Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????



On Mon, 08 May 2006 07:24:53 -0700, GaryG wrote:

> Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g.,
> tents, lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.
>
> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to
> be light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel
> helmet that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to
> wear it.

Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
worrying about.

Matt O.
 
What scares me most here is the near certainty that I'm the only one
who's reminded of that old Terry Jacks song;

We had joy
We had fun
We had helmets in the sun...

Man ... was that song a bag of downers or what?
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
> seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
> the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
> and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
> exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
> plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
> the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
> worrying about.

I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
problem.

OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
rest was fragile.

I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
convinced the magic had leaked out.

Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've
>> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from
>> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around
>> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets
>> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that.
>> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the
>> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well
>> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about.
>
> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
> problem.
>
> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
> rest was fragile.
>
> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
> convinced the magic had leaked out.
>
> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his
> VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed)
> because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to
> degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course.
> He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

"She dropped the helmet from about three feet."

How convenient!
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've
>>> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from
>>> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around
>>> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets
>>> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that.
>>> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the
>>> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well
>>> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about.
>>
>> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
>> problem.
>>
>> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
>> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
>> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
>> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
>> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
>> rest was fragile.
>>
>> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
>> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
>> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
>> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
>> convinced the magic had leaked out.
>>
>> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his
>> VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed)
>> because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to
>> degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course.
>> He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing.
>
> "She dropped the helmet from about three feet."
>
> How convenient!

I've seen the same thing. 3' just happens to be the approximate height of
the helmet if you sit it on the handlebars as some riders do or hook it over
the lever.
 
More wife, less usenet.

Problem solved. Two cents, please.



Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>
> Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the **** out of me. It boggles my mind that
> people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That
> said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or
> rec.bikes.marketplace.
>
> Maybe they do. Who knows?
> \\paul
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
> No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with
> the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly
> hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside
> cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of
> claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The
> materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment
> they're normally used.
>
> But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in
> normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it
> would probably melt. Don't do that.
>
> As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those
> are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect
> lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been
> able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are
> marketed as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with
> protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in
> general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something,
> anything, and claim it will make you safer.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Um, I doubt they'd get away with a disclaimer which disavows the
intended use of the product!
 
Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty.



Martin Borsje wrote:
>
>
> The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet.....
>
>
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu
 
NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
> they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
> suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
> mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
> of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
> see the contradiction in that!

Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets.
Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of
exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they
know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that
will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again,
whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet
replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make
both Bell and Giro helmets).

Chalo Colina
 

> While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
> be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
> will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Sid
 
Sid wrote:
{somone else wrote}

>> While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should
>> probably be aware that just falling over and hitting your head
>> against a curb will substantially exceed the protective capacity of
>> a helmet.

> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit
> my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common
sense after a while.)

HTH, BS
 
Sid wrote:
> > While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
> > be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
> > will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.
>
>
> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>
>

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sid wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>
> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
- hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
"common sense" is often wrong.

So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?

Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
how could they? That would require reading!

But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?

I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

- Frank Krygowski
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >
> > Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
> > seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
> > the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for
decades,
> > and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day
of
> > exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
> > plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
> > the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
> > worrying about.
>
> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
> problem.
>
> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
> rest was fragile.
>
> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
> convinced the magic had leaked out.
>
> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
> position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
> he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
> exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
> the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
best.

GG

>
> - Frank Krygowski
>
 
GaryG wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
> > position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
> > he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
> > exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
> > the company, and it was just a remark in passing.
>
> And you're complaining about others not adequately "studying the issues"???
> The example you cite, and the paragraph above are anecdotal hearsay...at
> best.

I know they are, and I presented them as such. Note the "he claimed"
and "Can't say for sure it was true." I was nowhere near presenting
that as proven fact.

Here's the way this stuff works, Gary. People notice things, and begin
to discuss them. If there's enough scientific curiosity, someone will
propose a hypothesis. If the curiosity grows, someone might perform a
test. If the issue's deemed important enough, someone might do a
full-blown study. And so on. And so we learn.

Taking the first step, as I did above, is different from pretending an
anecdote is scientific proof. It's different from what we get from the
crowd proclaiming "I hit my head and my helmet cracked. I _know_ it
saved my life!!!"

By the way, we have two plastic garbage cans, the large kind we haul to
the curb once a week. Both are roughly the same age. One is cracked
and torn, the other is perfectly intact. I've wondered why.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Sid wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and
>>> hit my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
>> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet
>> agenda?
>
> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
>
> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> they can understand.

