General Cycling Discussion - Why are bike helmets so expensive?

Compare a Motorcycle Helmet with a bike helmet. Motorcycle helmets can go as high as $500 or more but those are full face with shields and nice helmets made by composite material and without a bunch of holes.

Aren't bike helmets overpriced? I think so, A top of the line bike helmet can cost up to $120 dollars but what you get is compacted foam covered whit a thin plastic cover and plastic and vinyl straps. For that same price you can get a Motorcycle helmet that covers your hole head and back of the neck and includes face shield. I'm not saying that I'm going to ride my bike with a motorcycle helmet I just saying that companies are abusive with their prices. "oh you are not forced to buy one" you can say, but here you have to wear a helmet by law. Again the construction and materials that you are getting on a bike helmet does not cost more than $40 and I'm talking about a top of the line Gyro or Bell.

If you look around a little, you will find plenty of good helmets for a LOT less than $120. Besides, isn't your brain worth the money? I've been in enough crashes to know where I need to spend my money. So far, no noticeable brain damage.

DEMON

How many of those motorcycle helmets will be replaced for free if you have an accident in one of them. Been awhile since I wore a motorcycle helmet but don't recall them coming with a warranty that would replace them like my bike helmets have!

Besides, isn't your brain worth the money?

That's certainly what the marketing people tell us. Personally, I have no idea what the market value of a slightly abused, second-hand brain is these days.

What you're really buying is a styrofoam hat and a false sense of security. How much is that worth to you?


Aren't bike helmets overpriced?

The answer is simple economics. Prices only go as high as the market will bear. Clearly there's a market for expensive helmets however much they're actually worth. I'd never go for the more expensive ones myself - it seems the rule is: the less foam in the helmet, the higher the price.

Of course when they've got a captive market such as exists with mandatory helmet laws, they'll gleefully push the prices a little higher. If they can use guilt marketing typified by the above comment, even better.

And I think your estimate of $40 of materials is out by an order of magnitude. I'd say it's more like $4. Bear in mind however, that materials make up only a very small proportion of the costs in getting a product to market.

Shouldn't it be the other way around. A bicycle helmet will protect your head in a fall and only weighs a few ounces and has plenty of ventilation, a motorcycle helmet uses a pound of material to do the same thing and cost five times as much. As a more direct comparison a full face down hill helmet will protect your head(sixty mile an hour crashes in rocky terrain) as well as a motorcycle helmet with better ventilation, half the weight and a third of the cost.
You can also buy an cpsc or snell aproved helmet for less than $40, and it will protect you as well as a $120 helmet, it just weighs more and has fewer vents.

Bike helmets are overpriced and probably cost 50 cents to make in China or Taiwan.

I found a thin light Kevlar blue helmet on Ebay for around $20. I think it's used for roller skating or blading. Now, I look like someone from Delta Force riding around ;)

Regards.

I recently had to buy a new helmet following a bad crash that destroyed my old one, so I sympathise with you. My new helmet cost $47 dollars, however while looking at the hlemets with a salesman at the LBS I tryed on a Giro, it fit like a glove (important for me since I have a big melon) and looked really good too. I was all prepared to buy it when the salesman told me that it was on sale for "only $130" which he claimed was a steal because it retailed for $225. So I told him that was just a tad too steap for a poor young guy like myself and bought some crappy Bell helmet that looks stupid and is not as good fitting, but it only cost me $47 so I live with it.

I trust and beleive in helmets and I will never ride my bike without one. I truly beleive that a helmet will protect my head in most accidents but that is no reason to sell them so expensive. I'm using the Gyro E2 I didn't know that Gyro will replace my helmet if it get broke on an accident.

By the way ventilation is really good with this helmet but I fall once and I get hurt by a tip of a branch that pass throught one of the holes.

Helmets are more than a marketing scam I know I tried one out last March and walked away from a serious accident. For 120 bucks you better be getting more than vinyl and plastic straps in fact you won't see that on $40 helmet go and try some out. If they are snell approved it doesn't mater if they ar $15 0r $200 the protection is the same the difference will be in weight, air ventilation and adjustment systems. There is a lot more engineering to those puppys than $.50 in Taiwan. The thin plastic and foam does what it is designed to do, protect ones head. Check out Bell they have helmets in all price ranges and a really good warranty for more info on helmets check out this site

http://www.bhsi.org/

Watch for sales at the online bike store but I also got a good deal on a helmet a couple of years ago at overstock.com they don't always have them so you might want to check periodically

I trust and beleive in helmets and I will never ride my bike without one. I truly beleive that a helmet will protect my head in most accidents but that is no reason to sell them so expensive.

