|
They're a business. I don't expect them to invest in things not related to their business any more than I would any other business. I'm interested in spreading information and dismissing misinformation, not criticizing a company for doing what is in it's best interest. As long as they aren't making false claims, they are acting exactly as they should. To expect otherwise is silly.
|
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13429859)
They're a business. I don't expect them to invest in things not related to their business any more than I would any other business. I'm interested in spreading information and dismissing misinformation, not criticizing a company for doing what is in it's best interest. As long as they aren't making false claims, they are acting exactly as they should. To expect otherwise is silly.
|
Yeah, I don't really have a problem with that.
|
Got yourself painted into some sort of corner there, haven't you? :)
|
Companies like Bell directly benefit by misleading and false claims made by others at the expense of cycling safety
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13430521)
Companies like Bell directly benefit by misleading and false claims made by others at the expense of cycling safety
|
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 13430386)
Got yourself painted into some sort of corner there, haven't you? :)
|
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13430669)
How so?
|
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 13430687)
Well, it's kinda like saying "I don't approve of murder - that is, only if it's done by a hired killer".
|
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13430668)
Indeed, but I'm more concerned with addressing said claims than attacking the one benefiting.
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13430861)
and I don't have a problem with a company making a profit, but I do when some people claim they are not taking part in that profit.
|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13430897)
Wait a minute... you talkin' 'bout me...?
|
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13430907)
not at all. You've been quite up front about your profiting from your customers impressions
|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13430954)
FYI, I just looked at our numbers. About 2% of store revenue from helmet sales. While technically there is some profit there, you'll have to explain to me and others how that 2% justifies any kind of slanted sales toward helmets. Hardly worth it. I'd rather sell someone something beneficial and at much more margin, like new cables and housing with installation fee on a bike that desperately needs it.
I do know there are fewer than 100 people a year take this course in BC and I'm sure helmet sales far eclipse this. It seems the consumer is making a choice about what they want to spend their safety dollars on |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13430979)
just out of curiosity, do you have any idea of what the helmet to Can-Bike course sales ratio is?
I do know there are fewer than 100 people a year take this course in BC and I'm sure helmet sales far eclipse this. It seems the consumer is making a choice about what they want to spend their safety dollars on ^^^ Gets me thinkin'... |
12:1 Isn't that an indication of helmet promotion as a substitute for safety?
Offering free safety courses would be a more beneficial way to improve safety for your customers and keep 'em coming back |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13431107)
12:1 Isn't that an indication of helmet promotion as a substitute for safety?
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13431107)
offering free safety courses would be a more beneficial way to improve safety for your customers and keep 'em coming back
Lots more margin on a safety course with basically no COGS... |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13430857)
Ooo -- fine vintage of anti-helmet hyperbole you got going on there.
And I must say that I totally fail to see any anti-helmet hyperbole in my post. |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 13431195)
AWWWW, come on - seriously, all I do is to point out that Sudo Bike on the face of it is expressing that double standards are all right. Not that I feel it's a big issue, just a light jab from my side, really.
And I must say that I totally fail to see any anti-helmet hyperbole in my post. Seriously? |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13431123)
... point of contention? ...
It's an illusion they're chasing |
If MHLs decrease ridership, why would helmet industry or their proxies lobby for such? Wouldn't that severely cut down on their market for bike helmets?
Or do we think they've done the analysis -- captive market forced to wear helmets = greater profit than free market with choice to wear helmets or not -- and come to the conclusion that they will sell more helmets if helmets are mandated? |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13431373)
That people will pay more to "buy" safety, than put in an effort to be safe.
It's an illusion they're chasing Is this a basic human failure, one that can be demonstrated again and again, even outside the bike industry? Do we think that helmet companies are unjustly capitalizing on this tendency? It's been claimed that they foster such, but even if they didn't, wouldn't they still sell helmets based on peoples' usual habits and assumptions? Meaning: do helmet companies even need to foster the perception that helmets save lives, or will people naturally assume such and take the easy route out -- helmet/pill vs. safety course/lifestyle change? Is this the helmet companies' fault? As a business, do they owe it to their shareholders to talk people out of buying their product? |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13431381)
If MHLs decrease ridership, why would helmet industry or their proxies lobby for such? Wouldn't that severely cut down on their market for bike helmets?
