Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...

[Sorni]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2006 07:12:15 GMT, "Sorni"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Barnard Frederick wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Just like the anti-helmet zealots always say "well you'd have to
>> re-enact the accident without the helmet", in your case you'd have
>> to re-do it WITH a helmet to test your hypothesis/conclusion. (Why
>> would a helmet "deflect the blow to your jaw bone"? Since you got a
>> black eye, sounds like you hit more of the /front/ of your head than
>> the cranium.)
>>
>> Hope you were wearing gloves! <eg>
>
> Helmets are optional. Gloves essential.

Whaddya, new?!? Gloves are RISK COMPENSATION MEASURES according to...Frank?
Michael? ONE of those zealots.

Bill "too lazy to DAGS" S.

 

[Tom The Great]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:22:46 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 5 May 2006 09:03:07 -0700 someone who may be "bookieb"
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>> The authors also accepted some of the criticisms of their
>>> methodology and produced lower figures. These are still too high,
>>> but they do show that any organisation quoting the 88% figure is a
>>> fool or a liar.
>>
>>...or simply too lazy to check that a convenient soundbite statistic,
>>one which they found in advertising bumpf, or read on the web somwhere
>>(bhit anyone?), and which "supports" the point they are trying to make,
>>has some basis in fact or reputable research.
>
>I think that comes under my first heading.
>
>The liars are those who know the figure is bogus, but still push it
>for various "reasons". One of these "reasons" is that, "the figure
>is widely known and to contradict it would confuse people." These
>liars are frequently funded by my taxes.


Our Taxes.



tom @ www.NoCostAds.com

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 05 May 2006 05:43:00 -0600, Paul Cassel
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear David,
>>
>> I like to think that I was just uninformed or perhaps
>> misinformed, not foolish or lying, so I tend to suspect
>> others might be in the same boat.
>>
>> In any case, calling them liars and fools is not exactly the
>> most effective method of convincing them of the strength of
>> your argument.
>>
>> (I know this, but like you, I occasionally re-test the
>> excoriation method to vent my spleen and check that it still
>> doesn't work too well.)
>>
>I'm new to bicycles, but the method used for evaluating motorcycle
>helmets is foolish. The test is an anvil accelerated to a certain m/s
>velocity. The problem is that exceedingly few motorcycle crashes involve
>danger of penetration from anvil-like objects. The only way such tests
>would reflect real world crashes would be in the event of a rider
>sliding into a curb or doing a layout onto rocks.
>
>Yet this method still persists. Also there are no tests to determine if
>the helmet blocks sight or sound as some bikers say they do. Thus you
>can conclude that at least in the motorcycle world, fools and liars
>publish the helmet 'safety' data even if the lying isn't intentional.

[snip]

>-paul

Dear Paul,

If the motorcycle helmet tests that you have in mind are
like the bike helmet tests, you may have misunderstood
things a bit. (There are different testing organizations, so
I may be misunderstanding which ones you have in mind.)

For the Snell bicycle helmet test, a 5kg head form in a
helmet is dropped onto three different anvils from three
different heights. An accelerometer measures the impact and
speeds and so forth are specified with impressive precision,
leading to 100, 65, and 58 joule impacts +/- 3%, no matter
what the total weight of the headform and helmet are.

There are three anvils--a flat one, a round one, and finally
one resembling the tiny roundness of a curb. The decapitated
head is dropped from lower and lower heights--bonking a curb
is a tougher test than smacking onto flat ground, so the
curb test is performed from only 1.2 meters.)

There's also a requirement for peripheral vision.

As for noise, that can apply to full-coverage helmets, but
our ears make more noise than the straps on a bicycle
helmet.