I admire your faith, but you'd be better served to do some research and get yourself a more realistic expectation of what a bike helmet can and can't do.

First off, motorcycle helmets can cost more than $500.00. For example, Arai RX-7 Corsair Racer $694.95 and Shoei X-Eleven $571.99. So top of the line Giro at $120 vs top of the line Arai at $694.95.

Next, as someone else stated you are getting protection with a bike helmet that motocycle helmets take substantially more weight and material, not to mention much worse cooling to do.

Then as far as safety is concerned, a nice expensive Giro is safer than a $20 wal-mart special. Look at the "secondary impact" tests for proof.

You have to remember that costs of materials and manufacturing are only part of the costs of any object. You have to pay R&D costs, electricity, sales forces, etc etc. When a customer pays the company I work for $100 for me to fix a computer problem that takes me 10 minutes to fix you have to figure in all the costs, not just $100-my pay=profit. My hourly wage, gas, shop electricity, additional taxes, liability insurance, theft insurance, property insurance, tool costs, training costs, telephones, office personel to man the phones and take in machines, advertising, sales people, worker's comp, etc etc.

Recapping, the $120 is actually a bargain for all the technology you get. Additionally a more expensive helmet is lighter, safer, and cooler (temp) than a cheaper one. Just because you dont know what the difference is, does not mean there isnt one.

Allan

Honestly the price of a helmut is based on what the market will bear and is also adjusted by the research that goes into the helmut.

I actualy agree with rev, a motorcycle helmut for $400 covers more but is actualy simpler since they don't worry about weight as much or ventilation or even aerodynamics. Which they do take into consideration when designing a bike helmut. Now is that extra bit of ventilation and weight worth the extra $100? THat is a personal decision, if you are like Lance it's worth the money to have a helmut specificaly designed for you and tested in a wind tunnel. This hobby is full of personal choices, helmuts.. pedals.. clothing.. frames.. forks.. tires.. you could make the exact same argument about almost every item. FOr example why does a bike tire cost as much as a car tire? We all know there is more rubber/product in a car tire then a bike tire, but there is more then just the material costs going into producing something.

A porsche uses less metal then a Ford F-150 pickup truck so it should be cheaper right? This might be a extreme example compared to the helmut but still along the same lines.

That's why we see $100 shorts and $80 jerseys and $150 and $200 shoes.

Now look at custom wheels... This year non of them are on sale... Hmmm...

I would have to disagree with the statement regarding motorcycle helmet designers not worrying about weight, ventilation, and aerodynamics. All of the high end motorcycle helmets (some good examples were mentioned earlier) are pushing the envelope in these 3 areas as much as the current safety regulations will allow.

As a former superbike racer, I can attest to the following:

Light weight and good ventilation keep you less fatiqued, which helps keep you from making a mistake and getting killed, and or killing others. Aerodynamics keep the wind noise down, and keep the airstream smooth over the top of your back, which cuts down the buffeting/lift/drag we encounter at speeds up to 170mph+

Most race worthy models are made by hand out of fiberglass and kevlar composites, and are able to withstand tremendous forces of impact, be fire proof, and not seperate/grind through while you are sliding on your head at triple digit speeds. I actually slid along on my face shield one occasion.

But getting back to the cycling overpricing issue. You are paying $159.99 for several ounces of styrofoam that comes shipped in several more ounces of styrofoam. But the packaging,and the shipping and handling is only $8.00........

I would tend to believe that the high prices are due in some part to potential liability. If a judge or jury rules that the Manufacture is at fault becuase someones helmet didnt prevent them from dying, your looking at a pretty big bill. But its mostly It is what the consumer is willing to pay. If someone came out with some new helmet that retailed for $250.00 I think we all know at least one of those "I have to have all the cool stuff first" people who would buy it. Assuming it can be produced for a similar cost as other helmets, the manufacture makes a killing.

