Bike Helmets - How old is too old?

[kwartz]

My wife says bike helmets are like childrens carseats, they expire after a few years. Is this correct? My helmet is about 12 years old, never been crashed in, and apart from looking very dorky seems to be fine. The extra padding the LBS guy glued in there when I first bought it is starting to disintegrate and leave little pieces of black felt in my hair, but otherwise, should I be concerned?

Thanks.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

My wife says bike helmets are like childrens carseats, they expire after a few years. Is this correct? My helmet is about 12 years old, never been crashed in, and apart from looking very dorky seems to be fine. The extra padding the LBS guy glued in there when I first bought it is starting to disintegrate and leave little pieces of black felt in my hair, but otherwise, should I be concerned?

Thanks.
It is probably just as effective in reducing risk as it was on day one.

[N_C]

First, helmet topics of any kind are very very touchy here & looked down upon by many. It is almost as if it is an unwritten rule that we should not post & discuss helmet topics. So be prepared for some gruff comments.

In answer to your question I have heard every five years or so. The sun can cause the material to break down on the outside as can sweat from the inside. Does your helmet have the cloth or mesh type cover? If it does I would replace it ASAP. If you do crash & hit your head the cloth or mesh can catch & stick & your head will stay put while your body continues to move, possibly causing a neck injury.

[bbonnn]

Children's car seats expire?

What a scam.

[tomcryar]

Yes, when a child reaches 75 lbs. it's time to replace!

[Blue Order]

My wife says bike helmets are like childrens carseats, they expire after a few years. Is this correct? My helmet is about 12 years old, never been crashed in, and apart from looking very dorky seems to be fine. The extra padding the LBS guy glued in there when I first bought it is starting to disintegrate and leave little pieces of black felt in my hair, but otherwise, should I be concerned?

Thanks.The manufacturers recommend replacement either: 1) after an impact, or 2) after the shelf-life has expired. I think that shelf life is somewhere between 3 and 5 years. You should check when you buy a new one. Regardless of whether it's 3 or 5 years, at 12 years your helmet has long outlived the manufacturer's recommendations (the foam breaks down over time, reducing its ability to absorb impact).

Buy a new helmet, unless your brain isn't worth the expense.

[Blue Order]

It is probably just as effective in reducing risk as it was on day one.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.

[DieselDan]

Industry standred is 3 years.

[tbdean]

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?


Here we go...

[closetbiker]

Here we go...

It doesn't have to go.

A simple question, a simple answer.

Replace it if it's damaged, don't if it's not.

EPS does not break down and the head of the BHSI wears a helmet older than the OPs'.

[Blue Order]

Here we go...:roflmao:

Yep.

Kind of like Helmet Head turning any thread into an anti-bike lane thread (if he can find an anti-bike lane angle for this thread, we'll soon see that post) though; the guy only asked if it's true that helmets have an expiration date; he didn't ask if somebody somewhere is against helmets. And yet like the anti-bike lane hijacks, we'll soon see an anti-helmet hijack...

[N_C]

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.

Trust me blue order you don't want to go there with this. Learn from what has happened to me here. I'm advising you keep these opinons & comments to yourself.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Because I'm certain the manufacturers have studies.
Sure they do. Do you shampoo, rinse; then repeat? Also based on manufacturers' recommendations

[Blue Order]

I find that when I shampoo, rinse, and repeat, my hair is cleaner than when I just shampoo once, particularly behind the ears.

But that's just a recommendation for cleaning hair, and if one neglects the second shampoo, the consequences are different than if one neglects the manufacturer's recommendations to keep your fingers out of the wall socket or to replace your helmet before it decays.

Now, back to those studies you've never done to support your advice countering the manufacturer's recommendations...

[rando]

planned obsolesence! I love it! I never knew helmets "expired.":lol: what a racket.

[webist]

I usually get the urge for something new before the actual need arises. The helmet replacement urge seems to hit me at around the three year mark and always, always coincides with a remarkably good sale price.

[chipcom]

First, helmet topics of any kind are very very touchy here & looked down upon by many. It is almost as if it is an unwritten rule that we should not post & discuss helmet topics. So be prepared for some gruff comments.

Helmet are not a taboo subject, it's the self-appointed safety-nannies with nazi-like agendas that some take issue with.

[chipcom]

planned obsolesence! I love it! I never knew helmets "expired.":lol: what a racket.

Well, how would the helmet industry survive selling helmets to only new riders and those who need to replace damaged helmets? Come on man, we're capitalists and the almighty buck rules!

