Note: When asked if it's true that helmets deteriorate over time, you have asserted that helmets don't deteriorate, and have provided nothing more than that assertion to back up your assertion.
Not exactly. I said that they offer the same benefit after 3 years that the do from day one. Whatever deterioration they may undergo has never been shown to affect their capabilty to protect as designed and to their design limits.

Perhaps one of BF's recent purchasers of a helmet can state if there is some warning attached to the helmet telling the owner not to use it after a certain date. Or even such a warning in the packaging though I doubt that would meet any standard for adequate safety warnings to the consumer of a product meant for more than one-time use, or to consumers who more than likely throw the package out before ever using the product.

That sounds more than reasonable to me. It strikes me as funny that we're told that foam "breaks down" in three years when it's on our head, but when tossed in a landfill it will last for millions!

+1

You guys are confusing how long the material lasts in a landfill with how long the material is effective as protection from inpact.

You guys are confusing how long the material lasts in a landfill with how long the material is effective as protection from inpact.

Get a styrofoam coffe cup, crush it with your hand... you have damaged cup that might or might not hold coffee due to compaction, time to replace it. That is far cry from losing effective protection in 3 years, not to mention I've never seen a warning label on any helmets. You would think if this was proven that they would know better to a put a warning label. Time to sue all the bike stores for selling outdated, shelf expired helmets that they keep in their store for years and years.

How about we send this to myth busters and let them crush some 20year old styrofoam helmet vs the new ones and see the difference in effectiveness. My bet is zero , none to unmeasurable non difference.

Get a styrofoam coffe cup, crush it with your hand... you have damaged cup that might or might not hold coffee due to compaction, time to replace it.But it will last in the landfill for millenia.

And that is the point you were making-- that you don't see how a helmet only has a shelf life of a few years, but lasts in the landfill for millions of years. Your analogy answers your question. Usefulness for the purpose it is intended to serve is not the same thing as the amount of time it takes to break down in a landfill.

That is far cry from losing effective protection in 3 years, not to mention I've never seen a warning label on any helmets. You would think if this was proven that they would know better to a put a warning label. Time to sue all the bike stores for selling outdated, shelf expired helmets that they keep in their store for years and years.

How about we send this to myth busters and let them crush some 20year old styrofoam helmet vs the new ones and see the difference in effectiveness. My bet is zero , none to unmeasurable non difference.Perhaps. It would certainly be useful information either way.

According to....?

Your statement can be taken two ways:

1) You are claiming that helmets don't reduce risk. If this is your claim, do you have any studies to point to?

Regardless, he wants to know if his helmet is still effective, not whether he should wear one.

2) You are claiming that helmets don't have a shelf life. the manufacturers claim they do have a shelf life. Again, do you have any studies to back up you claim? Because I'm certain the manufacturers have studies.

Pretty accusatory, I'd say, Blue. It would be much more effective if you simply cited some (or just one) of these manufacturer studies of which you seem so certain. My guess is that the outer shell of my helmet has no shelf life limit whatsoever, and the Styrofoam will give me tell tail signs when its functional time is up. If the helmet has not been subjected to a crash and is physically in tact, what makes you think that it will no longer be effective in offering the protection function designed into it? If the stuff has enough structural integrity not to come falling out of the shell like so much sand when you pick up your helmet, then, it will remain between your head and an obstacle with which you might suffer an impact. That's all there is to it.

Of course manufacturers are going to assign some sort of shelf life to the product. They don't want to be held liable forever, and, furthermore, they would like to offer some reason why the well made helmet you purchased from them will not be the last.

Do we really need studies for this? Shew!!

Caruso

If the helmet manufacturers have no studies to support their claim that helmets degrade over time, then that is correct.

They don't have studies to support that claim. In fact, the BHSI tested a well used 10 year old Bell Biker helmet from the 70's and found it performed as well as a new Bell Biker.

Well, it's been years since i bought a helmet, so I don't know about warning labels. But assuming that they have a notice somewhere in the helmet package regarding the expiration date, that is the notice to the consumer. My guess (a guess because I don't work in the helmet industry) is that there's some date at which deterioration begins to occur (assuming for the sake of argument that helmets actually do deteriorate), and that the risk analysts build some safety margin into that warning, such that they advise replacement before deterioration actually begins to occur.

The best guess as to why the recomondations for frequent replacement are in place is partly because of liability (if someone damages a helmet from small, daily knocks over time and dents or cracks it reducing it's effectiveness in a crash) and partly because of marketing (the same reason style is chosen over safety in design - bigger vents, oblong shapes).

After all, once everyone who is going to buy a helmet has one, how are the manafacturers going to survive if no one needs to buy a new helmet?

I wish I could get into the helmet industry. They have managed to convince much of the world that:

a) you should buy this styrofoam cup to wear on your head
b) if you don't, you will most likely die or end up brain dead
c) my fav: this styrofoam cup expires after a few years
d) oh yeah, this styrofoam cup costs $100

Awesome racket!

I wish I could get into the helmet industry. They have managed to convince much of the world that:

a) you should buy this styrofoam cup to wear on your head
b) if you don't, you will most likely die or end up brain dead
c) my fav: this styrofoam cup expires after a few years
d) oh yeah, this styrofoam cup costs $100

Awesome racket!Surely you've got that wrong?

Isn't the advice, from trauma doctors and nurses, not just "the helmet industry," that a helmet will reduce the likelihood of traumatic head injury in the event of an impact to your head?

Surely you've got that wrong?

Isn't the advice, from trauma doctors and nurses, not just "the helmet industry," that a helmet will reduce the likelihood of traumatic head injury in the event of an impact to your head?
What do trauma doctors and nurses know about the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets? I'd guess about the same as you - nothing.

The most effective method for reducing bicycling injuries is to give up bicycling. Period. Top that. Do you intend to follow it?

What do trauma doctors and nurses know about the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets? I'd guess about the same as you - nothing.You say that is if you know anything. :rolleyes:

If you had any grasp of reading comprehension, ILTB, you'd understand my sentence. It clearly says that trauma doctors and nurses advise the use of helmets. It doesn't say that trauma doctors and nurses are experts on the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets. :rolleyes:

I suspect that while head trauma experts have reason to believe that helmet use reduces the likelihood of traumatic head injury in an impoact accident, and thus advise helmet use, they do not offer advice as to the effectiveness of particular helmets.

The most effective method for reducing bicycling injuries is to give up bicycling. Period. Top that. Do you intend to follow it?Do I intend to follow nonsensical advice from a bitter old flame troll? No.

...trauma doctors and nurses advise the use of helmets. It doesn't say that trauma doctors and nurses are experts on the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets.

True. If more understood the limits, we'd hear less on the subject. Bumps and cuts are one thing, trauma is another.

By the way, there is a sticky on the subject of effectiveness of helmets and attitudes towards those who choose not to wear helmets.

This thread is simply a different topic. Replacement neccesity.

By the way, there is a sticky on the subject of effectiveness of helmets and attitudes towards those who choose not to wear helmets.

This thread is simply a different topic. Replacement neccesity.Yep. The OP wants to know if it's true that helmets degrade over time. He's not asking if he should wear a helmet.

Perhaps one of BF's recent purchasers of a helmet can state if there is some warning attached to the helmet telling the owner not to use it after a certain date. Or even such a warning in the packaging though I doubt that would meet any standard for adequate safety warnings to the consumer of a product meant for more than one-time use, or to consumers who more than likely throw the package out before ever using the product.

Only thing I saw inside my Louis Garneau OZ-ZY helmet was a sitcker with the crash replacement hotline number, and the miscellaneous safety certs and whatnot. The comment about changing helmets every 2-3 years is in the manual.

I still stand by my "how mutilated is it?" approach to replacement. I used to say every 2 years, but then realized my "gentle" usage is another person's "heavy usage' or "abuse", so time alone is a poor gague unless there is some provable deterioration that happens regardless of where or how it's used.

