Consumer Reports trolls the 88% helmet line...



Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> 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 don't see how someone can deny risk compensation due to helmets,
unless they're using some different definition of the term.

Have you never heard (or read) someone saying "I would not ride without
a helmet," or "I wouldn't ride in that location (or manner) without a
helmet"? We could be talking about mountain biking, or riding in city
traffic, or going down hills really fast, or riding on icy streets.
I've heard people make such claims for each of the above situations,
and more.

If a person rides that way just once, he's risk compensating. He's
performing a more risky activity, in his own mind, because he feels
protected. And he's confessing to it.

Again, it's not a problem if the increased protection at least equals
the increased risk. But when helmets tested for stationary topples are
touted as preventing almost all serious injuries, there is a problem.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] writes:

> 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)"

That's a lie? The insurance company doesn't require helmets, and
Mike tells his customers that. Unless you believe that Mike is
lying about that...?
--
"...dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral
pour encourager les autres."
--Voltaire, _Candide_
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 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, are you saying that it *is* required by Mike's insurer? It would
seem a bit odd that Mike would say it was *not* a requirement if, in
fact, it were.
 
On Sat, 6 May 2006 11:48:28 -0300, "jtaylor"
<[email protected]> 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?

Dear J,

You may have hastily mis-read the end of Mike's post.

Mike tells customers that helemts are NOT an insurance
company requirement.

(Mike adds that helmets are in fact NOT an insurance company
requirement--sometimes this is claimed in helmet threads.)

The reason that Mike insists that customers wear helmets for
a test ride is his (not any insurance company's) desire to
give them what he believes in good faith is more protection.

(Parenthetic double-negatives followed by "but" can lead to
confusion--if Mike isn't careful, he may end up as hard to
follow as I am, not that it's always impossible.)

But brevity isn't always as clear as we think.

If you're just calling anyone who thinks that helmets give a
bit more protection a liar, then you're an imbecile.

(See how easily curt ill-will can lead to unpleasantness?)

Hope it was just a minunderstanding.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
"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.

I do not ask you to take it on faith. But as you have not
researched the literature on risk compensation your
argument against it is empty. You cannot even begin to
refute the evidence. Nobody thinks they increase risk when
provided with extra measures to reduce adverse
consequences of risk-taking.

--
Michael Press
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:


[...]

> 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.

One day I was just riding along when I came over all
nervous and anxious. `This needs investigation. Why do I
feel so nervous?' I thought I could discover the reason,
and followed my feelings until `Ahah! I'm not wearing a
seat belt.' No seat belts on a bicycle.

--
Michael Press
 
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
>


I read the article, online, and like a happy lemming, got a new
helmet.

I was previously sporting a very old helmet and went for one of the CR
recommendations.

Yes, I'm a lemming. ;)

later,

tom @ www.NoCostAds.com
 
Tom The Great wrote:
> 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
> >
>
>
> I read the article, online, and like a happy lemming, got a new
> helmet.
>
> I was previously sporting a very old helmet and went for one of the CR
> recommendations.
>
> Yes, I'm a lemming. ;)

It wasn't a Trek one was it?
http://bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=6618

...d
 
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?
>
>
He doesn't lie. Read his post this time with comprehension.
 
On 6 May 2006 14:10:55 -0700, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Tom The Great wrote:
>> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>> I read the article, online, and like a happy lemming, got a new
>> helmet.
>>
>> I was previously sporting a very old helmet and went for one of the CR
>> recommendations.
>>
>> Yes, I'm a lemming. ;)
>
>It wasn't a Trek one was it?
>http://bikebiz.com/daily-news/article.php?id=6618
>
>..d


No compared Bell Citi, and Bell Slant, and thought Bell Slant offered
more vents for cooler riding. So I got me a Slant!

Well compared to my made in 97 bell, to today's helmets, both were
very very sweet.

Thanks for asking.

Now I think I should upgrade from my 16 yearl old mountain bike too,
but nah..... :D

Tom @ www.CarFleaMarket.com
 
>> 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.
>
> I do not ask you to take it on faith. But as you have not
> researched the literature on risk compensation your
> argument against it is empty. You cannot even begin to
> refute the evidence. Nobody thinks they increase risk when
> provided with extra measures to reduce adverse
> consequences of risk-taking.

I *have* begun to research the literature. It's amazing. But it completely
ignores my point, which is not that risk compensation doesn't exist, but
that there's an even-larger force at work, making people believe that
they're doing something dangerous (and adjusting behaviour accordingly)
because you're supposed to wear a helmet.

Saying that "Nobody thinks they increase risk when provided with extra
measures to reduce adverse consequences of risk-taking" is obviously true,
just as it's obviously true that answering your own statement, rather than
mine, gives you the answer you want.

Do you deny that people think cycling is more dangerous than it really is
because you're "supposed" to wear a helmet? And further deny that people
engaging in something that they feel is more dangerous than they had
previously thought aren't going to modify their actions, on the side of
safety?

