Helmet Safety Certifications?

[Aztec]

Is the Giro Atmos CPSC (whatever that is) certified? I see in the Performance Bike catalog that all of their other helmets carry this label, but they don't say anything for the Atmos. I don't trust any of their people on the phone (but I'll trust people on the 'net?!?!?! )

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by Aztec
Is the Giro Atmos CPSC (whatever that is) certified? I see in the Performance Bike catalog that all of their other helmets carry this label, but they don't say anything for the Atmos. I don't trust any of their people on the phone (but I'll trust people on the 'net?!?!?! )

of course its legal

 

[dhk]

Fushman gave you the short answer. CPSC is the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, the agency of your government who wrote the spec and test requirements for all bike helmets manufacturered after March 1999.

You do need to trust Giro, or whoever is making your helmet. Like many other certification standards, the manufacturers test and self-certify their own products.

 

[Aztec]

Well, Giro is owned by Bell (just learned that), and Bell certainly has a good and long reputation for safety.

Note that 'legal' and 'sufficiently safe' are two different things, Fushman!

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by Aztec
Well, Giro is owned by Bell (just learned that), and Bell certainly has a good and long reputation for safety.

Note that 'legal' and 'sufficiently safe' are two different things, Fushman!

no they arent, all helmets if they pass are just as safe, a super expensive lite and vented helmet is just as safe as a bulky cheap one assuming both are approved

 

[Aztec]

How do you know that? You are assuming that safety is binary.

Anyway, that's not my point. I just wanted to see if the Atmos meets the same standards that other helmets do.

Thanks.

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by fushman
no they arent, all helmets if they pass are just as safe, a super expensive lite and vented helmet is just as safe as a bulky cheap one assuming both are approved

Not true at all! It's possible for a helmet to "just barely" pass certification and it's also possible for a helmet to exceed the certification standards by a mile. Also, a lot of the really nice light-weight (pricey) helmets recommend replacement after any significant impact. That's not true for some of the cheaper, heavier brain buckets.

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by Aztec
How do you know that? You are assuming that safety is binary.

Anyway, that's not my point. I just wanted to see if the Atmos meets the same standards that other helmets do.

Thanks.

the answer is youre an idiot

read what you just said, you wanna know if the atmos meets the same standards, thats a yes or no question

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by meehs
Not true at all! It's possible for a helmet to "just barely" pass certification and it's also possible for a helmet to exceed the certification standards by a mile. Also, a lot of the really nice light-weight (pricey) helmets recommend replacement after any significant impact. That's not true for some of the cheaper, heavier brain buckets.

how do you know cheaper helmets arent the ones jst passing? youre an idiot too. and why replace the expensive helmet and not the cheap one after a crash, may as well replace the cheap one too of course youve got no brains

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by fushman
how do you know cheaper helmets arent the ones jst passing? youre an idiot too. and why replace the expensive helmet and not the cheap one after a crash, may as well replace the cheap one too of course youve got no brains

I think that it's very clear who's falling a little short on their ability to back-up their argument here, since you're the one resorting to name calling (as usual).

I happen to have read an article in a recent bicycling magazine that discussed this very topic. The article looked at the test results of helmets ranging from Walmart specials to the most expensive name-brand models. The article explained that in most cases the more expensive helmets often pass the certification tests by a very thin margin (that's why they're so light) while many of the cheaper models exceeded the criteria by a mile. The article also stated that a lot of the expensive, light-weight helmets recommend replacing the helmet after any significant impact (many of the big manufacturers even have a crash replacement policy) and most of the cheaper models don't make any such recommendation because the helmets can withstand impacts without sacrificing safety.

Maybe you should be prepared to back-up your statements with some real information Fushman, rather than just spewing sludge out of your mud-hole as though it were fact. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about in this case.

 

[Aztec]

Originally posted by fushman
how do you know cheaper helmets arent the ones jst passing? youre an idiot too. and why replace the expensive helmet and not the cheap one after a crash, may as well replace the cheap one too of course youve got no brains

Well well, we have an a-hole amongst us!

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by meehs
I think that it's very clear who's falling a little short on their ability to back-up their argument here, since you're the one resorting to name calling (as usual).

I happen to have read an article in a recent bicycling magazine that discussed this very topic. The article looked at the test results of helmets ranging from Walmart specials to the most expensive name-brand models. The article explained that in most cases the more expensive helmets often pass the certification tests by a very thin margin (that's why they're so light) while many of the cheaper models exceeded the criteria by a mile. The article also stated that a lot of the expensive, light-weight helmets recommend replacing the helmet after any significant impact (many of the big manufacturers even have a crash replacement policy) and most of the cheaper models don't make any such recommendation because the helmets can withstand impacts without sacrificing safety.