You say that is if you know anything. :rolleyes:

If you had any grasp of reading comprehension, ILTB, you'd understand my sentence. It clearly says that trauma doctors and nurses advise the use of helmets. It doesn't say that trauma doctors and nurses are experts on the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets. :rolleyes:


Actually they probably do not know. The only way to really tell, is to have a crash with a helmet, note any and all injuries, now repeat the crash with the same conditions except no helmet, and note any and all injuries, and compare the injury lists.

Do I intend to follow nonsensical advice from a bitter old flame troll? No.
Nope. You will continue to use the old stand by of the experts who know (and learn) nothing - ad hominem arguments. I expect you to keep on repeating the same old cliches and group think BS, that just must be true because you believe it, and will remain true til somebody convinces YOU otherwise; and you will continue to dismiss any facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit into your preconceived notions about helmets and any other hype you've bought into.

Actually they probably do not know. The only way to really tell, is to have a crash with a helmet, note any and all injuries, now repeat the crash with the same conditions except no helmet, and note any and all injuries, and compare the injury lists.
Furthermore bicyclists are an easy and often willing target for such advice from do-good experts (who may know nothing about the subject) who freely offer advice that won't affect or inconvenience themselves.

If there was any intellectual honesty from these "helmet experts" truely alarmed about reducing head trauma from vehicle accidents, they'd be recommending substantial helmets for all occupants of all motor vehicles. But that advice would be vehemently oppossed by those affected, and the experts would be vilified for such a ridiculous proposal. The motoring lobby, and even more so the motoring public would shut down such a helpful proposal in a flash. Unfortunatlym the bicycling marketeers can't think beyond the short term and thehigh margins on styrofoam and the safety nannies inflicting discipline on whomever won't/can't oppose them -mostly children.

You will continue to use the old stand by of the experts who know (and learn) nothing - ad hominem arguments.Coming from anybody else on Bikeforums, this argument would have merit. Coming from a guy who has two major tactics in argument, one of which is the ad hominem argument, it's hilarious that you've suddenly discovered that ad hominem arguments prove nothing. :roflmao:

I guess the ad hominem argument is only valid when it comes from a flame troll, eh? :rolleyes:

I expect you to keep on repeating the same old cliches and group think BS, that just must be true because you believe it, and will remain true til somebody convinces YOU otherwise; and you will continue to dismiss any facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit into your preconceived notions about helmets and any other hype you've bought into.I've offered you the opportunity to support your claims with facts, and true to your second main tactic in argument, you've declined to provide any support for your argument.

Apparently, in order to rid ourselves of preconceived group think CW BS, facts are unnecessary, because ILTB has graciously offered his opinion, which we should all believe because it comes from the mouth of ILTB. :rolleyes:

Furthermore bicyclists are an easy and often willing target for such advice from do-good experts (who may know nothing about the subject) who freely offer advice that won't affect or inconvenience themselves.

If there was any intellectual honesty from these "helmet experts" truely alarmed about reducing head trauma from vehicle accidents, they'd be recommending substantial helmets for all occupants of all motor vehicles. But that advice would be vehemently oppossed by those affected, and the experts would be vilified for such a ridiculous proposal. The motoring lobby, and even more so the motoring public would shut down such a helpful proposal in a flash. Unfortunatlym the bicycling marketeers can't think beyond the short term and thehigh margins on styrofoam and the safety nannies inflicting discipline on whomever won't/can't oppose them -mostly children.Yes, imagine the crime that would have been committed if the damn safety-nannies had had their way with this child (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_082406_news_child_struck.2ff79f1d.html)! :rolleyes:

Only thing I saw inside my Louis Garneau OZ-ZY helmet was a sitcker with the crash replacement hotline number, and the miscellaneous safety certs and whatnot. The comment about changing helmets every 2-3 years is in the manual.

I still stand by my "how mutilated is it?" approach to replacement. I used to say every 2 years, but then realized my "gentle" usage is another person's "heavy usage' or "abuse", so time alone is a poor gague unless there is some provable deterioration that happens regardless of where or how it's used.

Dang, I would just go buy a hockey,football,baseball,snowboard helmet that has no shelf life and better protection if I needed to replace my styrofoam bike helmet every 2 years. Hmm for 100 bucks you can get decent snowboard helmet which would actually work better in winter cyclying for warmth.

Actually they probably do not know. The only way to really tell, is to have a crash with a helmet, note any and all injuries, now repeat the crash with the same conditions except no helmet, and note any and all injuries, and compare the injury lists.

they already do that :)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/index_11.jpg

they already do that :)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/index_11.jpg

Well not quite, to do it properly, you would take about 2500 different kinds of collisions, and do similar experiments to automobile crash testing, first with no helmet, then several different kinds of helmets, thing is, the helmet companies really don't want people to know.

The best way to lower the number of collisions is more bikes on the road, this is why, even without helmets, there are fewer injuries in Holland or Germany, then in the US, where there are fewer bikes, more helmet use and more injuries. Some people have taken that the 80% of injuries prevented means that if a crash would produce a broken collarbone as it's only injury, that would be prevented as well.

I suspect that riding style also has much to do with it, off road riders, and urban riders (who ride down stairs and stair railings) crash a lot more then roadies, commuters and tourers do. I've seen interviews done with some of the pro dirt riders, and some of these guys have a laundry list of injuries, that make your collar bone ache, just listening to the number of times some of them have broken it.:cry:

In much of Europe gasoline doesn't enjoy the subsidy it does in the United States, and fuel taxes are much, much higher, think US$3/Gallon is bad, in many European countries $6 is more common, it's not uncommon to see someone on a 3 speed with full fenders, rack, chain guard and lights, tootling along at a nice steady 3MPH, wearing a business suit, dress shoes and a fedora. This raises a question, but I'll ask that in another thread, as I expect it will be almost as much of a controvery as the chain lube question in the Mechanics forum.

Well not quite, to do it properly, you would take about 2500 different kinds of collisions, and do similar experiments to automobile crash testing, first with no helmet, then several different kinds of helmets, thing is, the helmet companies really don't want people to know.

Shouldn't they do something better than just dropping the thing onto the ground? Does it really matter considering how the mechanics of brain injury occurs?

Check out the differences between Montreal and Vancouver. Much difference? Not really.

Coming from anybody else on Bikeforums, this argument would have merit...blah, blah and more of same... :rolleyes:
Oh puhleeze! BS is BS. And facts are facts. Sorry if they don't jive with your fantasies, wishful thinking or impressions of reality. First its your whining about no one recognizing your urgent and unique need for bicycle only liability insurance while having no other insurance coverage. Then its an inability to comprehend the speciousness of your mouthing the manufacturer's/helmet salesmen pitch to replace serviceable helmets, supported by your belief in chimeric helmet deterioration studies just must be there somewhere. Then again maybe there is a pony in that pile of HS.

I wonder if any of this helped the OP decide if he needed to get a new helmet or not. :lol:

What's next pole vaulting helmets?

Well actually...


http://www.everythingtrackandfield.com/ImagesProducts/9172.jpg

Even though the incidence of pole vaulting related head injuries has dropped significantly due to other safety measures that have been incorporated into the sport.

Anything to make a sale.

I wonder if any of this helped the OP decide if he needed to get a new helmet or not. :lol:
It should have. He can listen to his wife or he can think for himself based on the obvious. His choice is moderated by his domestic situation. Others aren't obligated to follow the pied pipers of helmet marketing.

I wonder if any of this helped the OP decide if he needed to get a new helmet or not. :lol:

Well, because you asked: I'm leaning towards keeping the old one. If I see a good deal on a new model I might go for it, but I'm an inherently cheap and lazy person, and I like consipiracy theories about companies trying to screw us out of money. BUT, my old helmet is a Giro Hammerhead SC. If I find out it was a crappy brand to begin with I might switch sooner.

Thanks to everyone who pitched in their advice.