But Helmets aren't the worst injustice, Its the shoes that get me.....

$200.00 plus for a pair of plastic shoes with velcro?
No crash replacement, doubtful potential liability, R&D? I don't care if it has a carbon sole, throwing a few fibers in some resin and having them molded by a machine doesnt cost that much more, especially if they are made in Taiwan. I figured if I might as well make a statment and get something that entertained me, so I bought these. http://www.excelsports.com/new.asp?page=8&description=Python+Road+Shoe&vendorCode=GAERNE&major=5&minor=1

The other day I saw a Rain Jacket, made of white ripstop nylon for $95.00, C'mon! for $30.00 less you can buy a whole tent.

There are a lot of cyclists who like to spend, and the Manufactures have figured this out. Hence all the Marketing fluff. Campy has some new shorts out, with silver threads in the chamois, because.......get this..... silver is naturally anti-bacterial! Guess what.....So is soap, go wash your non-sliver lined shorts.

Assos has some bib shorts that retail for 219.99 yeah.... 219.99 "Using technology from Formula One seat manufacturing, the insert uses a revolutionary foam compound with dynamic memory that conforms to your body and provides better impact absorption that a standard pad."

All Im waiting for now is some schmo to tell my on the next group ride "I was gonna get those Campy shorts with the silver in them, but I heard that they were 5 grams heavier than the non-silver ones"

But these "marketers wet dream" consumers are actually very important to the industry. They keep the LBS in business, and the manufactures too. Windtunnel time is expensive. Come to think of it...Perhaps instead of chuckling, I should thank them........

You kind of need to think in reverse in regards to the cost of bicycle helmets. The top of the line helmets have more vents right? Well that means that the mold was that much more difficult to make. I'll bet you some of these molds cost $500,000 or more. That's alot of money to recoup.

lets see. i pay $450 a year for $750,000 life insurance on myself, $600 every 6 months for car insurance for our 2 cars, $750 a year for my homeowners/wife jewelry, etc. $50 for accidental dismemberment, $200 for malpractice insurance, just spend almost $1,000 on a will as insurance against a probate proceeding if we die....

yeah... $75 for my Bell Furio that i wear when i can come close to death on each and every ride i take (275-300 times a year) seems about right.....It's $75 worth of insurance.....all of the above insurance i will hopefully never use.

I admire your faith, but you'd be better served to do some research and get yourself a more realistic expectation of what a bike helmet can and can't do.

Like everything out there they do not stop all injuries but your chances of walking away from a serious accident increase substantially with a helmet. If you want to study up on the safety research that is and has been done with helmets I suggest you visit the site that I provided the link to in my post earlier.

I dont think there is any evidence to show that a expensive bike helmet gives any more protection than a cheaper helmet from a reputable brand.
I use a low-end Met helmet which costs == $40. The materials and construction quality are the same as a $140 one, but it does have more styrofoam and less air. In a temperate climate with plenty of winter-time, I dont need extra ventilation.
I wear it all the time, but dont "trust" it to do any more than protect against low-speed falls. It's my last line of defence.

While I have very little faith in a helmet's ability to do me any good in a crash, I see no harm in wearing one. It's a nice elevated place to attach more reflective tape, anyway. I do think kids should wear them, they being more vulnerable to skull damage and more accident-prone as well. Years ago when my son started riding, I started wearing a helmet when I insisted he do the same, and the habit has stayed with me.

That was a $30 helmet, and I paid the same for my current Giro Stelvio. I don't even notice it's on my head (which makes me forget about it sometimes).

$30 seems fairly reasonable for something that's well-ventilated, easy to adjust for a perfect fit, and protects me from scalp lacerations when the kids in certain neighborhoods I ride through on my commute decide to throw rocks at me.

RichC

I dont think there is any evidence to show that a expensive bike helmet gives any more protection than a cheaper helmet from a reputable brand.
I use a low-end Met helmet which costs == $40. The materials and construction quality are the same as a $140 one, but it does have more styrofoam and less air. In a temperate climate with plenty of winter-time, I dont need extra ventilation.
I wear it all the time, but dont "trust" it to do any more than protect against low-speed falls. It's my last line of defence.

consumer reports stated that if it had one of the approved safety endorsments (snell, etc) there is no difference in protection from inexpensive to expensive when it comes to protection. The difference lies in weight, ventalation etc.