How it all balances out I'm not sure, but to suggest that the only factor
involved is "risk compensation" is not supportable. People simply aren't
looking at what's going on. Bad research. Fascinating, revealing even, and
truthful as far as it goes, but it's not the total picture. Bicycle helmets
may not be unique, but they certainly are different from the other examples
given... different because it initiates or reinforces the idea that riding a
bicycle is a dangerous thing to do.

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

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "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.
>
> I do not ask you to take it on faith. But as you have not
> researched the literature on risk compensation your
> argument against it is empty. You cannot even begin to
> refute the evidence. Nobody thinks they increase risk when
> provided with extra measures to reduce adverse
> consequences of risk-taking.
>
> --
> Michael Press
 
>> 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?

Lie about what? We tell them up-front, when asked, that it's *not* an
insurance company requirement. We will sometimes even explain that it's
possible we could create additional liability by providing a helmet, which
someone might think is supposed to protect them from just about anything
that might happen, and sue us when it doesn't.

Nor do we lie and tell people they have to stay out of our repair
department, for "insurance" reasons. Nothing of the sort is true. We tell
them that it's store policy, that some of our mechanics do exceptional work
but don't enjoy having someone looking over their shoulder, which makes them
nervous and more likely to screw something up. And that's the truth, too.

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

"jtaylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>
> "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?
>
>
 
>>> > 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)"
>
> That's a lie? The insurance company doesn't require helmets, and
> Mike tells his customers that. Unless you believe that Mike is
> lying about that...?

I'm glad I'm not the only person who can't figure out what people thought I
said or didn't say! I'm going to have to find some time to talk to myself an
get a straightforward answer. :>)

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

"Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] writes:
>
>> 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)"
>
> That's a lie? The insurance company doesn't require helmets, and
> Mike tells his customers that. Unless you believe that Mike is
> lying about that...?
> --
> "...dans ce pays-ci il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral
> pour encourager les autres."
> --Voltaire, _Candide_
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 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)"

WHERE IS THE LIE???
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

CAN'T ANYBODY READ TODAY?!? (I really do thing "emotionally investested
ideologuery" {almost a word} is to blame.)
 
> 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.

What is it I have in common with people falsely claiming insurance
requirements for rides? We require helmets for test-rides, and tell people
it's shop policy and has nothing to do with insurance requirements. Even if
you're trying to convict me for my thoughts, instead of what I wrote, I
still can't figure it out, because what I think is what I wrote. I think.
But it doesn't sound like it matters what I think, but rather what others
think I should think. Or what they think I think that I don't think.

>> 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?

Ugh. Yes, it happened (locally), thankfully not to us. We have had two
customers and one employee (on a test ride) involved in serious altercations
with cars. Helmets were "used" twice. As I've said elsewhere, death or
serious injury might not have been prevented by using a helmet, but at the
very least some skin & blood and possibly a bit of ground-away skull might
have been saved. But not likely a life.

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

Not that I recall. But I was working for the Soylent (Green) company back
then, not a bicycle retailer.

> How did they stay in business?

Same way they always have. By taking care of the customer. Helmets are a
very tiny piece of that equation.

> - Frank Krygowski

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> [email protected] 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)"
>
> Frank, are you saying that it *is* required by Mike's insurer? It would
> seem a bit odd that Mike would say it was *not* a requirement if, in
> fact, it were.

My apologies! I _was_ misreading Mike's post, and doing so repeatedly!


Sorry, Mike.

- Frank Krygowski
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What is it I have in common with people falsely claiming insurance
> requirements for rides?

Nothing. Like someone else, I somehow missed the word "not" about
three separate times! My apologies.

- Frank Krygowski
 
>> What is it I have in common with people falsely claiming insurance
>> requirements for rides?
>
> Nothing. Like someone else, I somehow missed the word "not" about
> three separate times! My apologies.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

But threads with such misunderstandings make for much more interesting
reading. And truthfully, I really was getting confused myself, trying to
follow what I was saying and when, and whether I mis-stated something, or if
it was time for me to put my aluminum-foil helmet on because people were
playing with my mind.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
>>> 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.
>
> CAN'T ANYBODY READ TODAY?!? (I really do thing "emotionally investested
> ideologuery" {almost a word} is to blame.)

It's all right... it's way more fun this way!

Frank just managed to miss a single word, which changed my meaning around
completely. And sometimes we look a lot harder to find things we disagree
with than those we agree.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Consumer Reports on bicycle helmets
Replies
22
Views
761
Cycling Equipment
Tom Kunich
T
K
Kona 2004 Jake the Snake - user reports?
Replies
4
Views
717
Cycling Equipment
Kinky Cowboy
K
M
Alan Cross Frames - User reports?
Replies
0
Views
405
Cycling Equipment
me
M
J
TIRED OF ME, THEN SEND ME SOMETHING TO REMEMBER YOU BY! HELL NO, I AM THE KING OF TROLLS***JIMMYMAC
Replies
0
Views
333
Cycling Equipment
jimmymac
J
Top Bottom Back