Well, because you asked: I'm leaning towards keeping the old one. If I see a good deal on a new model I might go for it, but I'm an inherently cheap and lazy person, and I like consipiracy theories about companies trying to screw us out of money. BUT, my old helmet is a Giro Hammerhead SC. If I find out it was a crappy brand to begin with I might switch sooner.

Pay no attention to the brand name, they all are manufactured to just meet the same minimum design specification. At least that's true since the CPSC standard was established a few years ago. If your's is older there is a possibility it might even be better at protection than the current high fashion models that just meet the minimum standards.

Pay no attention to the brand name, they all are manufactured to just meet the same minimum design specification. At least that's true since the CPSC standard was established a few years ago. If your's is older there is a possibility it might even be better at protection than the current high fashion models that just meet the minimum standards.

Well it's 1994, says it meets ANSI Z90.4 Standard and certified by Snell Memorial Foundation, for whatever that's worth.

they already do that :)

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/jpg/index_11.jpgThat chart is comparing countries in which bicyclists have no respect from motorists yet must share the road with automobiles (aka bicycle heaven for HH), and countries in which bicyclists have respect from motorists and yet are often separated from motor vehicle traffic (aka bicycle hell for HH). The bicycling conditions are not the same, and therefore the comparison is meaningless.

Oh, waah waah waah!. Somebody figured out that I can dish it out when I make the ad hominem arguments, but I can't take it.A long time ago.

Well, because you asked: I'm leaning towards keeping the old one.

Good call. I like my dorky looking old helmet!

First its your whining about no one recognizing your urgent and unique need for bicycle only liability insurance while having no other insurance coverage.And there we have it, definitive proof that there is no depth to which ILTB will not stoop. When you stoop to a blatant, and easily provable lie, ILTB, it pretty much tells the world you have no argument.

But then everybody already knows that. Time to move on to another town where they're not onto your BS?

But I do need insurance. Medical coverage mostly, because I'm not covered, and I don't trust that the motorist who might hit me will be covered, although for peace of mind, I'd also like liability insurance because of my future earning potential. To quote one BF regular, it's only in the fevered nightmares of the wacky tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist that one could possibly see a desire for medical and liability coverage as evidence of a scam to obtain liability coverage in lieu of obtaining medical coverage. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=219696&page=2)

Blue Order, you ignored my post requesting just one example of the studies upon which you rely to so aggressively shoot down another poster for not doing the same. He expressed an opinion and, frankly, owes you or no one else scientific qualification.

I am intrigued reading this thread to watch you first attack I-Like-To-Bike for his simple, one-line reply. You enumerate two ways in which his statement might be interpreted (neither of which was probably the original intent), and from there, you proceed to chew-up ILTB for not citing studies to buttress YOUR interpretation of his statement – all without citing a single source of serious research to support your threadbare support of manufacturers’ arbitrary assignment of expiration dates to their products.

That you could continue to attack ILTB and so self-righteously persist in defending your point of view from such a weak and unsupported position simply amazes me.

If that were not enough, you go on to insinuate that ILTB hijacked the thread.

I find you, quite simply, unbelievable.

Caruso

Blue Order, you ignored my post requesting just one example of the studies upon which you rely to so aggressively shoot down another poster for not doing the same.I may have missed it. Nevertheless, I think I've been pretty clear in stating that it was my belief that the manufacturers must have conducted some studies in support of their claims.

EDIT: Ah, here it is:

Pretty accusatory, I'd say, Blue. It would be much more effective if you simply cited some (or just one) of these manufacturer studies of which you seem so certain. My guess is that the outer shell of my helmet has no shelf life limit whatsoever, and the Styrofoam will give me tell tail signs when its functional time is up. If the helmet has not been subjected to a crash and is physically in tact, what makes you think that it will no longer be effective in offering the protection function designed into it? If the stuff has enough structural integrity not to come falling out of the shell like so much sand when you pick up your helmet, then, it will remain between your head and an obstacle with which you might suffer an impact. That's all there is to it.

Of course manufacturers are going to assign some sort of shelf life to the product. They don't want to be held liable forever, and, furthermore, they would like to offer some reason why the well made helmet you purchased from them will not be the last.

Do we really need studies for this? Shew!!

CarusoWhile you said it would be more effective if I cited a study or studies, i didn't understand your post to be requesting a citation; I merely took it as commentary upon my position. For the record, as I've stated numerous times, it was my stated belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their position. I even said "I'm certain the manufacturers have studies." Perhaps that certainty is unfounded, but I've never stated that there are studies of which I am aware. Perhaps there are no industry studies. Conversely, the BHSI claims that helmets don't degrade over time, and yet as far as i can tell, they offer no studies to support that claim. Perhaps both sides of the debate have nothing to stand on?

He expressed an opinion and, frankly, owes you or no one else scientific qualification.True, I suppose it was opinion. But he's also advocating a position in argument-- that's more than the mere expression of an opinion. His position is that helmets probably do not degrade over time, despite industry claims to the contrary. One would expect in argument that one would offer more than mere opinion to support a position expressed as a probability or a certainty. One might, for example, point to some evidence, some studies, some facts. However threadbare my own argument might be, I did state that that is the industry claim, and suggested that there must be industry studies to support their position. That's not the same thing as solid evidence, and I acknowledge that. Perhaps there are no studies to prove or disprove the question. So all I have offered is my belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their claims. He has yet to offer anything in support of his position. We must believe him, or we must be gullible.

I am intrigued reading this thread to watch you first attack I-Like-To-Bike for his simple, one-line reply.Oh, please. The guy is a flame troll. He relies on insult and innuendo as his stock in trade in nearly every post on every forum. He never contributes one positive idea to any discussion on this board-- and you're concerned that he's been attacked? I merely pointed out, if you'll recall, that he had never provided anything more than his opinion to support his position-- something he is all too happy to point out regularly in his own posts on any subject you care to name. He got a taste of the medicine he dishes out here regularly-- and I wasn't even close to as nasty as he gets.

You enumerate two ways in which his statement might be interpreted (neither of which was probably the original intent),His original statement was inscrutable, and he's never clarified what he meant, even given the opportunity to do so, but it's clear from the course of the "argument" that I hit the nail on the head-- he is arguing that he doesn't believe that helmets degrade over time, which is one of the interpretations I offered. So if it's clear from his own statements that he is making that argument, why do you say it "was probably [not] the original intent" How else would you interpret his argument?

and from there, you proceed to chew-up ILTB for not citing studies to buttress YOUR interpretation of his statement – all without citing a single source of serious research to support your threadbare support of manufacturers’ arbitrary assignment of expiration dates to their products.I stated quite clearly that I believed that manufacturers must have studies to support their claims. Perhaps I am wrong in that belief; perhaps manufacturers haven't a shred of evidence to support their claim that helmets degrade over time, or perhaps they're not even so bold as to make that claim-- perhaps they merely state that helmets should be replaced, and leave it up to the gullible public to fill in the blanks and argue that helmets must degrade.

Whatever. He disputes that notion. I pointed to the manufacturers claims; he pointed to nothing. I think it's fair in argument to expect the supporters of a position to offer something more than their own unfounded assertions in support of their position. I offered mine, however threadbare it may be. Closetbiker offered his. ILTB offered jack, as usual.

That you could continue to attack ILTB and so self-righteously persist in defending your point of view from such a weak and unsupported position simply amazes me.I pointed out the obvious-- that ILTB has yet to offer anything other than his own assertion in support of his assertion. He has responded with increasingly vitriolic commentary, which is his usual stock in trade. Here's his first, obviously vitriolic response:

You've got it backwards, Jack. The manufacturer's provide no proof to support their sales pitch that their product starts degrading from day of sale and is dangerously deficient at the three year point and should be replaced. It is not up to skeptics to provide negative proof. Take a class in logical thinking, you need it.And the second:

Then perhaps you failed reading comprehension....