Browse way down here for one test description:

http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html

(Yes, the test is open to considerable criticism. The bottom
line is that the headform doesn't suffer more than 300 g's
in any drop to the anvils, but 300 g's is now thought to be
rather high and doesn't cover rotational injuries. The four
impacts spread over three anvils are not exactly extensive
testing. And so on.)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Paul Cassel]

[email protected] wrote:

>> -paul
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> If the motorcycle helmet tests that you have in mind are
> like the bike helmet tests, you may have misunderstood
> things a bit. (There are different testing organizations, so
> I may be misunderstanding which ones you have in mind.)
>
> For the Snell bicycle helmet test, a 5kg head form in a
> helmet is dropped onto three different anvils from three
> different heights. An accelerometer measures the impact and
> speeds and so forth are specified with impressive precision,
> leading to 100, 65, and 58 joule impacts +/- 3%, no matter
> what the total weight of the headform and helmet are.
>
> There are three anvils--a flat one, a round one, and finally
> one resembling the tiny roundness of a curb. The decapitated
> head is dropped from lower and lower heights--bonking a curb
> is a tougher test than smacking onto flat ground, so the
> curb test is performed from only 1.2 meters.)
>
> There's also a requirement for peripheral vision.
>
> As for noise, that can apply to full-coverage helmets, but
> our ears make more noise than the straps on a bicycle
> helmet.
>
> Browse way down here for one test description:
>
> http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html
>
> (Yes, the test is open to considerable criticism. The bottom
> line is that the headform doesn't suffer more than 300 g's
> in any drop to the anvils, but 300 g's is now thought to be
> rather high and doesn't cover rotational injuries. The four
> impacts spread over three anvils are not exactly extensive
> testing. And so on.)
>
The tests appear to be different if thematically similar. Rather than
attempt to write them here, I'll refer to an excellent article on the
subject if you're interested in seeing the differences and also the
various organizations which test motorcycle hats:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

Note the emphasis on penetration prevention. Several experts have
commented on the relative safety of bicycle helmets compared to
motorcycle ones in many sorts of crashes due to the greater crush nature
of bicycle hats.

The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with
or without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride
this month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having
to do that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody
wear a helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement
rather than a reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm
grumpy about it anyway.

-paul

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> 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.

I remember reading a Consumer Reports review of hybrid bikes where
readers were warned against one particular bike because it had a strong
front brake.

Chalo Colina

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

> The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
> all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with
> or without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride
> this month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having
> to do that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody
> wear a helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement
> rather than a reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm
> grumpy about it anyway.

I am less sanguine than you. I suspect the organizers of
willfully demanding everyone wear a helmet; that insurance
companies do not require helmets.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody
> > wear a helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement
> > rather than a reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm
> > grumpy about it anyway.
>
> I am less sanguine than you. I suspect the organizers of
> willfully demanding everyone wear a helmet; that insurance
> companies do not require helmets.

I ran a century ride for seven or eight years back in the 1990s. I did
not require helmets.

We were insured through our club's insurance and through the League of
American Bicyclists, IIRC, since it was a League sanctioned century.

I'm not sure how they would have divvied up the liability if there had
been a problem, but it didn't matter regarding helmets. Neither
insurance company required helmets.

Even today, the League's insurance company's suggested release form for
a century ride does not mention the word "helmet." One of their
pamplets _suggests_ helmets, but does not _mandate_ them. BTW, this is
contrary to claims that are frequently given in these discussions.

Thus, helmet mandates are likely a decision of the local organizers -
the same ones who make you sign a release that says something like "I
realize that bicycling is a horribly dangerous activity, and I realize
that my head may be ripped from my body if I make the slightest
mistake, but I still choose to take part in this intensely hazardous
activity..."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
(replying to
>> I'm skeptical that a helmet will offer much significant
>> protection because when helmet use skyrockets, the serious
>> head injury and death rates show no effect in country after
>> country.