Hunh...yuk yuk. That be about right, unh... Ain't got no need for no city
lernin'!

> That seems to preclude actually learning
> anything - hence Sorni's mockery of study,

You decided to deride helmets and then went and found additional "studies"
(dubious term, that) to confirm your belief (opinion!). The only difference
with me (and I suspect many others) is we don't NEED studies to verify what
to us are simple, easy, common sense decisions (CHOICES).

Different people have different styles, habits, ways, etc. Frank. Should I
DAGS and cite something to back that up?

> and Ozark's refusal to
> consider that "common sense" is often wrong.

Bite us. (OK, that's wrong.)
>
> So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a
> device that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's
> better than nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?
>
> And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
> responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
> sources?
>
> Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
> indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway
> - how could they? That would require reading!

Horse ****. There are just as many reputable sources indicating that
helmets ARE effective. Just because YOU discount them doesn't mean they
aren't valid.
>
> But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
> studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
> blather on Usenet?

OMG that's rich coming from you. If I fall over laughing, I hope I have my
lid on!
>
> I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
> views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
> daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

Logic: better to have some protection on one's head when banging it against
hard and maybe even pointy objects/surfaces. Even The Smartest Person In
The World (the intellectual bully with at least two-score IQ points on me so
that makes him 180++) believes in and wears helmets on bike rides. And like
you, he seems to extensively research nearly every waking thought he has, so
it MUST be a pretty informed choice (CHOICE).

Also, Doctor Google, if I and Ozark are such intellectual lightweights, then
why the hell do you CARE what the hell we say/think/argue/defend?!? Aren't
you secure enough in your lofty internet tower to just smugly dismiss us as
the backwoods buffoons we so obviously are?

OK, back to the comics page and reruns for us. WE AIN'T EQWIPT TO DO THESE
TALKY THINGS ON THIS HERE INTERNET THING.

Bowleggedly skulking away, Billy Bob S.
 
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
> over yet or kicked me out. =)

well, since you bought it anyway why not start wearing it when on your
bike? This is usually enough to appease the Nazis as they tend to be
more fixated on helmut wearing than safety <vbg>

best wishes
james
 
[email protected] writes:

> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>> Sid wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
>> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>>
>> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
>> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
>
> I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
>
> Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
> - hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
> "common sense" is often wrong.
>
> So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
> that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
> nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

Read up on Occams Razor.

>
> And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
> responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
> sources?
>
> Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
> indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
> how could they? That would require reading!
>
> But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
> studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
> blather on Usenet?

You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.

Tell me : do gloves protect the hand? Or because they dont protect
against a chain saw they are equally useless when doing manual labour?
Your whole course of argument is fatally flawed.

>
> I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
> views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
> daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

Someone is holding a big stick covered in tar and gravel : now, would
you prefer them to hit your bald head or your helemted head with it?

See? Its not so difficult. FWIW, I hate helmets and dont wear one as I
feel that it reduces my overrall awareness - others I know say it doesnt
affect them at all in that way.

>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

--
 
Hadron Quark wrote:
> [email protected] writes:
>
> > Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >> Sid wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> >> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
> >>
> >> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> >> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?
> >
> > I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."
> >
> > Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
> > they can understand.
>
> Read up on Occams Razor.

I've done that long ago, thanks.

I don't believe William of Occam would approve of "If I hit my head a
helmet will help, so everyone should wear helmets." For one thing,
he'd probably want some data.

I believe he'd be more impressed with "They made the whole population
of Australia wear bike helmets, and they observed no improvement in
serious head injuries per rider." Based on that, he'd say "The
simplest explanation is best. The helmets aren't providing significant
protection."

Again, for Sorni and Ozark, the latter cuts no ice. Actual data is too
much trouble. Perhaps you're with them?

Those interested in the latest data, published in the British Medical
Journal, should go to http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac722.pdf

> You seem intent on spouting ridiculous reports which rely on minutae
> data to disprove something simple : a helmet protects the head.

??

Helmets are promoted as protecting against serious head injuries. Data
indicates they don't protect against serious head injuries - at least,
data from large populations.

Why is checking to see if they actually work "minutae"?

You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] writes:

>
> You seem to be working from faith. I'm an engineer. I prefer data.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Tell you what : do you have any "data" that shows that helmets cause
more injury when worn as opposed to when they are left at home on the
coat peg?

--
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back