Note: I don't expect gullible or logic impaired denizens of this forum to prove anything other than they can parrot the C.W. provided by the hypesters. And don't wish to have their belief in the C.W. questioned.And the third:

What do trauma doctors and nurses know about the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets? I'd guess about the same as you - nothing.At which point I responded:

You say that is if you know anything. :rolleyes:

If you had any grasp of reading comprehension, ILTB, you'd understand my sentence. It clearly says that trauma doctors and nurses advise the use of helmets. It doesn't say that trauma doctors and nurses are experts on the effectiveness of current design bicycle helmets. :rolleyes:

I suspect that while head trauma experts have reason to believe that helmet use reduces the likelihood of traumatic head injury in an impoact accident, and thus advise helmet use, they do not offer advice as to the effectiveness of particular helmets.

The most effective method for reducing bicycling injuries is to give up bicycling. Period. Top that. Do you intend to follow it?Do I intend to follow nonsensical advice from a bitter old flame troll? No.


That you can be so one-sided as to have never noticed his vitriol simply amazes me.

So now we're both amazed.

If that were not enough, you go on to insinuate that ILTB hijacked the thread.I think if you read back, you'll see that Closetbiker raised the point that the discussion had veered from the subject of the thread, and I agreed.

I find you, quite simply, unbelievable.

CarusoIf you weren't so one-sided in your accounting of events, I might find you believable.

GivIf you weren't so one-sided in your accounting of events, I might find you believable.
Give it up, Jack. You believe what you want to believe, and everyone else who finds your commentary rather peculiar is one-sided, mean and unbelievable. So continue your whaa-whaa posts and continue to be challenged when posting baloney.

Blue Order – you state:

But he's also advocating a position in argument-- that's more than the mere expression of an opinion


He posted a one line statement – there was no argument until you started one and nothing more than “the mere expression of an opinion” contained in ILTB’s initial response to the OP’s question.


For the record, as I've stated numerous times, it was my stated belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their position. I even said "I'm certain the manufacturers have studies." Perhaps that certainty is unfounded, but I've never stated that there are studies of which I am aware. Perhaps there are no industry studies. Conversely, the BHSI claims that helmets don't degrade over time, and yet as far as i can tell, they offer no studies to support that claim. Perhaps both sides of the debate have nothing to stand on?

If there is “nothing to stand on” as in documented studies supporting one position or the other, then why attack ILTB to start a debate? Have you no other means by which to amuse yourself? The OP asked a simple question – ILTB offered a simple answer that the OP’s helmet was “probably just as effective in reducing risk as it was on day one.” You jumped upon him as though he had introduced hearsay in a murder trial.

His position is that helmets probably do not degrade over time, despite industry claims to the contrary. One would expect in argument that one would offer more than mere opinion to support a position expressed as a probability or a certainty.

You purposely rephrased ILTB’s statement so that you could start an argument. I reiterate that there was no argument until you started it. Since ILTB wasn’t arguing, there was no obligation on his part to offer anything to support his position.

However threadbare my own argument might be, I did state that that is the industry claim, and suggested that there must be industry studies to support their position. That's not the same thing as solid evidence, and I acknowledge that. Perhaps there are no studies to prove or disprove the question. So all I have offered is my belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their claims. He has yet to offer anything in support of his position. We must believe him, or we must be gullible.

The above is nothing more than flowery mumbo jumbo offered in a vain attempt at self-justification. It boils down to your own admission that what you offered is nothing more than your own belief, yet, in the same paragraph, you again criticize ILTB for offering nothing in support of his position. “We must believe him, or we must be gullible.” In the context of this thread, how does that statement apply more to ILTB than it does to you?

Oh, please. The guy is a flame troll. He relies on insult and innuendo as his stock in trade in nearly every post on every forum. He never contributes one positive idea to any discussion on this board-- and you're concerned that he's been attacked?

The guy isn’t trolling in this thread, and his contribution here is positive – has a far more respectful tone than your initial post “Buy a new helmet, unless your brain isn't worth the expense.” If your response to his post on this thread is based upon your characteristics of his posts in other threads, then, you are, by definition, the one who is trolling here.

His original statement was inscrutable, and he's never clarified what he meant, even given the opportunity to do so, but it's clear from the course of the "argument" that I hit the nail on the head-- he is arguing that he doesn't believe that helmets degrade over time, which is one of the interpretations I offered. So if it's clear from his own statements that he is making that argument, why do you say it "was probably [not] the original intent" How else would you interpret his argument?

His statement is quite clear if taken at face value – you are the one who embellished it to create confusion. You created the nail and the head that you now so proudly proclaim to have hit.

I think if you read back, you'll see that Closetbiker raised the point that the discussion had veered from the subject of the thread, and I agreed.

Perhaps you should read back! Closetbiker quoted a portion of one of your posts as the point of divergence. Did you miss that? Your subsequent post rattles on about how anti-helmet types would soon hijack the thread. ILTB’s initial response was on topic, short, and to the point. You hijacked the thread.

Caruso

That chart is comparing countries in which bicyclists have no respect from motorists yet must share the road with automobiles (aka bicycle heaven for HH), and countries in which bicyclists have respect from motorists and yet are often separated from motor vehicle traffic (aka bicycle hell for HH). The bicycling conditions are not the same, and therefore the comparison is meaningless.

After the very next post, I posted,
Check out the differences between Montreal and Vancouver. Much difference?

You could also check the differences between Winnipeg and Halifax or other areas where there is a similar situation between cyclists and motorists and different usages in areas with high levels of helmet wearing (due to MHL's) and other that have lower levels and see the differences. That would aid in understanding.

There's not much difference.

Kwartz--one rule of thumb........If you think it should be replaced, replace it. Otherwise don't.

As long as it is well cared for, a helmet should last a lot longer than three years. By the looks of it, by the time this argument is settled EVERYONES helmet will be expired! :eek:
Now go ride. (with or without a helmet of course) :)

As long as it is well cared for, a helmet should last a lot longer than three years. By the looks of it, by the time this arguement is settled EVERYONES helmet will be expired! :eek:
Now go ride. (with or without a helmet of course) :)
Yes let's ride. For the record, the argument is settled, except for one hardhead who won't let the obvious crack his shell.

Give it up, Jack. You believe what you want to believe, and everyone else who finds your commentary rather peculiar is one-sided, mean and unbelievable. So continue your whaa-whaa posts and continue to be challenged when posting baloney.I have presented my own scanty evidence. Closetbiker has presented his own evidence in opposition. You, as usual, have presented jack, Jack.

The only waaah waah posts around here are yours. Waaah waaaah waaaah, all the arrogant, whining, sniveling jackasses don't realize that you are right and they are wrong. Waaahh waaahhh waaaah, an arrogant, whining, sniveling jackass has dared to ask for proof. Waaah waaaah wahhhh, time to insult the smug, know-it-all jackasses.

I just like hosing down arrogant, pompous, whining and/or sniveling BF "advocacy" posters Says it all, really. I guess “I-Like–To Bike” is easier to fit into the profile?

Everybody, with the exception of Caruso (maybe you can stick around town a little longer, there's one more unwary stranger to connive, at least until your internet tourettes takes over and you flame him too) is onto you. Everybody knows that you challenge everybody else to provide facts to back up their claims, but provide no facts of your own to back up your claims. Everybody knows that you rely on insult and innuendo in place of legitimate argument.

So continue your whaa-whaa posts and continue to be challenged when posting baloney. Jack.

Blue Order – you state:


But he's also advocating a position in argument-- that's more than the mere expression of an opinion

He posted a one line statement – there was no argument until you started one and nothing more than “the mere expression of an opinion” contained in ILTB’s initial response to the OP’s question.Caruso, you are using a definition of argument that I am not using. Argument is not the same thing as quarrel, although you could quite accurately say that ILTB and I are quarreling. I am using “argument” in the sense of a question presented, and opposing positions being defended.