Like everything out there they do not stop all injuries but your chances of walking away from a serious accident increase substantially with a helmet.

I guess we define 'serious accident' differently then. I've had quite a few crashes where the helmet did it's job, but I wouldn't consider any of them serious, even though on one occasion I had to pay a visit to the hospital to get checked over after a particularly severe impact.

In a truly serious 'accident', your head isn't the only thing you've got to worry about, and damage to the head isn't the only thing that will kill you.

All I'm saying is, wear a helmet if you wish, but at least have some idea of the level of protection they afford. My observation is that most people, including the people marketing the things, grossly overestimate their protective abilities.

In other words: Wear one, but ride as if you aren't.

Molds for helmets are expensive but with so many helmets now
sourced in east Asia, mold making is also done there as well so costs
are probable 10% of your estimate ($50k versus $500k). Mold and
die shops all over the US are losing business to the Chinese: a design
can be emailed to China, fabricated and airfreighted back in only a
little longer than a US shop can do the same thing and costs are
30-80% less. What happens next is that a next door manufacturer
in China then submits a quote for the forging/stamping/molding product
and another factory gets shut down in Pennsylvania.

Certainly liability costs are a significant part of helmet cost but probably
not more than $10-20. The largest component will be LBS markup, not
jewelry store class but a good bit more than autos. Steve

P.S. Don't think that when that plant in PA is shut down that those 100+ workers were replaced by 500+ chineese.

Chances are the new factory in China only has 50+ people running state-of-the-art (finaced by the state) computerized machines that simply take the CAD file that was mailed over and spits out the mold.

China has lost more manufacturing jobs as a percentage of population than the US.

Just like when the US lost the steel industry to Japan. It wasn't the cheap labor, tho that was in the mix, it was that when Japan was rebuilt after WWII they had all brand new state-of-the-art furnaces and could make better steel with cheaper cost of materials/fuels than the 100 year old US furnaces/foundarys.

Now we are finding this to be true for other upstarts without the baggage of older machines and near-sighted management not willing to retool the factories because it will cause the stock to take a hit while they rebuild... Solution... Rebuild some place else... New factory better and faster than older factory... Close the older factory...

Fatman, get the best helmet you can afford. Thats the bottom line. More money equals less weight and better ventilation. Where I am the ventilation is key. Maybe where you are its less important. The bottom line is WEAR A HELMET.

Comparing the markup on a twentythousand dollar car and a hundred dollar helmet is hardly fair. Markup on accesories is between 67% and 100% so $50 cost= $83.50 to $100.00 retail price with a profit of $33 to $50. Even a 5% markup on a twentyG car nets you $1000 and, while it depends on the person, I have spent more time selling many a person a $40 helmet(profit:$16-$20) than I spent buying my last car.

P.S. If you don't think a helmet does any good, have somebody whack you in the head with a baseball bat with and then with out a helmet on. Compare results.

consumer reports stated that if it had one of the approved safety endorsments (snell, etc) there is no difference in protection from inexpensive to expensive when it comes to protection.

Did they take into account that these ratings are a minimum? You either pass or fail. A helmet could far exceed the requirements while another comes in at the low limit. They get the same sticker. Did they do some real tests? I would be interested.

Similar to the question: What do you call someone that got a D- in medical school?

Doctor.

Prestonjb: I was aware of your statistics and facts and don't disagree. I should have turned my rant mode down. Good example of state of the art factory written up in Maximum PC making computer cases.

Rev: I don't feel your markup is out of line, it is necessary to stay in business, just commenting that
the biggest component of final price is from the final
seller, not unusual in retail sales. The end seller has
the most at risk. Steve

You all are missing the real reason, here. It's liability insurance. Helmet makers pay out their ears for it. I used to race harness horses. About twenty years ago, many studies were done to come up with safer helmets. I was on a couple of review boards that met with the manufacturers. I developed some good relationships with people on the manufacturing side of the issue and have stayed in contact with them.

They all agree that the insurance costs included in the price of a helmet far outweigh any research, development and manufacturing costs.

Expensive helmets aren't safer, they're just lighter with more vents.