> But that's an argument against helmet usage only if your only concern
> is "serious" head injury or death. In my own case, I was saved from
> dealing with quite a bit of shredded skin and maybe a bit of skull,
> but certainly not death or even concussion, as I found myself sliding
> along the pavement after a young girl ran out from a campground and
> into my path. She came out just fine (we made contact but just
> barely), while I was left with a memory that will be with me
> always... "What's the loud noise?" as the side of my helmet was
> sliding on the pavement. And just a few weeks ago I got to watch
> someone on my morning ride do pretty much the exact same thing, with
> a helmet whose side is shaved down a bit, instead of his head. He
> wouldn't have been killed or even "seriously" injured either.
> To me, that's reason enough to wear a helmet. Is it a common
> accident? No. But it did happen to me once, and I've seen it happen
> to others. Good enough reason for me to want to wear a helmet. Of
> course, I wear gloves for pretty much the same reason... they protect
> my hands in a fall to the ground. And eyewear... I've had enough bugs
> fly into my eyes from my early, non-sunglass-wearing days, to know
> that it's a lot nicer not having to worry about that sort of thing. I
> doubt that many people have died (or been "seriously" injured) from
> things flying into their eyes while riding.
> So I ride with gloves, helmet & sunglasses, all meant primarily to
> protect me in the event something goes wrong. Not in the event
> *anything* goes wrong. Just some sorts of things. I don't pretend
> that any of them will save me from death or "serious" injury. But
> they don't need to for me to find them useful enough to want to wear.
> Or even recommend.

Very well said. (Even though I /suppose/ your head could go skidding along
the pavement while walking -- or SHOWERING LOL -- but then again that's just
my IQ-deficient logic, right '41'?)

{rest snipped}

BS

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

OTOH, evidence of risk compensation abounds. Aside from the studies JT
> refers to, nearly every helmet thread generates a comment like "I would
> never ride [somewhere, somehow] without a helmet." That's prima facie
> evidence that the poster is engaging in what he believes to be riskier
> behavior only because he's "protected."
>
> Incidentally, risk compensation isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is
> risk _over_compensation, so to speak. IOW, if a person is
> (hypothetically) 30% protected, and he behaves 30% more dangerously,
> it's a wash. The problem comes when a person believes he's 85%
> protected, but is really negligibly protected. It doesn't take much of
> that to make things worse than before.

I don't buy into the risk compensation argument. It's my belief that, if
someone thinks something is too dangerous to do without a helmet, that
person has a presupposition that a certain type of riding is dangerous... at
least partly, and probably largely, because he/she has been told that a
helmet is a good idea. The suggestion of using a helmet, by itself, is (in
my humble opinion) more likely to result in more, not less-cautious
behavior.