This is a forum. The OP asked if it’s true that bike helmets degrade over time. In response, ILTB said: “It’s probably just as effective in reducing risk as it was on day one.” That’s more than just an opinion on the effectiveness of the OP’s helmet (consider, for example, the fact that ILTB did not inspect the OP’s helmet, or ask the OP what condition the helmet foam is in). ILTB’s statement is a position in an argument (as distinguished from a quarrel), whether you recognize it or not. The argument is whether helmets degrade over time. If somebody takes the position that helmets do not degrade over time—and ILTB did take that position, expressed as a probability—they should, per the rules of argument, offer some support for that position. Likewise, if somebody takes the position that helmets do degrade over time, they should also offer some support for that position.

I offered the manufacturer’s advice as support for my position that the manufacturers recommend replacement. Closetbiker offered the advice of the BHSI as support for his position that helmets do not degrade. ILTB refused, and continues to refuse, to offer any support for his position.



For the record, as I've stated numerous times, it was my stated belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their position. I even said "I'm certain the manufacturers have studies." Perhaps that certainty is unfounded, but I've never stated that there are studies of which I am aware. Perhaps there are no industry studies. Conversely, the BHSI claims that helmets don't degrade over time, and yet as far as i can tell, they offer no studies to support that claim. Perhaps both sides of the debate have nothing to stand on?

If there is “nothing to stand on” as in documented studies supporting one position or the other, then why attack ILTB to start a debate? Have you no other means by which to amuse yourself?First, I didn’t attack ILTB to start a debate. I asked ILTB to clarify what he was saying—something he has also refused to do—and I asked him to provide some proof in support of his position, which he well knows runs counter to the recommendations of the manufacturers.

Second, I assumed that manufacturers have conducted studies. I have acknowledged that it’s an assumption. I have read the countering opinions at BHSI, and they appear to be unsupported by studies. I have therefore openly speculated, in the course of argument, that perhaps there are no studies, Why do you feel the need to characterize that speculation—made during the course of argument—as being a certainty I was aware of when the discussion began?

The OP asked a simple question – ILTB offered a simple answer that the OP’s helmet was “probably just as effective in reducing risk as it was on day one.” You jumped upon him as though he had introduced hearsay in a murder trial.Poor little ILTB! Somebody asked him for evidence!

The OP asked a simple question. ILTB responded with a disingenuous answer. ILTB knows far more about the efficacy of helmet design than he let on—something that becomes apparent as you read through his posts on this thread. An answer that was respectful of the OP’s inquiry might have been something like: “The manufacturer’s recommend replacement after 3 years, but they’ve never offered any proof in the way of studies to support that recommendation; because there’s no proof, in my opinion it’s probably as effective at reducing risk as it was on day one.” That kind of answer would have been respectful of the OP’s question by presenting the OP with the facts. An inscrutable statement that left the OP with no information whatsoever was not respectful. He was challenged to provide some evidence in support of his position, and rightly so.

His position is that helmets probably do not degrade over time, despite industry claims to the contrary. One would expect in argument that one would offer more than mere opinion to support a position expressed as a probability or a certainty.
You purposely rephrased ILTB’s statement so that you could start an argument.Where did I do that? If you’re going to level accusations, at least provide me with a reference to which of my several posts you’re referring to. And now that you’re taking a position, where is your evidence of my “purposefulness” and my “intent”?

I reiterate that there was no argument until you started it. Since ILTB wasn’t arguing,There is an ongoing argument on the question of helmet degradation.

there was no obligation on his part to offer anything to support his position.When one takes a position in an argument, one is obligated to provide support for that position. Incidentally, perhaps you haven’t noticed, but ILTB takes every opportunity he can to challenge others when he perceives that they are expressing an opinion that is not supported by evidence. And now that he is similarly challenged, he refuses to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of his position.


However threadbare my own argument might be, I did state that that is the industry claim, and suggested that there must be industry studies to support their position. That's not the same thing as solid evidence, and I acknowledge that. Perhaps there are no studies to prove or disprove the question. So all I have offered is my belief that the industry must have conducted studies to support their claims. He has yet to offer anything in support of his position. We must believe him, or we must be gullible.The above is nothing more than flowery mumbo jumbo offered in a vain attempt at self-justification.Self-justification?

It boils down to your own admission that what you offered is nothing more than your own belief,Er, surely my own belief based on at least a shred of evidence—the claims of the manufacturers—rather than my own belief based on nothing. I think I’ve said all along that “the manufacturers recommend”; that stands in stark contrast to an unsupported and disingenuous “opinion” offered to an unsuspecting OP.

yet, in the same paragraph, you again criticize ILTB for offering nothing in support of his positionHe has offered nothing in support of his position. It’s patently obvious. However weak the manufacturer’s claims may be, I have at least offered those as evidence—in response to the OP’s question—that helmets should be replaced.

. “We must believe him, or we must be gullible.”That’s a paraphrase of one of his arguments. Is it really necessary for me to dig his argument up? Yes? OK, here it is:
Note: I don't expect gullible or logic impaired denizens of this forum to prove anything other than they can parrot the C.W. provided by the hypesters. And don't wish to have their belief in the C.W. questioned.And here:

I expect you to keep on repeating the same old cliches and group think BS, that just must be true because you believe it, and will remain true til somebody convinces YOU otherwise; and you will continue to dismiss any facts (or lack of facts) that do not fit into your preconceived notions about helmets and any other hype you've bought into.

In the context of this thread, how does that statement apply more to ILTB than it does to you?I haven’t said anybody must believe me or must be gullible. I have said that “manufacturers recommend blah blah blah,” and I have asked those who dispute those recommendations to provide some support for their position. Have you noticed that Closetbiker takes the opposing position, and yet has provided support for his position, sans insults?

So let me ask you a similar question—in the context of this thread, where have I taken the position that “you must believe me, or you must be gullible”


Oh, please. The guy is a flame troll. He relies on insult and innuendo as his stock in trade in nearly every post on every forum. He never contributes one positive idea to any discussion on this board-- and you're concerned that he's been attacked?

The guy isn’t trolling in this thread,What does that have to do with anything? He’s still a flame troll. And let’s put this comment into perspective: You accused me of “attacking” ILTB for his one line response to the OP’s question. I would hardly characterize asking ILTB for some evidence in support of his position as an attack. I do stand by my assertion that his preferred tactics on BF are the ad hominem attack; thus, my statement that he’s a flame troll stands, and I’m surprised that you would see a request for evidence in the same light as his frequently nasty ad hominem attacks.

and his contribution here is positive – Well, obviously I disagree. As I stated above, he could have honestly answered with something like: “The manufacturer’s recommend replacement after 3 years, but they’ve never offered any proof in the way of studies to support that recommendation; because there’s no proof, in my opinion it’s probably as effective at reducing risk as it was on day one.” Or he could have honestly answered as Closetbiker did. Instead, he chose to mislead the OP, and I don’t characterize that as a “positive contribution.”

has a far more respectful tone than your initial post “Buy a new helmet, unless your brain isn't worth the expense.”Do you really believe that that was intended to insult the OP? My perspective is this: If there’s some doubt about the helmet, and if you have the means, the expense of the helmet is far less than the value of your brain. I’m amazed that people with the means to buy a helmet would use the expense of the helmet as a factor in deciding whether to replace it. Certainly the value of one’s brain is worth more than $100?

One could reasonably make the argument that there’s no evidence that helmets degrade, or that helmets save lives, or whatever. But if one assumes that helmets do save lives, or that helmets do degrade, then the replacement cost shouldn’t factor into the decision, should it?

If your response to his post on this thread is based upon your characteristics of his posts in other threads, then, you are, by definition, the one who is trolling here.Once again, I am asking for some evidence in support of a position which he well knows contradicts the recommendations of the manufacturers. That is not trolling.

I do however, characterize him as a flame troll, basxed on his posts in other threads. And based on his posts in this thread, he is a flamer.