I can see your points with a $5.00 helmet, but I am sticking with my $40.00 Giro. I'm sure it'll protect the brain just as well as a $200.00 helmet that Lance wears (and doesn't even pay for since he is just promoting it).

You all are missing the real reason, here. It's liability insurance. Helmet makers pay out their ears for it... insurance costs included in the price of a helmet far outweigh any research, development and manufacturing costs.

Now here's a good point.

Are you saying the manafacturers pay for liability insurance in case they are sued from individuals who suffer damage while wearing their product?

This makes sense to me, as I've read that Dr. George Shively, of The Snell Memorial Foundation, say "... it is impossible to build a helmet that will offer significant impact protection"

as well as reading in the Journal of Products Liability, conclusions of a survey of 15 years and 8 million cases of American cyclist injury/fatality incidents show there is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates.

It seems that anytime a manufacturer makes something designed for protection, they are sued whenever an accident occurs even if it is the fault of the wearer. Insurance mus be a huge expense for helmet makers. I know it is for football helmets.

All I know that is I have crashed twice where I hit my head. One helmet was wrecked which tells me that I probably would have been ER bound without it. I'd rather buy a new helmet than risk a potential brain injury.

All I know that is I have crashed twice where I hit my head. One helmet was wrecked which tells me that I probably would have been ER bound without it. I'd rather buy a new helmet than risk a potential brain injury.

Maybe, maybe not.

From the most recent year that stats are available (2002) in my province (that has an all ages mandatory helmet law and about an 85% compliance with the law),

"There were 3 deaths of cyclists, 2 were wearing helmets, 1 was not...

helmetless cyclists suffered head injuies 18.2% of the time and for cyclists with helmets on, they suffered head injuries 14% of the time."

Point is, it's not that black and white. There is a significant grey area.

We should spend time trying to get drivers to drive safe than spend time and effort that has questionable results.

In relation to the topic header, manafacturers will try to sell product anyway they can and if that involves exploiting an irrational fear, they will. Helmets are priced to what people want to pay, if those people think the helmet will act as a magic hat and stop 80% of accidents and injuries, they will pay big money for them.

Look to Europe and see very few people wear them and their injury rates are the lowest in the world.

There are many government standards and ratings.
One helmet I had years ago I traded in after getting hit by a car(for free).(Bell Image, which I still have)
high demand(economics)
risk of getting hit by car outweighs risk to car of getting hit by head...

Jacob

Helmets are more than a marketing scam

Well, I'm not so sure marketing has nothing to do with it. Manafacturers recommend replacement every 3 years or so, but the BHSI says,

"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."

Replacement means more sales, not safer cyclists.

The BHSI also says,

"We kill more car passengers on our highways every year than the number of Americans killed in the ten years and more of our involvement in Vietnam. But the public outcry that would accompany such a rate of carnage associated with any other activity in our society is strangely absent...Since the passenger car is The Problem in cyclists' deaths, and a big factor in major cycling injuries, some of that attitude will inevitably affect the bicycle rider. Rage against it if you will, but meantime wear your helmet."

a good argument to this I've read includes, "One would think that the appropriate response would be for the BHSI to mount at least as aggressive a public campaign against automobile use as they do for helmets...We are advised not to try to do anything about it, other than go out and buy a helmet, make an individual accommodation to an intolerable social problem...When we think about gun violence in schools, do we start by passing laws mandating the purchase and daily wear of Kevlar vests for all school kids? No, we try to stop the shooting."

Also the BHSI has a stats page that shows cars have nearly twice the # fatalities per 1,000,000 exposure hours as a bicycle. Why should cyclists wear the extra protection?


for more info on helmets check out this site

http://www.bhsi.org/

for balance, I'd recommend a read of two good arguments @

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/helmet.html and
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/mhls.htm

and a site with lots of study showing a different point of view @
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/

I'd also add to:


While I have very little faith in a helmet's ability to do me any good in a crash, I see no harm in wearing one.

more ideas I've read, and have little argument with, that say,

"bicycling is not particularly dangerous; that automobile use is far more dangerous, in many ways both direct and indirect; that our society stigmatizes and marginalizes people who don't own or drive cars; and that it is this social stigma, rather than any objective statistical analysis of risk, which motivates "helmet hysteria""

the gray area is between your ears. Most of the above fits under the category called rationalisation. The statisitical analysis link
is unimpressive. There are experts at this sort of thing, he ain't one of them. Beyond that, having seen a motorcyclists gray area spread over several square feet of roadway; I have an all too vivid memory of the consequences.