I say, if the helmet has not been damaged, there is no urgent need to replace it, though you might want to look at potentially getting a new one that might give you better ventilation or is safer than your run-of-the-mill racer wannabe helmets with all the 'kool' protuding edges.

Personally, I don't wear one unless some event requires it or if riding conditions (ie winter commuting) carry increased risk of falling. When I wear one, it is a simple 3 yr old Bell Citi - no frills, inexpensive and rated as one of the safest by Consumer Reports.

[chipcom]

Now, back to those studies you've never done to support your advice countering the manufacturer's recommendations...


Yeah, the folks that have a vested interest in selling new helmets are a reliable source for recommended life information. Kinda like me assuring some hot young gal that my willie has a fun life of all night long and into the next week. =:rolleyes:

[EnigManiac]

First, helmet topics of any kind are very very touchy here & looked down upon by many. It is almost as if it is an unwritten rule that we should not post & discuss helmet topics. So be prepared for some gruff comments.


Not true. Only endless and repeated threads by the same self-aggrandizing, elitists with superiority complexes and selfish agendas are commented upon.

[Blue Order]

Yeah, the folks that have a vested interest in selling new helmets are a reliable source for recommended life information. Kinda like me assuring some hot young gal that my willie has a fun life of all night long and into the next week. =:rolleyes:That's my story, and i'm sticking with it. ;)

Helmets are made of foam. According to the helmet manufacturers, the foam breaks down over time. It also breaks down after exposure to the sun, again according to the manufacturers. It also breaks down immediately, rather than gradually, after an impact, again according to the manufacturers.

The fact that helmet manufacturers may have a desire to sell more helmets does not convince me that they're lying to me about the foam breaking down. If they are lying, there should be more proof that they're lying than the claim that they would obviously like to sell more helmets. Maybe some proof in the form of studies which show that the foam in helmets doesn't degrade over time, or after exposure to UV, or after an impact...

[chipcom]

That's my story, and i'm sticking with it. ;)

Helmets are made of foam. According to the helmet manufacturers, the foam breaks down over time. It also breaks down after exposure to the sun, again according to the manufacturers. It also breaks down immediately, rather than gradually, after an impact, again according to the manufacturers.

The fact that helmet manufacturers may have a desire to sell more helmets does not convince me that they're lying to me about the foam breaking down. If they are lying, there should be more proof that they're lying than the claim that they would obviously like to sell more helmets. Maybe some proof in the form of studies which show that the foam in helmets doesn't degrade over time, or after exposure to UV, or after an impact...

They ain't lying, but, as companies tend to do, they are doing the minimum to cover their butts from a liability standpoint while attempting to maximize sales. Think about the max PSI recommendations on tires, and you'll see what I am saying. If the mfgr says 5 years, I'd say that your fine for at least another 2 1/2.

[closetbiker]

That's my story, and i'm sticking with it. ;)

Helmets are made of foam. According to the helmet manufacturers, the foam breaks down over time. It also breaks down after exposure to the sun, again according to the manufacturers. It also breaks down immediately, rather than gradually, after an impact, again according to the manufacturers.

The fact that helmet manufacturers may have a desire to sell more helmets does not convince me that they're lying to me about the foam breaking down. If they are lying, there should be more proof that they're lying than the claim that they would obviously like to sell more helmets. Maybe some proof in the form of studies which show that the foam in helmets doesn't degrade over time, or after exposure to UV, or after an impact...

How about understanding about the expanded polystyrene molocule (EPS is a simple and stable molecule, it doesn't readily combine with other products to form new compounds. It doesn't degrade in normal circumstances )

from
(http://www.bhsi.org/replace.htm)

Occasionally somebody spreads rumors that sweat and ultraviolet (UV) exposure will cause your helmet to degrade...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.

The BHSI site says, Quote:Newer helmets from the late 1980's and the 90's may or may not need replacement...EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors...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.

Call me a cynic (I'd call me realistic) but I'd say if an industry can convince its best customers to buy some more of what it likes, that spells easy money. Are their best customers any better protected? The BHSI says no. An old folk saying is, a fool and his money are soon parted and PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

[tomcryar]

Yeah, the folks that have a vested interest in selling new helmets are a reliable source for recommended life information. Kinda like me assuring some hot young gal that my willie has a fun life of all night long and into the next week. =:rolleyes:


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
God help NE Ohio! But seriously, heat does have a degrading effect on the foam, so I would be like webist and catch a sale or closeout............

