Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[jtaylor]

(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
according to one industry estimate."

June 2006, p30

 

[Ken C. M.]

jtaylor wrote:
> (Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
> according to one industry estimate."
>
> June 2006, p30
>
>
and who did they ask to come up with the estimate?
No study will convince everyone to wear one.
I don't wear one now, but perhaps someday in the future I will.

I'm out.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

 

[catzz66]

jtaylor wrote:
> (Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
> according to one industry estimate."
>
> June 2006, p30
>
>

No one every changes his mind, so there's really no point in discussing it.

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300 someone who may be "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
>according to one industry estimate."
>
>June 2006, p30

Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting catzz66 <[email protected]>:
>jtaylor wrote:
>>(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
>>according to one industry estimate."
>No one every changes his mind, so there's really no point in discussing it.

To my knowledge both Frank and Guy Robinson, now regular anti-compulsion
campaigners, began pro-helmet.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is First Wednesday, May.

 

[Pat Lamb]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300 someone who may be "jtaylor"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>> (Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
>> according to one industry estimate."
>>
>> June 2006, p30
>
> Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

It's an overblown magazine which purports to select the "best" of an
amazingly large number of things, based on questionable research. As
you might expect, they most closely resemble the "jack of all trades,
master of none" label.

In this case, they have probably assembled a list of all the newspaper
and magazine articles based on the original (suspect) paper from the
1970s. I mean, really, don't you go right to the Sun for authoritative
information? Out comes the biggest statistic you can find!

Pat

My posting on h**m*ts is done for the year.

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

David Damerell wrote:

> Quoting catzz66 <[email protected]>:
>
>>jtaylor wrote:
>>
>>>(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
>>>according to one industry estimate."
>>
>>No one every changes his mind, so there's really no point in discussing it.
>
>
> To my knowledge both Frank and Guy Robinson, now regular anti-compulsion
> campaigners, began pro-helmet.

I bought one in the early 1990s because I thought it seemed like a good
idea. Then I realised how little protection it would offer and how much
extra it made me sweat in summer, so I'm voraciously anti-compulsion now.

 

[John]

"Pat Lamb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Hansen wrote:
>
> In this case, they have probably assembled a list of all the newspaper
> and magazine articles based on the original (suspect) paper from the
> 1970s.

Why didn't they just find one and copy it?

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 4 May 2006 11:45:25 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>(Helmets) "...can prevent up to 88% of bike-related brain injuries,
>according to one industry estimate."
>
>June 2006, p30

Weasel-words: "up to".

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Tom]

As did I. But after reading the available studies and calculating out
the loads implied by the Snell standards I was disabused of such
notions.

 

[Mike Kaiser]

catzz66 wrote:

> No one every changes his mind, so there's really no point in discussing it.

Wrong. I wore a helment compulsively for the last 20 years. I
recently decided that there was no point, based in part on information
posted here. I now ride regularly without one.

 

[Barnard Frederick]

Sorni says...

> If you bounce your noggin off the pavement, do you hope you're helmeted or
> not?
>
> Succinct Sorni

I bounced mine off the pavement in 2004. I was going at full speed and
rounded the corner into my apartment complex where they were watering
the street instead of the grass. Skidded out like I was on ice and went
face first into the pavement. Hard. Very hard. Since I wasn't wearing
a helmet I got a black eye and some other minor swelling. If I had been
wearing one, the blow would have been deflected to my jaw bone and
almost certainly causing a more serious injury. The most painful
injuries were to my hands which had numerous cuts and road rash. Every
appendage had some minor damage with more serious damage to my right
leg, hip and arm as well as the right side of my face. Limped for
several days. Went to the emergency room for the first time since I was
12.

Others can disagree if they like, but its as good an anecdote as the
'glad I was wearing a helmet' stories we keep hearing. If I had been
wearing a full face motorcycle helmet, that would have been a different
story. But bicycle helmets are half-assed and only offer limited
protection under certain circumstances. I also have to wonder if there
is a net safety gain considering they are hot and can be distracting.
For example, one can be fiddling with a strap that isn't comfortable
instead of controlling the bike.

 

[Tom]

This is the most significant passage of anything I've seen yet:

Brian Walker Head Protection Evaluations Farnham, Surrey, UK March
2004

"In a recent Court case, a respected materials specialist argued that a
cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from
their cycle, without any real forward momentum, would not have had
their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event
involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy
potential of no more than 75 joules (his estimate, with which I was in
full agreement). The court found in favour of his argument. So a High
Court has decided that cycle helmets do not prevent injury even when
falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with little forward momentum.
Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat
surface than any other."

So precisely what would it require for people who tout helmets to shut
the (innuendo) up and try to promote safer riding, better road designs
so that cyclists and motorists better harmonize and better education of
motorists so that they aren't killing cyclists?

I approached an intersection in San Francisco. There was a cop there
parked on the sidewalk. I was directly next to his open sidewindow. A
pair of cyclists rode up to the light in the opposite direction across
the street in the left hand part of the lane and obviously turning
left. A truck approached behind them and the driver screamed - "GET OUT
OF MY WAY OR I'LL KILL YOU!" Mind you this was at a red light with a
COP across the street.