The helmet issue: always with us, and a source of perpetual debate. I'll add my non-unique point of view. Helmets are significantly overrated as a safety device by most riders. It's unlikely a helmet could actually save your life, or that it could prevent serious brain damage. It might do that, of course, but the chances of this occurring are lower than most riders think. The safety standards for these things are actually fairly low. So the range of accidents in which helmets could have a dramatic effect is not all that broad. Many riders who are killed or seriously brain damaged would have been anyway whatever was on their heads, and a lot of people who have only minor injuries while wearing a helmet tend to overestimate the real danger they would have been in without a helmet.

Which is not to say that helmets aren't worth wearing. If you like them, more power to you. More safety's not something I'm anxious to discourage. But there's way too much urgency, and even hostility, from helmet-wearers about the issue.

If helmets really were *that* effective, I'd wear one in my car, too. But I don't, and neither do you all. If you go swimming, you have a greater chance of permanent brain damage than you do riding a bike, but I bet you all still go into the pool without a life jacket. And so on.

Anyway, one reason helmets are so expensive is that, after being told there's little cost to wearing helmets, riders figure out they're hot, dopey looking, somewhat heavy, and awkward. So they start paying more money to mitigate these problems. More holes, a more aerodynamic shape, lighter weight, and so on, all cost money. But they reduce protection, too, of course.

I have seen very cheap helmets at Walmart, for a lot less than $40. They're no less safe than expensive styrofoam hats. If safety were really the sole priority, one could buy one of these things and do fine.

Motorcycle helmets do cost more money, but they perform other functions than safety. You wear them to keep warm, to keep the wind out of your eyes, to protect your hearing, to hold a radio or a com-link to your passenger, or to reduce wind noise (see hearing). Getting a helmet to these things well is a bit more expensive.

A cycling helmet gets expensive only because people are trying to make their problems go away.

>Replacement means more sales, not safer cyclists.

I disagree.
When I got hit by a car, I was wearing a helmet because of orders given me. Later, after the replacement, I was a safer cyclist, perhaps because the helmet was better(newer version) and also because I wore the thing since I did not have to get used to and adjust a new one.

Jacob

If you have a $10 head put it in a $10 helmet

WHere do you buy such a helmet?

Jacob

Goodwill in the junk pile of used cycling stuff. :rolleyes: If you're serious you'd be better off with a styrofoam cooler on your head. Go to a bike shop and buy a reall helmet. $40 gets a decent helmet these days not too flashy but light weight with decent ventilation.

When I got hit by a car, I was wearing a helmet because of orders given me.

according to the BHSI, ALWAYS replace a helmet after an impact.

I was responding to claims that helmets should be replaced after 3 years even if there has been no impact. That's just a sales ploy (according to the BHSI)


If you have a $10 head put it in a $10 helmet

The BHSI says, helmets made for U.S. sale after 1999 must meet the US Consumer Product Safety Commission standard, so look for a CPSC sticker. ASTM's standard is comparable. Snell's B-95 and N-94 standards are tougher but seldom used ...and.... Good news for consumers! We routinely see Sunday newspaper ads in our area for helmets certified to the CPSC standard for between $10 and $20.

if a $10 helmet has the same safety standard sticker as a $100 helmet it's just as safe

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=DarkOliveGreen]
Helmets (and all other items designed/intended to protect us) are potential targets for lawsuits, and have to be insured up the wazoo. This insurance costs $$$$$$$$$$. It gets passed on to us.
So, we can thank the greedy lawyers next time we strap on our Giro's!

Helmets are potential targets for lawsuits, and have to be insured up the wazoo. This insurance costs $$$$$$$$$$. It gets passed on to us.

again, this could explain the results of court testimony, like from Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke in the Coroner's Court Testimony, where he says, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."

I still think the market is created from the stigmatization of cycling and playing on fears of the uninformed.

again, this could explain the results of court testimony, like from Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke in the Coroner's Court Testimony, where he says, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage."