[Wogsterca]

My wife says bike helmets are like childrens carseats, they expire after a few years. Is this correct? My helmet is about 12 years old, never been crashed in, and apart from looking very dorky seems to be fine. The extra padding the LBS guy glued in there when I first bought it is starting to disintegrate and leave little pieces of black felt in my hair, but otherwise, should I be concerned?

Thanks.

Whether it's expired or not, is debatable, naturally the helmet manufacturers would like them to be replaced regularily, it said 2 years in the booklet the last time I bought one. However you might want to check out some of the newer ones, they are lighter, cooler, nicer looking, and need to meet standards that were not as well defined 12 years ago.

[ken cummings]

My dad was Chief of Quality Control for a major international chemical company and he taught me what various kinds of plastics look like when they start to break down. If any part of your helmet starts to show faint cracking or crazing, obvious discoloration - usually browning, or gumminess it is getting to be time to replace it. I've gone as much as 8 years on one of the old Bell type helmets. Cosmetically it should have been replaced years earlier.

[tomcryar]

Their standards. The helmet people pay a lot of money to try and convince the so-called lawmakers that it's better to ride with one. All the actual numbers I've read said, (not said, actually) that it's the proliferation of inexperienced riders that contribute to the death rate, and helmets have very little to do with it. That's not to say that somebody just riding and smacks his/her head won't be f-upped. But it is a choice issue. And it should remain that way. After helmets, what's next? seatbelts for bicycles?????

[donnamb]

My dad was Chief of Quality Control for a major international chemical company and he taught me what various kinds of plastics look like when they start to break down. If any part of your helmet starts to show faint cracking or crazing, obvious discoloration - usually browning, or gumminess it is getting to be time to replace it.

Thank you. That's super-helpful information. Does anyone else know good places to learn about expanded polystyrene?

[tomcryar]

www.dupont.com

[Blue Order]

How about understanding about the expanded polystyrene molocule (EPS is a simple and stable molecule, it doesn't readily combine with other products to form new compounds. It doesn't degrade in normal circumstances )

from
(http://www.bhsi.org/replace.htm)

Occasionally somebody spreads rumors that sweat and ultraviolet (UV) exposure will cause your helmet to degrade...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.

The BHSI site says, Quote:Newer helmets from the late 1980's and the 90's may or may not need replacement...EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors...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.

Call me a cynic (I'd call me realistic) but I'd say if an industry can convince its best customers to buy some more of what it likes, that spells easy money. Are their best customers any better protected? The BHSI says no. An old folk saying is, a fool and his money are soon parted and PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.Thank you Closetbiker.

Some real info. No real test data on their site, but I'd be more inclined to believe an outfit like BHSI than some guy in a tin foil hat who *thinks* the helmet manufacturers are conspiring to...nah, that's too wacky. :D

[closetbiker]

Thank you Closetbiker.

Some real info. No real test data on their site, but I'd be more inclined to believe an outfit like BHSI than some guy in a tin foil hat who *thinks* the helmet manufacturers are conspiring to...nah, that's too wacky. :D

Like I've posted before, I emailed Randy Swart (BHSI) and he said,


The helmet I wore today was made in 1992. I believe its smooth round profile, impact performance and coverage are better than anything on the market at the moment. I am not concerned about the EPS deteriorating. There are millions of riders out there using older helmets and we have not seen any evidence of a problem with the older ones. And I don't think anything on the market outperforms the older helmets in impact protection or coverage, since the designers are just designing to the standard. It isn't comparable to the car industry, for example, where older cars don't have air bags, and the newer ones have side air bags and stability control, so people have to buy new to get the latest advances. We don't care if others want to recommend replacement more often--most riders won't do it anyway.

[tomcryar]

P.T. Barnum also said, " come and see the one and only egress...!" which of course people were led to the back door...

[SingingSabre]

I found the BHSI page interesting, but with few real validations.

I say that if you have any question as to the safety and/or itegrity of your helmet, then replace it. What's the worst that can happen: you get something new and unquestionably protective*?

*"Unquestionably protective" is simply a reference to a newer helmet being more protective than an old helmet. It is not referring to The Great Debate between helmet users and helmet non-users.

[chipcom]

Thank you Closetbiker.

Some real info. No real test data on their site, but I'd be more inclined to believe an outfit like BHSI than some guy in a tin foil hat who *thinks* the helmet manufacturers are conspiring to...nah, that's too wacky. :D

How many times do I have to tell you that the hat has nothing to do with cycling...it's to protect me from the Martian Mind Meld Rays from Venus (where the Martians moved after they destroyed their own planet...I'm talking to my self here, ain't I....