I turned to the cop and asked, "What are you going to do about that?"
He replied, "Nothing", started his engine, made a right turn and drove
away before the light turned.

Be sure to wear your helmets.

 

[[email protected]]

David Hansen wrote:
>
>
> Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?

I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"

CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
pushes the fairy tales.

FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Neil Brooks]

On 4 May 2006 14:37:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>David Hansen wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?
>
>I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"
>
>CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
>points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
>in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
>pushes the fairy tales.
>
>FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
>safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
>toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
>from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!

Dear Frank,

You say it as if it were a bad thing.

http://www.wgmd.com/newspost/fullnews.php?id=911

[close enough to what you said, anyway ;-)]

 

[[email protected]]

Pat Lamb wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> > Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?
>
> It's an overblown magazine which purports to select the "best" of an
> amazingly large number of things, based on questionable research. As
> you might expect, they most closely resemble the "jack of all trades,
> master of none" label.

To bring in a bit of bicycle content:

Way, way back when I first got into bicycling, in the 1970s, CR did a
comparative test of ten speed bikes. (That's ten, count 'em, ten
speeds _total_.)

Anyway, one of their most important rating criteria was rolling
resistance. They built a little ramp, had the test rider coast down
the ramp, and measured how far he could coast before stopping. This
made a big difference in their ratings.

Despite listing tire information explicitly, they did not comment on
the fact that all the bikes that coasted further came with the then-new
90 psi tires. All the bikes that didn't coast as far came with 70 psi
tires, which were the norm in those days.

The odds are that they didn't realize there was a connection. They put
it all off to differences in the quality of the bikes.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[John_Kane]

[email protected] wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> >
> >
> > Who or what is "Consumer Reports"?
>
> I think the British counterpart is a magazine called "Which?"
>
> CR does tests and comparative ratings of consumer goods. Often, it
> points out that certain goods are just not worth the money. However,
> in the case of bike helmets, Consumer Reports - as demonstrated -
> pushes the fairy tales.
>
> FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
> safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
> toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
> from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!
>
> - Frank Krygowski

There may be a market for that!
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

 

[catzz66]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> It's possible that the helmet does offer some significant
> protection, but that wearing it irresistably provokes the
> wearer to ride more recklessly.

It is this kind of logic that makes me disregard anything else the non
helmet people say. The bottom line is that I don't really care what you
do. It is your noggin.

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 04 May 2006 17:20:35 -0500, catzz66
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> It's possible that the helmet does offer some significant
>> protection, but that wearing it irresistably provokes the
>> wearer to ride more recklessly.
>
>It is this kind of logic that makes me disregard anything else the non
>helmet people say. The bottom line is that I don't really care what you
>do. It is your noggin.

Dear C.,

Do you have a better explanation for why, if helmets do
indeed offer significant protection, it never shows up in
national fatality statistics?

It's simply impossible to look at year-by-year graphs of
serious injury rates and point to where a law caused helmet
use to rise from rare to almost universal.

It's as if no one wore a helmet at all. That's the kind of
logic that leads people to become skeptical of helmets--the
hoped-for effect simply doesn't occur.

Here's a direct link to the Munich taxi study, which showed
in irritating detail that the ABS brakes somehow never
produced their intended safety effect:

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html#7.1

The cabbies kept having accidents at the same rate because
they sped up and crowded other traffic whenever they drove
cabs with the wonderful ABS brakes. It never occurred to
them to slow down until the company switched to making them
pay for crash repairs and threatening to fire them.

The same human behavior might explain why helmets just don't
seem to lower the death rate. Elsewhere on RBT, we have yet
another illustration of the familiar logic. David Damerell
points this out:

>>Richard B wrote:
>> Situation:
>> - Bright sunny day
>> - Sunglasses
>> - Narrow, long, dark tunnel
>> - Steep run down to the tunnel
>> - Angled approach, you cannot see into the tunnel before entry
>> - A few days after a rain
>> - Mud in bottom of tunnel obscuring debris

>>David Damerell wrote:
>Say... perhaps resisting the urge to make a banzai
>charge into a dark place with sunglasses on, instead
>slowing to a flat crawl and taking the sunglasses off?
>
>Nah. There's _no way_ this accident could have been
>prevented!

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/afa56c1c41279f96

We don't want to admit that we'd rather trust dubious
equipment than change our risky habits. Why slow down if
we're wearing styrofoam?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On 4 May 2006 14:37:29 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>FWIW, CR also has a demonstrated bias in favor of any and all pieces of
>safety equipment. They would be very likely to, say, approve of a
>toilet seat alarm if they thought it would prevent someone, somewhere
>from mistakenly sitting directly on the toilet bowl!
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

Regrettably, your attitude reminds how rarely we see the
fair sex on this newsgroup.

Leaving the toilet seat up is a deadly serious matter to
those who never raise it in the first place and trust us to
put it back down.

The wrath of a woman scorned is nothing next to the fury of
a sleepy woman who has fallen into a chilly toilet bowl at
three in the morning.

Strong but forgetful men have been known to flee from
splashing noises and guttural howls suggesting that
Grendel's mother is rising from the deep.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel