion for $200K I would consider drinking the
kool-aid.

You don't wanna know how much we paid for our tiny 1940's house on an
equally tiny lot. DC area real estate is ludicrous, even after the
recent "adjustments."

nate
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Will those doctors get behind this campaign?
>
> http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/index.html


Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
(other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
bike rides.
 
N8N wrote:
> On May 22, 10:58 pm, Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Um... you mean, $200,000 McMansions on identical winding suburban
>> streets crowded onto small lots, with monstrous garage doors all
>> facing the street?

>
> If I could buy a mcmansion for $200K I would consider drinking the
> kool-aid.
>
> You don't wanna know how much we paid for our tiny 1940's house on an
> equally tiny lot. DC area real estate is ludicrous, even after the
> recent "adjustments."


Try the good cities in the Bay Area, i.e. Palo Alto, Cupertino, etc. The
McMansions (or monster houses as they're called here) would sell for
about $2,000,000. The older tract homes, often with more character but
less square feet can be purchased for 1 to 1.5 million. Plus they've not
come down with the real estate slump, though they haven't been going up
either. The city's with top-rated public schools have been immune (so
far) from the real estate slump in the Bay Area. The areas with bad
public schools have seen big declines, 20-35%. When the school bond
measures are on the ballot even those without school kids vote for them.
 
Peter Cole wrote:

> Driving home after a MTB ride, I once caught myself before admonishing
> my son to take his helmet off in the car. I've never seen a cyclist
> (other than my son & he was 11) wear a helmet in a car, even to & from
> bike rides.


With head curtain air bags on most new cars, I doubt if a helmet would
help a whole lot more. That web site mentions race car drivers, but
AFAIK, race cars don't have head curtain air bags. Even without head
curtain air bags, being inside a steel safety cage is a lot different
than riding a bicycle.

There are a plethora of studies showing the benefit of bicycle helmets
in head-impact crashes on bicycles, and no one disputes the benefits of
helmets should a head impact crash occur (well maybe the people at
cyclehelmets.org dispute it, but no one without some strange agenda
disputes it). Are there any studies, or even predictions about the
benefit of wearing helmets in passenger cars?