His original statement was inscrutable, and he's never clarified what he meant, even given the opportunity to do so, but it's clear from the course of the "argument" that I hit the nail on the head-- he is arguing that he doesn't believe that helmets degrade over time, which is one of the interpretations I offered. So if it's clear from his own statements that he is making that argument, why do you say it "was probably [not] the original intent" How else would you interpret his argument?His statement is quite clear if taken at face value – you are the one who embellished it to create confusion. You created the nail and the head that you now so proudly proclaim to have hit.Where was it embellished? And what evidence do you have of my intent? I suspect, like ILTB, you have none.


I think if you read back, you'll see that Closetbiker raised the point that the discussion had veered from the subject of the thread, and I agreed.Perhaps you should read back! Closetbiker quoted a portion of one of your posts as the point of divergence. Did you miss that? Not so. Somebody made a sarcastic post about the helmet industry recommending the wearing of helmets. I pointed out, in response, that it’s not just the helmet industry—it’s also trauma doctors and nurses. Closetbiker quoted my post, responded to it, then made the observation that there is a sticky on the subject of whether helmets should be worn, and that this thread is a different topic. I agreed. So why do you characterize my post as “the point of divergence”? If you’re truly concerned about “the point of divergence”—and I don’t really see why this is an issue with you—then why not trace it back to where the subject of whether we should wear helmets was first raised?

Your subsequent post rattles on about how anti-helmet types would soon hijack the thread.Er, no. I made that prediction well before the subject of whether we should wear helmets was raised, in response to this post:

Here we go...

I did posit that ILTB’s inscrutable response was either an assertion that helmet use is not necessary, or that helmets do not degrade over time. To the extent that I was seeking clarification of ILTB’s response, I did raise the subject of helmet use. That’s not the same thing as me hijacking the thread to discuss helmet use.

ILTB’s initial response was on topic, short, and to the point. I wouldn’t characterize an inscrutable, disingenuous response as “to the point.”

You hijacked the thread.

CarusoBy asking for some support for that position? :roflmao:

After the very next post, I posted,


You could also check the differences between Winnipeg and Halifax or other areas where there is a similar situation between cyclists and motorists and different usages in areas with high levels of helmet wearing (due to MHL's) and other that have lower levels and see the differences. That would aid in understanding.

There's not much difference.Sorry, I missed your next post; I'll read it later.

Caruso, you are using a definition of argument that I am not using.

No, I am using the exact same definition as you.

The OP asked if it’s true that bike helmets degrade over time.

Actually, he asked if it were true that helmets expire and whether or not he should be concerned if his helmet had never been in a crash and was otherwise in reasonably good shape.

That’s more than just an opinion on the effectiveness of the OP’s helmet

No, it is not.

ILTB’s statement is a position in an argument

It is not. His statement is a simple expression of his opinion. He does not comport himself as an expert, nor does he challenge anyone to engage him in debate. All of that is a figment (or rather a fabrication) of your imagination.

If somebody takes the position that helmets do not degrade over time—and ILTB did take that position, expressed as a probability—they should, per the rules of argument, offer some support for that position.

The rules of argument? What rules? Name your source for such rules and any directives from the operators of this forum that state that participation is subject to such rules – oh, and, since there was no argument until you started it, ILTB would still not be subject to them. This is total nonsense on your part.

ILTB refused, and continues to refuse, to offer any support for his position.

That’s because ILTB only offered his opinion – he didn’t present it as a “position.” Jeese, this is a forum, and, as such, posters are allowed to state opinions and are under no obligation or set of rules to back them up with studies. His opinion is still valid as his opinion whether he backs it up or not.

First, I didn’t attack ILTB to start a debate. I asked ILTB to clarify what he was saying—something he has also refused to do—and I asked him to provide some proof in support of his position, which he well knows runs counter to the recommendations of the manufacturers.

Here was you said:

According to....?

Your statement can be taken two ways:

1) You are claiming that helmets don't reduce risk. If this is your claim, do you have any studies to point to?

Regardless, he wants to know if his helmet is still effective, not whether he should wear one.

2) You are claiming that helmets don't have a shelf life. the manufacturers claim they do have a shelf life. Again, do you have any studies to back up you claim? Because I'm certain the manufacturers have studies.

Point one puts words in ILTB’s mouth. He’s not claiming anything at all. Point two, you use the word “again.” Again? Have you two argued this point somewhere else? Are you following him around the forums to harass him? “Again” certainly doesn’t apply in the context of this thread. You started the argument at that point with that post. If you can’t admit it, then, there is really no point in conversing further with you.

Caruso

No, I am using the exact same definition as you.Then you understand that in argument, as opposed to quarrels, there are positions to be taken and defended. Whether you like it or not, ILTB has taken a position in the "should helmets be replaced" debate. Just because he pretends that he's only offerin' some friendly advice doesn't mean he's only offerin' some friendly advice.

Actually, he asked if it were true that helmets expire and whether or not he should be concerned if his helmet had never been in a crash and was otherwise in reasonably good shape.Yes, you're right, that's what he asked. And the reason helmets are claimed to expire? Because it's claimed they degrade. So why quibble over the precise wording if the meaning is the same?

No, it is not.Oh, I get it, the Monty Python school of argument. OK, I'll play. Yes, it is. Your turn.

It is not.It is. Your turn.

His statement is a simple expression of his opinion. He does not comport himself as an expert, nor does he challenge anyone to engage him in debate. All of that is a figment (or rather a fabrication) of your imagination.He doesn't have to challenge anybody to debate him in order to take a position in a debate.

The rules of argument? What rules? Name your source for such rules and any directives from the operators of this forum that state that participation is subject to such rules – oh, and, since there was no argument until you started it, ILTB would still not be subject to them. This is total nonsense on your part.This is getting silly. Why don't you learn something about debate before we continue down this path.

That’s because ILTB only offered his opinion – he didn’t present it as a “position.” Jeese, this is a forum, and, as such, posters are allowed to state opinions and are under no obligation or set of rules to back them up with studies. His opinion is still valid as his opinion whether he backs it up or not. As an opinion, yes, he has his right to an opinion. Did he inspect the helmet? No. Did he ask about the helmet? No. Did he offer an opinion that also, magically, just so happens to be a position in a debate between proponents of the argument that helmets should be replaced periodically, and proponents of the argument that there is no need to replace helmets periodically? Yes.



Here was you said:



Point one puts words in ILTB’s mouth.Nonsense. I did not under any circumstances put words in ILTB's mouth. I made the observation that his inscrutable statement could be taken one of two ways. That is not the same thing as putting words in his mouth. Had I put words in his mouth, I would have said "You said..." I didn't do that. I explicitly did not say that he made point number one. i did say that his inscrutable statement could be interpreted to mean what point number one says. That is a valid observation; it is not putting words into his mouth.

Now, as long as the accusation is being made, ILTB has put words in my mouth, in this thread. He knowingly mischaracterized my desire to obtain medical and liability coverage as a desire to obtain liability only coverage. I posted the link previously in this thread, at post #84. So if you're TRULY outraged by somebody "putting words in somebody's mouth," why no post from you taking ILTB to task for putting words in my mouth? Your outrage is so one-sided that I'm almost beginning to wonder if ILTB opened a second account so he would have somebody to defend him. :lol:

This will be the cue for ILTB to advise me to add some more tin foil to my collander helmet. :lol:

He’s not claiming anything at all. Point two, you use the word “again.” Again?Again, as in whether it's the first intepretation, or the second interpretation, I ask again whether he has evidence.

Have you two argued this point somewhere else?No.

Are you following him around the forums to harass him?No. And considering that it's ILTB who consistently harasses posters on BF (for the latest example, read his posts in response to Falkon (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=223155)), it's laughable that you would ask that.

“Again” certainly doesn’t apply in the context of this thread.It does if I asked it after my first proffered interpretation, and "again" after my second proffered interpretation.

You started the argument at that point with that post.The argument existed before I was ever aware of the argument. The argument isn't, as you characterize it, between me and ILTB, although his insulting comments certainly turn it into a quarrel. the argument is between proponents of the position that helmets should be periodically replaced, and proponents of the position that helmets should not be periodically replaced. That argument existed long before I ever stumbled across it. And no matter how much you naysay it, ILTB's "opinion" was a position in that argument.

Regardless, this "no it isn't, yes it is" style of "debate" is ridiculous. ILTB offers nothing as evidence to support his advice to the OP, just as you offer nothing but automatic gainsaying in your posts to me. No it isn't, yes it is.

Have you ever stopped, just for a moment, to wonder why it is that Closetbiker and I aren't going through the same nonsensical quarrel? After all, Closetbiker posted advice that was contrary to what I posted. First, Closetbiker doesn't resort to insults and lies in lieu of arguing his points. He is capable of arguing his "opinion" in a respectful manner, and that doesn't derail the argument into a quarrel. Second, Closetbiker provides evidence to support his "opinion." That's all I asked of ILTB, and instead, pages later, we're still going through the same old argument about whether one should provide support for a position in a debate.

Whatever. I've done my research since, and I will post support for my position, and against my position. All the OP ever wanted was advice on whether or not he should periodically replace his helmet. I will post the pros and cons of the argument, and he can decide for himself, sans the agenda-driven attempts at misdirection masquerading as "opinion."

EDIT: I was unaware, before this thread began, that there was a debate as to whether helmets should be replaced or not. I was aware that helmet manufacturers recommend replacing helmets, and speculated that they must have some evidence to support those recommendations. ILTB offered advice contrary to the manufacturers recommendations-- recommendations his subsequent posts indicate he was well aware of-- and I asked him, as one does when a position contrary to the "conventional wisdom" (to use one of ILTB's terms) is adopted, to provide some evidence in support of his contrary advice. The facts remain that no evidence in support of his "opinion" was provided, and the ONLY reason this ridiculous "debate" has continued thus far is because you and ILTB seem offended that somebody had the temerity to ask for-- gasp!-- evidence. OK, I also observed that the "opinion" was inscrutable, and that has offended as well, apparently.

If you can’t admit it, then, there is really no point in conversing further with you.

CarusoWhatever you like.

Just buy a new helmet or keep using your old one.

Sort through everyone's "evidence" and "research," then conduct some of your own!

Opinions have been shared, insights have been sought, just let it drop!

Stop this drivel, already!

Sorry to disappoint, SingingSabre (very cool name, by the way), but I promised I’d post the pros and cons, so I can’t just back out of that promise now.

For the OP, here are the unvarnished pros and cons. Make up your own mind as you best see fit.

The proponents of periodic helmet replacement are (aside from the helmet manufacturers themselves) the Snell Memorial Foundation (http://www.smf.org/). According to the Snell Memorial Foundation,

Snell Standards are the most demanding. They are set to levels of protective performance that only the best, most protective headgear will meet. But Snell Certification is more than high standards, it is testing. Helmets must first pass Snell Certification testing by Snell technicians in Snell labs to qualify for our programs. Then samples of these helmets regularly acquired directly from retailers and distributors must continue to pass in order to remain in the Snell programs. Snell Certification is your best assurance that your helmet will perform its most important function: save your life when all your judgment, skill and luck have failed to keep you from harm.

According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, “Snell knows a lot about helmets and their views on this subject [helmet replacement] should not be dismissed lightly, even though we disagree with them.”

The Snell Memorial Foundation recommends helmet replacement every five years, based on the following:

Why replace helmet every five years? (http://www.smf.org/)
The five year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both the helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production over can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance. Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy.

It would seem that, if one accepts the premise that the above factors degrade helmet materials over time, that helmets which are rarely used would degrade less than helmets which are frequently used. Neither Snell nor the manufacturers appear to be claiming that helmets degrade either due to time or to exposure to UV.

Bell Helmets appears to be the major proponent of the three year replacement schedule, according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute.

Both Snell and the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute state that improvements in bicycle helmets may be significant enough over a five year period to warrant replacement.



Now for the opposing point of view:

The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (http://www.bhsi.org/) (BHSI) is the helmet advocacy program of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association. It grew out of WABA's Helmet Committee, which began testing helmets in 1974, and was set up as a separate program, still under WABA, in 1989.

BHSI is a small, active non-profit that serves as a consumer advocacy program and a technical resource for bicycle helmet information. Its volunteers serve on the ASTM bicycle helmet standard committee and are active in commenting on standards of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. BHSI provides an email newsletter, and sends out many copies of its Toolkit for Helmet Promotion Programs to anyone who is organizing a helmet effort, and to anyone needing materials for teaching. We are staffed by a few volunteers and funded entirely by consumer donations. We do not accept funding from the helmet industry.

On the Internet, BHSI's domain name is helmets.org. We also continue to use our older domain name, bhsi.org. Our Web page makes BHSI materials available to anyone at any time, and we reached almost 600,000 visitors in 2005. That's nothing for a big site, but huge for us!

BHSI's Web master, Randy Swart, is a full-time volunteer and is the author of most of the pages on our site that are not identified as having been written by someone else. We sometimes ask others to review a new page, mostly members of the ASTM F8.53 Helmet and Headgear standards subcommittee. A number of other members of the Washington Area Bicyclist Association have also reviewed pages for both editorial changes and content. We take comments from anybody and respond with changes where warranted. We never request review of any page by manufacturers, but do respond to comments from them, particularly if they relate to our page on Helmets for the Current Season and are factual rather than judgmental in nature. Where possible we refer readers to primary sources or identify through links other sources with different points of view.

Here is a chronological view of our history:
Before 1974,there were no bicycle helmet standards in use and there was lots of junk product on the market. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association, recognizing the need for helmet information, began investigating helmets, with these events over 25 years time:
• 1974 - WABA Helmet Committee forms, collects helmets for riding tests.
• 1976 - Helmet Committee runs out of steam.
• 1978 - Steam regained, Committee resumes testing. Safety Committee also promotes helmet use.
• 1979 - Committee produces Bicycling magazine article on helmet wearability. Bicycling check covers all testing costs.
• 1981 - Snell Foundation agrees to provide lab testing for another article.
• 1983 - Second Bicycling article published with Snell's crash lab data, the first time impact protection ratings were ever made available to the public. WABA joins ANSI helmet standards committee.
• 1984 - ANSI standard adopted after battle, sweeps junk off market. WABA article had helped to build pressure.
• 1989 - BHSI established as a WABA entity, hoping to set up a lab to post results on new helmets immediately. Funded by consumer donations, not a drain on WABA!
• 1990 - BHSI joins ASTM committee taking up where ANSI left off. Consumer Reports publishes their first helmet article, covering few helmets.
• 1991 - BHSI concludes that funding will not be available for test lab.
• 1995 - BHSI puts up Web page (this one), and a page for WABA too at www.waba.org. BHSI's Randy Swart was appointed 2nd Vice Chairman of the ASTM F8.53 headgear committee.
• 1997 - BHSI Web page receives 50,000 visitors. Swart becomes 1st VP of F8.53.
• 1998 - Web page visitor rate over 60,000 for the year.
• 1999 - Web page visitor rate over 90,000 for the year.
• 2000 - Web page visitor rate over 120,000. New DSL connection speeds Web page. Annual budget still at about $12,000.
• 2001 - BHSI moves Web server to Pair Networks to provide better service and reduce costs.
• 2002 - Web server visitors top 200,000.
• 2003 - Web server visitors top 320,000.
• 2004 - Web server visitors top 439,000, headed for a half million.
• 2005 - Web server visitors reach almost 600,000. (See our hits page for details.


Our parent organization: WABA
The Washington Area Bicyclist Association has a Web site that explains its activities as a local bicycle advocacy organization. You can also check out WABA's financials on Guidestar or take a look at this IRS reporting form in .pdf format. BHSI appears as a line item in the IRS form.

The BHSI does not recommend helmet replacement periodically; rather, they recommend helmet replacement under specified circumstances. Here’s what they have to say:

[When Should I Replace My Helmet?



Summary:

• Did you crash it? Replace!