I have yet to come across a single customer, not one, who has said or acted
as if they feel that some new generation of helmet (or the use of a helmet
period) makes them feel safer taking greater risks than they otherwise would
have. Nobody has said "Wow, using that, I'm going to feel safer carving
those corners on 84!" Yet I will admit that the perceived need to wear a
helmet has led many of my customers to make assumptions that cycling is more
dangerous than it really is.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> catzz66 wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > ... large snip
>>
>> Carl, in your way of thinking, it is appropriate for opponents to
>> presuppose more reckless behavior on the part of helmet wearers but it
>> is not appropriate to accept the anecdotal evidence of wearers who
>> believe it has helped them avoid more serious injury.
>
> The two cases are not equivalent!
>
> When a cyclist (or his doctor) says "the helmet prevented a serious
> injury," that's obviously a supposition. If you like, I can present
> two examples that demonstrate this convincingly - two examples of
> hypothetical "protection" where the patient had no helmet at all!
>
> OTOH, evidence of risk compensation abounds. Aside from the studies JT
> refers to, nearly every helmet thread generates a comment like "I would
> never ride [somewhere, somehow] without a helmet." That's prima facie
> evidence that the poster is engaging in what he believes to be riskier
> behavior only because he's "protected."
>
> Incidentally, risk compensation isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is
> risk _over_compensation, so to speak. IOW, if a person is
> (hypothetically) 30% protected, and he behaves 30% more dangerously,
> it's a wash. The problem comes when a person believes he's 85%
> protected, but is really negligibly protected. It doesn't take much of
> that to make things worse than before.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:06:15 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> OTOH, evidence of risk compensation abounds. Aside from the studies JT
>> refers to, nearly every helmet thread generates a comment like "I would
>> never ride [somewhere, somehow] without a helmet." That's prima facie
>> evidence that the poster is engaging in what he believes to be riskier
>> behavior only because he's "protected."
>>
>> Incidentally, risk compensation isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is
>> risk _over_compensation, so to speak. IOW, if a person is
>> (hypothetically) 30% protected, and he behaves 30% more dangerously,
>> it's a wash. The problem comes when a person believes he's 85%
>> protected, but is really negligibly protected. It doesn't take much of
>> that to make things worse than before.
>
>I don't buy into the risk compensation argument. It's my belief that, if
>someone thinks something is too dangerous to do without a helmet, that
>person has a presupposition that a certain type of riding is dangerous... at
>least partly, and probably largely, because he/she has been told that a
>helmet is a good idea. The suggestion of using a helmet, by itself, is (in
>my humble opinion) more likely to result in more, not less-cautious
>behavior.
>
>I have yet to come across a single customer, not one, who has said or acted
>as if they feel that some new generation of helmet (or the use of a helmet
>period) makes them feel safer taking greater risks than they otherwise would
>have. Nobody has said "Wow, using that, I'm going to feel safer carving
>those corners on 84!" Yet I will admit that the perceived need to wear a
>helmet has led many of my customers to make assumptions that cycling is more
>dangerous than it really is.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Dear Mike,

You say that many of your customers perceive a need to wear
a helmet because they think that cycling is more dangerous
than it really is.

So they see the helmet as protection.

But they're going to be more cautious wearing a helmet that
they think will protect them than they would be without it?

This kind of logic suggests that having a condom handy would
make you more (not less) likely to indulge in--

Well, you see where I'm going.

What do you think we'd find if we looked at ride data after
someone fits the Kool Stop brake pads so often mentioned
here?

Will they go more slowly because they were worried about
getting better braking in the first place?

Go the same speed overall and take advantage of the better
braking that they expect?

Or go a bit faster and follow a little more closely?

Studies like the Munich taxi-driver study demonstrate in
detail that we go faster and follow more closely if we think
that we're protected by better brakes. This means that we
erase the advantage of the better brakes:

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

The same seems to be true of bumpers, safety belts, better
lighting, traffic lights, guard rails, and many other
mechanical safety improvements.

Why should bicycle helmets be a special case? The really
weird thing about risk compensation is that everyone denies
it, but everyone does it.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Studies like the Munich taxi-driver study demonstrate in
> detail that we go faster and follow more closely if we think
> that we're protected by better brakes. This means that we
> erase the advantage of the better brakes:
>
> http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
>
> The same seems to be true of bumpers, safety belts, better
> lighting, traffic lights, guard rails, and many other
> mechanical safety improvements.
>
> Why should bicycle helmets be a special case? The really
> weird thing about risk compensation is that everyone denies
> it, but everyone does it.

The taxi-driver study is especially at odds with anything having to do with
helmets, since, in the case of the taxi cabs, the changed behavior happened
only with actual use of the enhanced (ABS) system. For this logic to extend
to helmets, you'd have to assess behavior only for those who have been in
multiple crashes in which their helmet was engaged. The differences between
the two (helmets and ABS brakes) are far more obvious than any similarities.
I'm honestly surprised you would bring this up.

In short, the answer is most definitely yes, helmets are a special case...
simply because they're not actually "in use" unless crashed.

A far more accurate comparison might be if you look at driver behavior with
and without airbags.