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Helmets are made of foam. According to the helmet manufacturers, the foam breaks down over time. It also breaks down after exposure to the sun, again according to the manufacturers. It also breaks down immediately, rather than gradually, after an impact, again according to the manufacturers.

The fact that helmet manufacturers may have a desire to sell more helmets does not convince me that they're lying to me about the foam breaking down. If they are lying, there should be more proof that they're lying than the claim that they would obviously like to sell more helmets. Maybe some proof in the form of studies which show that the foam in helmets doesn't degrade over time, or after exposure to UV, or after an impact...
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.

Note: If really true that bicycle helmets degrade over time or from normal use, but the degradation in ability to protect is invisible/undetectable to the user, then that Safety product needs to be removed from the market and replaced with a useful one. At the very least, the failure date warning as well as date of manufacture should be embossed in the product for all to see. These products may overage and become unsafe while sitting on the shelf waiting to be sold.

[closetbiker]

... If really true that bicycle helmets degrade over time or from normal use, but the degradation in ability to protect is invisible/undetectable to the user, then that Safety product needs to be removed from the market and replaced with a useful one. At the very least, the failure date warning as well as date of manufacture should be embossed in the product for all to see. These products may overage and become unsafe while sitting on the shelf waiting to be sold.

...and that brings up all those areas that have helmet laws.

If a helmet degrades over time, the law would have to sipulate replacement for the law to be useful. I don't believe there is one law that makes such a stipulation.

Helmets aren't like fruit. They don't go bad on their own.

It's a cash grab from the gullible.

[bbonnn]

My helmet was $12.95. Fully CPSC approved, etc.

I'll never I'm going to pay more than $15 for a helmet. My head's gonna get sweaty anyway; an 11-vent helmet ain't gonna make me any prettier than a 7-vent helmet, and I won't go any faster.

$12.95 every 3 years ain't bad.

The conspiracy here is how helmet manufacturers can get away with charging $100 for one that's basically the same as my $12.95 one. Brand image and vanity, I guess. Do that every 3 years, or more often if you're fickle, and I can see how they make money.

[Blue Order]

<snip>It is not up to skeptics to provide negative proof. Take a class in logical thinking, you need it.Actually, I received an "A" in my logic class, as far as I recall. Now logic me this: If a "skeptic" makes a positive assertion that helmets do not degrade over time, why shouldn't that skeptic provide some positive proof of that assertion? After all, that's not really asking the skeptic to provide negative proof...

Example:

OP: Is it true that helmets degrade over time?
Skeptic #1: Helmets do not degrade over time.
Skeptic #2: I've heard that helmets do degrade over time. Do you have any proof for your assertion, Skeptic #1?
Skeptic #1: Proof? I don't have no stinkin' proof! I don't have to show you no stinkin' proof. You prove to me that my assertion is wrong. And take a class in logical thinking, you need it.

[Blue Order]

I'm talking to my self here, ain't I....Most people who don't drive are talking to themselves. ;)

[ryanparrish]

I like my head I like helmets I replace helmets with cracks in them they seem to get cracks in them from being dropped etc if I ever get in a serious crash I believe my helmet will help more then none I have long hair I dont sweat to bad I believe I go fast

[Blue Order]

I found the BHSI page interesting, but with few real validations.Exactly.

[Blue Order]

I like my head I like helmets I replace helmets with cracks in them they seem to get cracks in them from being dropped etc if I ever get in a serious crash I believe my helmet will help more then none I have long hair I dont sweat to bad I believe I go fastBut you don't like punctuation. ;)

[catatonic]

Once it's visibly worn (discoloration, cracks, large or deep dents, plastic shell's falling off, straps are frayed, etc), then it's time to replace.

With how my helmets get beaten around off the bike, I replace mine every two years. If you are gentler to your helmets, go longer. At the end of my two years, the plastic shell has lare cracks, the foam has good dents all over it, maybe a crack somewhere, straps are starting to fray....it's not pretty.

[AlmostTrick]

Once it's visibly worn (discoloration, cracks, large or deep dents, plastic shell's falling off, straps are frayed, etc), then it's time to replace.

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!

[chipcom]

If you are gentler to your helmets, go longer.

Mine sits behind my seat in the truck, 99% of the time...I take GOOD care of my helmet, it should last many more years! :p

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Actually, I received an "A" in my logic class, as far as I recall. Now logic me this: If a "skeptic" makes a positive assertion that helmets do not degrade over time, why shouldn't that skeptic provide some positive proof of that assertion? After all, that's not really asking the skeptic to provide negative proof...

Example:

OP: Is it true that helmets degrade over time?
Skeptic #1: Helmets do not degrade over time.
Skeptic #2: I've heard that helmets do degrade over time. Do you have any proof for your assertion, Skeptic #1?
Skeptic #1: Proof? I don't have no stinkin' proof! I don't have to show you no stinkin' proof. You prove to me that my assertion is wrong. And take a class in logical thinking, you need it.
Then perhaps you failed reading comprehension.

The OP asked if his wife's assertion was true that bike helmets are like children's car seats and expire after a few years. Logically he should ask her for proof, but she could answer "Because I said so, and that's that." That might work somewhere but it won't work outside of the OP's home. The helmet marketeers have essentially provided the same answer and the gullible have bought it as good enuff.

Presumably the wife is repeating the back door sales pitch/assertions made by the helmet marketers/salesmen. The next logical step is to request the source of such consumer warnings to step up to the plate and state why and how the product expires.

Those who make the claim that helmets expire over time (presumably the helmet salesmen) owe some evidence/explanation of their own product's deficiencies (inability for the customer to detect a safety product's unfitness to function as designed.) And if true, how are they protecting the consumers of their product from such a glaring safety deficiency? Where are the warning labels on the product that the product is worthless/ 3 years after manufacture? How does the customer know when the product crosses the line from good to bad? Does it happen at the stroke of midnight on the 4th birthday? Or is it, as previously stated, just as capable/incapable as the day it was made as long as no visible damage is noted.

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.

[chipcom]

I'm thinking we need one of them little round window things on helmets that has the green dot telling you it's good to go, otherwise replace, like car batteries have. Maybe an electric shock to the user, followed by the appearance of a marketing hologram. (Luke, I am your sister)

[Blue Order]

Then perhaps you failed reading comprehension.I doubt it; it's on the LSAT, and I got a good enough score on that to get me into my choice of schools.

The OP asked if his wife's assertion was true that bike helmets are like children's car seats and expire after a few years. Logically he should ask her for proof, but she could answer "Because I said so, and that's that." That might work somewhere but it won't work outside of the OP's home.And then he came on bikeforums and asked "is it true"? To which you inscrutably replied "It probably provides as much protection from risk as it did on day one." Now, if we're talking inductive logic (probability) here, there should be something more than a bare assertion to support that probability. And yet you offer...well, nothing more than a bare assertion of probability. In terms of inductive logic, your assertion of probability is meaningless because it's unsupported by anything.

The helmet marketeers have essentially provided the same answer and the gullible have bought it as good enuff.If the helmet manufacturers have no studies to support their claim that helmets degrade over time, then that is correct.

Presumably the wife is repeating the back door sales pitch/assertions made by the helmet marketers/salesmen. The next logical step is to request the source of such consumer warnings to step up to the plate and state why and how the product expires.

Those who make the claim that helmets expire over time (presumably the helmet salesmen) owe some evidence/explanation of their own product's deficiencies (inability for the customer to detect a safety product's unfitness to function as designed.)Correct. I have assumed they do have that evidence, but my assumption may be wrong. Note that the BHSI claims that foam does not degrade over time, but does not provide any evidence to support that statement.

And if true, how are they protecting the consumers of their product from such a glaring safety deficiency? Where are the warning labels on the product that the product is worthless/ 3 years after manufacture? How does the customer know when the product crosses the line from good to bad? Does it happen at the stroke of midnight on the 4th birthday? Or is it, as previously stated, just as capable/incapable as the day it was made as long as no visible damage is noted.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. So, for example, if the helmets begin to show signs of deterioration at 5 years, they may advise replacement at 3 years; this will allow for a safety margin of a year on the shelf of the bike shop, and an additional year where the consumer neglects to replace the helmet. All just speculation on my part, but it's not speculation that risk analysts build in margins of error.

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.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.

[Blue Order]

I'm thinking we need one of them little round window things on helmets that has the green dot telling you it's good to go, otherwise replace, like car batteries have. Maybe an electric shock to the user, followed by the appearance of a marketing hologram. (Luke, I am your sister)Helmet Head would take that as a religious sign that bike lanes are the devil's work...

[catatonic]

Mine sits behind my seat in the truck, 99% of the time...I take GOOD care of my helmet, it should last many more years! :p

Heh, I guess your truck is pretty spacious. My work locker is pretty tight, my messenger bag and helmet barely fit in there...the helmet gets a nice squeeze during this.