Maybe you should be prepared to back-up your statements with some real information Fushman, rather than just spewing sludge out of your mud-hole as though it were fact. It's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about in this case.

go buy yourself a bucket for your big head then if they are safer and shut up, i answered the original yes or no question

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by fushman
go buy yourself a bucket for your big head then if they are safer and shut up, i answered the original yes or no question

Yeah, you did. Then in your next post you said that any helmet that passes is "just as safe", which you completely pulled out of your ass. Then, you went on to call me (and another poster) an "idiot" and say "youve got no brains". So I guess I just felt obligated to point out the actual facts instead of just making something up. As for the "bucket for my big head", I'll pass as I already have a nice helmet. Thanks anyway for your typically valuable advice.

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by meehs
Yeah, you did. Then in your next post you said that any helmet that passes is "just as safe", which you completely pulled out of your ass. Then, you went on to call me (and another poster) an "idiot" and say "youve got no brains". So I guess I just felt obligated to point out the actual facts instead of just making something up. As for the "bucket for my big head", I'll pass as I already have a nice helmet. Thanks anyway for your typically valuable advice.

no! the poster claimed that legal and suffiently safe arent the same, and of cousre they are, thats the whole point!

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by fushman
no! the poster claimed that legal and suffiently safe arent the same, and of cousre they are, thats the whole point!

Okay but that has nothing to do with my previous post. You said that any helemt that's certified is "just as safe", which simply isn't true. Anyway, I'm through arguing with you. It's completely pointless.

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by meehs
Okay but that has nothing to do with my previous post. You said that any helemt that's certified is "just as safe", which simply isn't true. Anyway, I'm through arguing with you. It's completely pointless.

ya i said just as safe should have made my issue with the suffiently safe more clear by using the same words and not ones with different meanings. youre the one that wants to argue obviously you should have got my point a long time ago. ps youre still a bad cyclist obviously, dont crash with your fancy helmet it might not work

 

[TrekDedicated]

Originally posted by Aztec
Well, Giro is owned by Bell (just learned that), and Bell certainly has a good and long reputation for safety.

I did not know that either and I strongly dislike bell. Oh well, guess I have to show some respect now.


Another thing. I can see that 'cheaper' helmets are a more impact resistant. The helmet is usually a huge, clunky, block of styrofoam (sp?) or whatever substance, the more expensive helmets are lighter/ more aerodynamic b/c in theory, the rider is better and has some skills.

Accidents happen to everyone, only a brain dead moron would think otherwise. Nevertheless, the 'cheaper' helmets usualy keep younger children heads' safer, avoid law suits, etc.

*lost train of thought* (I'm doing that a lot lately, ****)

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by TrekDedicated
Another thing. I can see that 'cheaper' helmets are a more impact resistant. The helmet is usually a huge, clunky, block of styrofoam (sp?) or whatever substance, the more expensive helmets are lighter/ more aerodynamic b/c in theory, the rider is better and has some skills.

Exactly. Besides, have you ever seen anyone riding a high end road bike and wearing a "Walmart" helmet? You have to admit it would look a little funny... Too bad we have to pay more for less though, huh?

 

[meehs]

Originally posted by fushman
ya i said just as safe should have made my issue with the suffiently safe more clear by using the same words and not ones with different meanings. youre the one that wants to argue obviously you should have got my point a long time ago. ps youre still a bad cyclist obviously, dont crash with your fancy helmet it might not work

I'm the one that wants to argue??? Excuse me? YOU were the one doing the name calling (as always)! I've seen you resort to this tactic with other posters on more than one occasion. It's usually when you're clearly wrong and you can't come-up with any real facts to back-up the BS that you're spewing out. So you just call the other poster an "idiot" or some other equally creative name. It's childish and pathetic.

Interesting how you've been able to determine my riding ability by reading a few posts I've made on the forum. That should prove to be a valuable skill when we hold the first anual "cyclingforums.com" race.

 

[fushman]

Originally posted by meehs
I'm the one that wants to argue??? Excuse me? YOU were the one doing the name calling (as always)! I've seen you resort to this tactic with other posters on more than one occasion. It's usually when you're clearly wrong and you can't come-up with any real facts to back-up the BS that you're spewing out. So you just call the other poster an "idiot" or some other equally creative name. It's childish and pathetic.

Interesting how you've been able to determine my riding ability by reading a few posts I've made on the forum. That should prove to be a valuable skill when we hold the first anual "cyclingforums.com" race.

calling you an idiot is not argumenative its being honest

you keep making this an argument, i answered the question that the helmet is certified and that someone was wrong about the question not being a yes no question