The very act of requiring mandatory safety devices is likely to promote
safer, not more dangerous behavior... simply because you're scaring people
who might not have previously considered what they were doing to be
dangerous.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 05:06:15 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OTOH, evidence of risk compensation abounds. Aside from the studies JT
>>> refers to, nearly every helmet thread generates a comment like "I would
>>> never ride [somewhere, somehow] without a helmet." That's prima facie
>>> evidence that the poster is engaging in what he believes to be riskier
>>> behavior only because he's "protected."
>>>
>>> Incidentally, risk compensation isn't necessarily bad. What's bad is
>>> risk _over_compensation, so to speak. IOW, if a person is
>>> (hypothetically) 30% protected, and he behaves 30% more dangerously,
>>> it's a wash. The problem comes when a person believes he's 85%
>>> protected, but is really negligibly protected. It doesn't take much of
>>> that to make things worse than before.
>>
>>I don't buy into the risk compensation argument. It's my belief that, if
>>someone thinks something is too dangerous to do without a helmet, that
>>person has a presupposition that a certain type of riding is dangerous...
>>at
>>least partly, and probably largely, because he/she has been told that a
>>helmet is a good idea. The suggestion of using a helmet, by itself, is (in
>>my humble opinion) more likely to result in more, not less-cautious
>>behavior.
>>
>>I have yet to come across a single customer, not one, who has said or
>>acted
>>as if they feel that some new generation of helmet (or the use of a helmet
>>period) makes them feel safer taking greater risks than they otherwise
>>would
>>have. Nobody has said "Wow, using that, I'm going to feel safer carving
>>those corners on 84!" Yet I will admit that the perceived need to wear a
>>helmet has led many of my customers to make assumptions that cycling is
>>more
>>dangerous than it really is.
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> You say that many of your customers perceive a need to wear
> a helmet because they think that cycling is more dangerous
> than it really is.
>
> So they see the helmet as protection.
>
> But they're going to be more cautious wearing a helmet that
> they think will protect them than they would be without it?
>
> This kind of logic suggests that having a condom handy would
> make you more (not less) likely to indulge in--
>
> Well, you see where I'm going.
>
> What do you think we'd find if we looked at ride data after
> someone fits the Kool Stop brake pads so often mentioned
> here?
>
> Will they go more slowly because they were worried about
> getting better braking in the first place?
>
> Go the same speed overall and take advantage of the better
> braking that they expect?
>
> Or go a bit faster and follow a little more closely?
>
> Studies like the Munich taxi-driver study demonstrate in
> detail that we go faster and follow more closely if we think
> that we're protected by better brakes. This means that we
> erase the advantage of the better brakes:
>
> http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
>
> The same seems to be true of bumpers, safety belts, better
> lighting, traffic lights, guard rails, and many other
> mechanical safety improvements.
>
> Why should bicycle helmets be a special case? The really
> weird thing about risk compensation is that everyone denies
> it, but everyone does it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 06 May 2006 06:25:58 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Studies like the Munich taxi-driver study demonstrate in
>> detail that we go faster and follow more closely if we think
>> that we're protected by better brakes. This means that we
>> erase the advantage of the better brakes:
>>
>> http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
>>
>> The same seems to be true of bumpers, safety belts, better
>> lighting, traffic lights, guard rails, and many other
>> mechanical safety improvements.
>>
>> Why should bicycle helmets be a special case? The really
>> weird thing about risk compensation is that everyone denies
>> it, but everyone does it.
>
>The taxi-driver study is especially at odds with anything having to do with
>helmets, since, in the case of the taxi cabs, the changed behavior happened
>only with actual use of the enhanced (ABS) system. For this logic to extend
>to helmets, you'd have to assess behavior only for those who have been in
>multiple crashes in which their helmet was engaged. The differences between
>the two (helmets and ABS brakes) are far more obvious than any similarities.
>I'm honestly surprised you would bring this up.
>
>In short, the answer is most definitely yes, helmets are a special case...
>simply because they're not actually "in use" unless crashed.
>
>A far more accurate comparison might be if you look at driver behavior with
>and without airbags.
>
>The very act of requiring mandatory safety devices is likely to promote
>safer, not more dangerous behavior... simply because you're scaring people
>who might not have previously considered what they were doing to be
>dangerous.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Dear Mike,