Personal experiance finds that above statement not always true and JAMA (Journal of American Medical Assocation) declares you have an 85% better chance to survive a serious impact with a helmet than without. I seem to recall most of the data you had on helmets was around 18 years old have you begun to look at the new studies yet?

Personal experiance finds that above statement not always true

well, no offense intended, but I'd take the word of a cheif coronor in court testimony over your personal experiance.



and JAMA (Journal of American Medical Assocation) declares you have an 85% better chance to survive a serious impact with a helmet than without. I seem to recall most of the data you had on helmets was around 18 years old have you begun to look at the new studies yet?

Yup. Here's one done by the JAMA in June of 2000 taken where there is less than 1% of the cycling population wearing helmets @

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/content/vol160/issue11/index.dtl

It says "Even after adjustment for risk factors, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did."

but this is not the point of this thread. I'm giving my reason why I think people will pay $100 for something that they could pay $10 for. It's a manafactured market praying on predudice of people towards people who ride a bike on streets and are different from most consumers who prefer to drive around the streets in cars.

again, this could explain the results of court testimony, like from Chief Pathologist Clive Cooke in the Coroner's Court Testimony, where he says, "In situations of a fall they [helmets] are next to useless because they do not protect against diffused brain damage. The damage to the brain would still have occurred because it is the rattling inside the skull that caused the damage." .

I am sorry I missed this as being a reason to why helmets cost more and read it more like a reason NOT to wear a helmet. I don't trust anyone who testifies about anything in court anymore he probably was an expert witness hired by someone who wanted him to say that and then there was another pathologist for the other side that contradicted him. My statement was "From my Personal experience" I know because I face planted with one on and judging buy where I impacted on my helmet, barring any kind of miracle I would either be 6' under or drooling down my front side right. now.


It says "Even after adjustment for risk factors, those who did not cycle to work experienced a 39% higher mortality rate than those who did."


Nice stat don't see what it has to do with wearing a helmet or not, just states that someone who gets a daily workout has 39% longer life than someone who doesn't

I don't trust anyone who testifies about anything in court anymore My statement was "From my Personal experience"

weather you believe him or not, he's trained in the science of forensics and someone who has an emotinal connection and is not trained in that field has less weight to their opinion.



Nice stat don't see what it has to do with wearing a helmet or not, just states that someone who gets a daily workout has 39% longer life than someone who doesn't

"Even after adjustment for risk factors" means, despite the risks of riding without helmets (as they do in the area of study) they still have a longer, healthier life than those that don't have the exercise cycling provides.

It's similar to the old post "CNN article: "Heart group: Doctors should prescribe exercise" where I posted, "This article just repeats what I've posted many times, that the medical benefits for cyclists far outweigh any risks they may encounter."

And, I've also said in previous helmet posts, I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse unless there is some new info. The point of costs of helmets being high because of high insurance costs for liability towards negligence claims towards manafactures of helmets that exagerated claims of effectivness is a new point. My point of marginalization of cyclists is an old one (but I think, more accurate).

Experience serves here:

1) wear a helmet. In a 20mph crash I landed on my back and my head pounded the pavement. I thought this was going to be bad... Reached back to feel how big the bloody-patch would be and pulled back a clump of shattered foam.

2) My wife fell sideways after crossing an intersection when her front wheel go caught and turned... She remembers her head bouncing on the ground. Repeatedly... Like thumpady-thumpady-thump. The side of the helmet was flatened and the plastic cracked... But I don't want to think if her ear/side-of-head was skiding on the pavement.

3) Replace every three years. You bet there is some thruth in that. Sweat and sunlight and just the day to day carrying around in your bag puts stress on the helmet. Sure if you drop it from a table you may see it crack instantly... However how do you know if it gets squished a bit in travel and gets weaker. I had a helmet that simply cracked across the foam for no reason at all. I could see the crack even though it was not truely seperated... I wore it a bit more and noticed that the crack was spreading. I think one should inspect the helmet and decide. However a good rule for those who may not be able to tell is... replace it every 3 years!

a good rule for those who may not be able to tell is... replace it every 3 years!

Baaaah! .... Baaaah!

...or should that be...

Buuuuy! ... Buuuuy!