• Did you drop it hard enough to crack the foam? Replace.

• Is it from the 1970's? Replace.

• Is the outside just foam or cloth instead of plastic? Replace.

• Does it lack a CPSC, ASTM or Snell sticker? Replace.

• Can you not adjust it to fit correctly? Replace!!

• Do you hate it? Replace.

Did you crash in it?
For starters, most people are aware that you must replace a helmet after any crash where your head hit. The foam part of a helmet is made for one-time use, and after crushing once it is no longer as protective as it was, even if it still looks intact. Bear in mind that if the helmet did its job most people would tell you that they did not even hit their head, or did not hit their head that hard. And the thin shells on most helmets now tend to hide any dents in the foam. But if you can see marks on the shell or measure any foam crush at all, replace the helmet. (Helmets made of EPP foam do recover, but there are few EPP helmets on the market. Yours is EPS or EPU unless otherwise labeled.)

You can also crack the helmet foam or damage it by dropping the helmet on a hard surface. The cracks may be small and hard to see, so you need to look carefully. Cracks in the foam always require replacement of the helmet.

You may be reluctant to replace a helmet that looks almost as good as new, but if you did hit, you don't want to take chances on where you will hit next time. If the foam is cracked under the thin shell, it will be more likely to fly apart in your next crash. Many manufacturers will replace crashed helmets for a nominal fee, and most will also inspect crashed helmets to see if they need replacement. Call them if you are in doubt. For contact info check our list of manufacturers. (You can also ask them if they think the advice on this page is valid!}

Is it from the 70's?
If you still have a helmet from the 70's without a styrofoam liner, replace it immediately. That would include the Skidlid (with spongy foam), 1970's Pro-tec (spongy foam), Brancale (no foam) and all leather "hairnets." They just did not have the protection of helmets made after 1984 when the ANSI standard swept the junk off the market.

The better 1970's helmets were reasonably good ones, but were not quite up to current standards. It is probably time to replace that old Bell Biker, Bailen, MSR, Supergo or similar model from the 70's or early 80's. (We have a page up on replacing the Bell Biker.) The hard shells were great, but the foam liners were not thick enough to meet today's ASTM or Snell standard. The Bell V-1 Pro was designed to today's standards, but the foam is very stiff, and if you are over 65 you probably should replace that too. If you have one of the 1980's all-foam helmets with perhaps a cloth cover, we would recommend replacing that one. Lab tests showed some years ago that bare foam doesn't skid well on pavement, and could jerk your neck in a crash. The cloth doesn't help much. In addition, some of them had no internal reinforcing, and they tend to break up in a crash. That's not serious if you just fall, but if you are hit by a car the helmet can fly apart in the initial contact and leave you bare-headed for the crack on the pavement.

Is it newer? With what standards sticker inside?
Newer helmets from the late 1980's and the 90's may or may not need replacement. First look to see what standards sticker is inside. If it's ASTM or Snell, the helmet was designed to meet today's standards for impact protection, and you may even find that Consumer Reports tested it in one of their articles. Most manufacturers now recommend that helmets be replaced after five years, but some of that may be just marketing. (Bell now recommends every three years, which seems to us too short. They base it partially on updating your helmet technology, but they have not been improving their helmets that much over three year periods, and we consider some of their helmets since the late 1990's to be a step backwards, so we would take that with a grain of salt.) Deterioration depends on usage, care, and abuse. But if you ride thousands of miles every year, five years may be a realistic estimate of helmet life. And helmets have actually been improving enough over time to make it a reasonable bet that you can find a better one than you did five years ago. It may fit better, look better, and in some cases may even be more protective. For an alternate view that agrees with the manufacturers, check out the helmet FAQ of the Snell Foundation. Snell knows a lot about helmets and their views on this subject should not be dismissed lightly, even though we disagree with them.

Occasionally somebody spreads rumors that sweat and ultraviolet (UV) exposure will cause your helmet to degrade. Sweat will not do that. The standards do not permit manufacturers to make a helmet that degrades from sweat, and the EPS, EPP or EPU foam is remarkably unaffected by salt water. Your helmet will get a terminal case of grunge before it dies of sweat. UV can affect the strength of the shell material, though. Since helmets spend a lot of time in the sun, manufacturers usually put UV inhibitors in the plastic for their shells that control UV degradation. If your helmet is fading, maybe the UV inhibitors are failing, so you probably should replace it. Chances are it has seen an awful lot of sun to have that happen. Otherwise, try another brand next time and let us know what brand faded on you.

At least one shop told a customer that the EPS in his three year old helmet was now "dried out." That is highly unlikely, unless the EPS is placed in an oven for some period of time and baked. The interior of your car, for example, will not do that, based on helmets we have seen and at least one lab crash test of a helmet always kept in a car in Virginia over many summers. EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors. Unless you mistreat it we would not expect it to "dry out" enough to alter its performance for many years.

In sum, we don't find the case for replacing a helmet that meets the ASTM or Snell standards that compelling if the helmet is still in good shape and fits you well.

Are you using it for non-bicycle activities?
Since 2003 helmets have been available that are actually certified to skateboard or ski standards as well as the CPSC bicycle helmet standard. If you are using a bicycle helmet for skateboarding or any other sport where you crash regularly, see our writeup on helmets for the current season for more info on that. Otherwise, we would recommend buying another helmet designed for the activity you are pursuing, whether or not you replace your bike helmet. We have more on that subject on our page on other helmets. Note that most "skate-style" helmets currently on the market are actually bicycle helmets certified only to the CPSC bicycle helmet standard. They have CPSC stickers inside, but no ASTM Skateboard standard sticker.

Do you still like wearing it?
Your helmet is of course a piece of wearing apparel as well as a safety appliance. If you consider yourself a stylish rider and your helmet is not as spiffy as the new ones, go for it. There is nothing wrong with wanting to look good, and if you do, fashion is a valid reason to replace a helmet.

Is it a better helmet than the ones available today?
As new styles have become more "squared-off" and designers have begun adding unnecessary ridges and projections that may increase the sliding resistance of a helmet shell, there is good reason to stay with one of the more rounded designs of the early to mid 90's. Those round, smooth shells like the original Bell Image that Consumer Reports rated highly in 1993 are more optimal for crashing than some of the newer designs. So think twice about "moving up," and look for a rounded, smooth-shelled design when you do. We have a lot of info on the new ones up on our page on helmets for the current season.

I have a bit of a problem with the Snell recommendations.

Starting at the bottom, I can agree that someone using petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance, but I never use anything on my helmet and I don't understand someone who uses anything other than water on the helmet (although I think I remember someone recomending using alcohol to clean a helmet - bad idea -).

Next, I can also agree "wear and tear" can mean damage to a helmet (although I don't think it is too hard to take care when taking your helmet off and placing it in storage rather than dropping it onto the ground)

I've got a real problem with the claim, "Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, contribute to helmet degradation." EPS does not degrade from sweat and I don't know what kind of cosmetics one would place where the helmet goes. I'm also not so sure there is natural by product of dead tissue (hair) that breaks down EPS.

Maybe some people use way too much hair spray or Dippity-Do and the petroleum ingrdients from that might break down EPS, but that has too be a small group of individuals to be a good warning for the general public.

This whole grouping is just not very clear because it is far too unusual and far too general, and if there are real threats, how is it that these are recomondations and not a requirement to replace a helmet?

Maybe it's for those few that put a bunch of petroluem based gunk on their heads before going out for a ride, but that doesn't affect me (or, I'd imagine the general public).

The last bit, "experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards." is just unbelievable.

There is no change in design standards and current designs have been criticized by helmet promotors as being less safe than earlier designs.

Materials are virtually identical and I'd make a guess as to production methods as being a little more efficient each year, so how does that make a better product when the product is made to the same protective standard?

There is way to much questionable stuff in that statement to not be taken with a grain of salt.

Advances in standardsand design? Cosmetics and body fluids? Are these truely concerns?

The BHSI stance seems far more reasonable.