Sorry, but airbags work just like ABS and all the other
examples of risk compensation--the increased perceived
safety encourages more aggressive behavior:

"Peterson and his colleagues George Hoffer and Edward
Millner tested the so-called offsetting behavior hypothesis
in the October 1995 issue of The Journal of Law and
Economics. The study found that airbag-equipped cars for
model years 1989-1993 had higher personal injury claims and
collision claims than non-airbag models for the same years."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v27/ai_18082822

I understand your theory (seeing safety devices should make
us more aware of danger and lead to safer behavior), but all
studies keep confirming that we're idiots (give me better
brakes/a helmet/air-bag/flashing-lights/etc, and I'll just
drive faster, brake harder, follow closer, and raise my risk
level right back to just about where it used to be.

It really is an annoying theory, isn't it? I wish that they
didn't have so many studies that confirm it, since the
implication is that I'm even dumber than I think I am.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Sorry, but airbags work just like ABS and all the other
> examples of risk compensation--the increased perceived
> safety encourages more aggressive behavior:
>
> "Peterson and his colleagues George Hoffer and Edward
> Millner tested the so-called offsetting behavior hypothesis
> in the October 1995 issue of The Journal of Law and
> Economics. The study found that airbag-equipped cars for
> model years 1989-1993 had higher personal injury claims and
> collision claims than non-airbag models for the same years."
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v27/ai_18082822
>
> I understand your theory (seeing safety devices should make
> us more aware of danger and lead to safer behavior), but all
> studies keep confirming that we're idiots (give me better
> brakes/a helmet/air-bag/flashing-lights/etc, and I'll just
> drive faster, brake harder, follow closer, and raise my risk
> level right back to just about where it used to be.
>
> It really is an annoying theory, isn't it? I wish that they
> didn't have so many studies that confirm it, since the
> implication is that I'm even dumber than I think I am.

The airbag situation is different than I would imagine it would have been,
and while I ought to simply give in, I'm still going to fight this one. Is
it possible, even likely, that "early adopters" of air bags were people who
otherwise weren't using seat belts? Or at least that subset might have been
over-represented initially? That particular group, yes, I would concede to
be likely to believe they were better protected in a manner that might allow
them to believe they could safely engage in more-reckless behavior.

Besides, you're making a case that idiocy can't be fought, which implies
that Darwin wins out, period. But eventually wouldn't that limit the number
of idiots? I have yet to see evidence of that. If anything, their numbers
are increasing, which is perhaps an indication that I'm right and you're
wrong, but that means I lose and you win because... nah, somebody else is
going to have to finish this train of thought. I lose if I win, and I lose
if I lose. I picked a bad day to not start drinking.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 06 May 2006 06:25:58 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Studies like the Munich taxi-driver study demonstrate in
>>> detail that we go faster and follow more closely if we think
>>> that we're protected by better brakes. This means that we
>>> erase the advantage of the better brakes:
>>>
>>> http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html
>>>
>>> The same seems to be true of bumpers, safety belts, better
>>> lighting, traffic lights, guard rails, and many other
>>> mechanical safety improvements.
>>>
>>> Why should bicycle helmets be a special case? The really
>>> weird thing about risk compensation is that everyone denies
>>> it, but everyone does it.
>>
>>The taxi-driver study is especially at odds with anything having to do
>>with
>>helmets, since, in the case of the taxi cabs, the changed behavior
>>happened
>>only with actual use of the enhanced (ABS) system. For this logic to
>>extend
>>to helmets, you'd have to assess behavior only for those who have been in
>>multiple crashes in which their helmet was engaged. The differences
>>between
>>the two (helmets and ABS brakes) are far more obvious than any
>>similarities.
>>I'm honestly surprised you would bring this up.
>>
>>In short, the answer is most definitely yes, helmets are a special case...
>>simply because they're not actually "in use" unless crashed.
>>
>>A far more accurate comparison might be if you look at driver behavior
>>with
>>and without airbags.
>>
>>The very act of requiring mandatory safety devices is likely to promote
>>safer, not more dangerous behavior... simply because you're scaring people
>>who might not have previously considered what they were doing to be
>>dangerous.
>>
>>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> Dear Mike,
>
> Sorry, but airbags work just like ABS and all the other
> examples of risk compensation--the increased perceived
> safety encourages more aggressive behavior:
>
> "Peterson and his colleagues George Hoffer and Edward
> Millner tested the so-called offsetting behavior hypothesis
> in the October 1995 issue of The Journal of Law and
> Economics. The study found that airbag-equipped cars for
> model years 1989-1993 had higher personal injury claims and
> collision claims than non-airbag models for the same years."
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n9_v27/ai_18082822
>
> I understand your theory (seeing safety devices should make
> us more aware of danger and lead to safer behavior), but all
> studies keep confirming that we're idiots (give me better
> brakes/a helmet/air-bag/flashing-lights/etc, and I'll just
> drive faster, brake harder, follow closer, and raise my risk
> level right back to just about where it used to be.
>
> It really is an annoying theory, isn't it? I wish that they
> didn't have so many studies that confirm it, since the
> implication is that I'm even dumber than I think I am.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
> all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with or
> without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride this
> month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having to do
> that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody wear a
> helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement rather than a
> reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm grumpy about it
> anyway.

We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and specifically tell
them that it's not a requirement of an insurance company (which in fact it
isn't), but just our desire to give them a bit more protection and
visibility for totally selfish reasons on our part... too much paperwork to
deal with if they get injured on a test ride. And we want to keep them
alive, at least until we get their money. Once they buy the bike, they can
do what they want.
It's not even questioned anymore. Up to maybe 10 years ago, we'd get one
person/year who would refuse to buy a bike from us because we required
helmets on test rides. But not even a peep since then.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Paul Cassel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>> -paul
>>
>> Dear Paul,
>>
>> If the motorcycle helmet tests that you have in mind are
>> like the bike helmet tests, you may have misunderstood
>> things a bit. (There are different testing organizations, so
>> I may be misunderstanding which ones you have in mind.)
>>
>> For the Snell bicycle helmet test, a 5kg head form in a
>> helmet is dropped onto three different anvils from three
>> different heights. An accelerometer measures the impact and
>> speeds and so forth are specified with impressive precision,
>> leading to 100, 65, and 58 joule impacts +/- 3%, no matter
>> what the total weight of the headform and helmet are.
>>
>> There are three anvils--a flat one, a round one, and finally
>> one resembling the tiny roundness of a curb. The decapitated
>> head is dropped from lower and lower heights--bonking a curb
>> is a tougher test than smacking onto flat ground, so the
>> curb test is performed from only 1.2 meters.)
>>
>> There's also a requirement for peripheral vision.
>>
>> As for noise, that can apply to full-coverage helmets, but
>> our ears make more noise than the straps on a bicycle
>> helmet.
>>
>> Browse way down here for one test description:
>>
>> http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html
>>
>> (Yes, the test is open to considerable criticism. The bottom
>> line is that the headform doesn't suffer more than 300 g's
>> in any drop to the anvils, but 300 g's is now thought to be
>> rather high and doesn't cover rotational injuries. The four
>> impacts spread over three anvils are not exactly extensive
>> testing. And so on.)
>>
> The tests appear to be different if thematically similar. Rather than
> attempt to write them here, I'll refer to an excellent article on the
> subject if you're interested in seeing the differences and also the
> various organizations which test motorcycle hats:
>
> http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/
>
> Note the emphasis on penetration prevention. Several experts have
> commented on the relative safety of bicycle helmets compared to motorcycle
> ones in many sorts of crashes due to the greater crush nature of bicycle
> hats.
>
> The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
> all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with or
> without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride this
> month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having to do
> that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody wear a
> helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement rather than a
> reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm grumpy about it
> anyway.
>
> -paul

 

[jtaylor]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
> > all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with
or
> > without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride this
> > month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having to do
> > that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody wear
a
> > helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement rather than
a
> > reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm grumpy about it
> > anyway.
>
> We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and specifically
tell
> them that it's not a requirement of an insurance company (which in fact it
> isn't), but just our desire to give them a bit more protection

It's your policy to lie to your customers?

 

[Sorni]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

>> We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and
>> specifically tell them that it's not a requirement of an insurance
>> company (which in fact it isn't), but just our desire to give them a
>> bit more protection

> It's your policy to lie to your customers?

You're an ass. Did you miss the word "desire"? Even if you're convinced
that helmets offer absolutely zero protection (an absurd position, of
course, but that's a given), then why would you accuse Mike of LYING by
saying it's his shop's DESIRE (intention) to protect his customers?!? Or
are you so sure of your ideological /belief/ that you can't accept someone
/believing/ otherwise? You MUST be a liberal. <eg>

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

jtaylor wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans wish
> > > all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you going with
> or
> > > without. For example, I am trying my first organized Century ride this
> > > month and for it, need to wear an approved helmet. I resent having to do
> > > that and, if I were to organize a ride, I'd not demand that nobody wear
> a
> > > helmet. I don't doubt that this is an insurance requirement rather than
> a
> > > reflection of the ride's organizers' politics, but I'm grumpy about it
> > > anyway.
> >
> > We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and specifically
> tell
> > them that it's not a requirement of an insurance company (which in fact it
> > isn't), but just our desire to give them a bit more protection
>
> It's your policy to lie to your customers?


Mike clearly believes, from personal experience, that helmets do give
"a bit more protection". Where is the "lie"?

 

[Sorni]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> The troubling part of the entire helmet debate is that helmet fans
>>>> wish all of us to wear them while helmet skeptics don't mind you
>>>> going with or without. For example, I am trying my first organized
>>>> Century ride this month and for it, need to wear an approved
>>>> helmet. I resent having to do that and, if I were to organize a
>>>> ride, I'd not demand that nobody wear a helmet. I don't doubt that
>>>> this is an insurance requirement rather than a reflection of the
>>>> ride's organizers' politics, but I'm grumpy about it anyway.
>>>
>>> We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and
>>> specifically tell them that it's not a requirement of an insurance
>>> company (which in fact it isn't), but just our desire to give them
>>> a bit more protection
>>
>> It's your policy to lie to your customers?
>
>
> Mike clearly believes, from personal experience, that helmets do give
> "a bit more protection". Where is the "lie"?

Ah, but see, it wouldn't be as hateful and mean-spirited if he (assumption)
had said, "It's your policy to /spread myths/ to your customers?"
Emotionally invested ideologues have to use KEY WORD TRIGGERS to convey
their contempt for all the LOW-IQ MORONS who don't agree with their radical,
extreme /beliefs/.

HTH, BS

 

[[email protected]]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >
> We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and specifically tell
> them that it's not a requirement of an insurance company (which in fact it
> isn't),...

Ah. Just like those people falsely claiming insurance requirements for
invitational rides.

> but just our desire to give them a bit more protection and
> visibility for totally selfish reasons on our part... too much paperwork to
> deal with if they get injured on a test ride. And we want to keep them
> alive, at least until we get their money.

Was there ever a big problem with people dying on test rides of bikes?

Before, say, 1975 or so, did bike shops frequently pay to haul bodies
away?

How did they stay in business?

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> jtaylor wrote:
> >
> > It's your policy to lie to your customers?
>
> Mike clearly believes, from personal experience, that helmets do give
> "a bit more protection". Where is the "lie"?

"We require our customers wear helmets for test rides, and specifically
tell them that it's not a requirement of an insurance company (which in
fact it isn't)"

- Frank Krygowski