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 13431381)
..they will sell more helmets if helmets are mandated
|
Thread link summary:
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 13335409)
Have you tried this? I know many will not regard it as neutral because it is very clear about the flaws in the pro-helmet position, but it does offer a fairly dispassionate analysis of the available evidence.
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13335471)
If you insist...
Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws D. L. Robinson AGBU, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia Accepted 6 February 1996. ; Available online 26 February 1999. Abstract The first year of the mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Australia saw increased helmet wearing from 31% to 75% of cyclists in Victoria and from 31% of children and 26% of adults in New South Wales (NSW) to 76% and 85%. However, the two major surveys using matched before and after samples in Melbourne (Finch et al. 1993; Report No. 45, Monash Univ. Accident Research Centre) and throughout NSW (Smith and Milthorpe 1993; Roads and Traffic Authority) observed reductions in numbers of child cyclists 15 and 2.2 times greater than the increase in numbers of children wearing helmets. This suggests the greatest effect of the helmet law was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling. Author Keywords: Bicycle; Head injury; Helmet; Legislation
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13336380)
A far more realistic site that addresses the helmet issue is the first one I provided on this new version of the thread, http://bicyclesafe.com If one is interested in studies and analysis, far more qualified anaylsis and opinions can be found at http://cyclehelmets.org/ ------------------------------ a worthwhile read is the wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet <-- Grand-daddy/mommy mother/fatherlode of helmet study linkage in the text and references at the bottom
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13306081)
Originally Posted by buzzman
(Post 13336169)
...I would suggest going to this site, which provides objectively collected data, some pro-helmet interpretations and links to sites which counter their views:
http://www.bhsi.org For researched rational responses to many of the negatives about helmets I would suggest this site: http://www.bhsi.org/negativs.htm
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13365621)
have you considered, when helmet use skyrocketed... head injuries went up... Helmet-wearing may actually promote injury.
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13366843)
It's not common to receive head injuries on bikes any more than it is to receive them off a bike, which is, not not common.
Here's another link....
Originally Posted by sudo bike
(Post 13370863)
If the scalp helps reduce rotational injury to the brain by helping the head slide along pavement rather than catch, and a helmet reduced this effect, doesn't it stand to reason that at least in these sorts of accidents a helmet mitigates the effect of the scalp?
Again, why do you think they are now trying to replicate this "scalp effect" in new helmets? What would be the purpose if it were not effective? "It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse.[68]" "A bicycle helmet with its own synthetic "scalp" has been designed with the aim of mitigating rotational injury.[71]"
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13371384)
...read the links I provided: Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Learning how to ride safely. It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills.
Here's another link for you to read and consider... one of the most powerful laws in the universe is the law of unintended consequences
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13371397)
...an Australian judge sided against a helmet law and with a cyclist who argued wearing a helmet caused more harm than it prevented
''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand. ''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.'' He found Ms Abbott had ''an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists'', and quashed her conviction...
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13371730)
don't forget the paper the Australian judge read prior to rendering a decision:
The testing and design of standard helmets continue to reflect the discredited theory that linear acceleration is the dominant cause of brain injury and to neglect rotation. and another study examining a vital lack of coverage by the bicycle helmet The common designs of commercially available bicycle helmets do not prevent direct contact loading on the temporal and zygomatic arch region and this contact loading is potentially harmful. has been shown in court to be common knowledge in the helmet industry It has been known for years by the helmet industry that the majority of head impacts occur below the "test line," and that the majority of injurious impacts are concentrated in the front or temporal region. but this issue of protection (or lack thereof) may be completely moot because 1) On a per-mile basis, the odds of being killed or sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about the same as the odds of being killed or injured while out for a walk. 2) On a per-capita basis, the odds of being killed while riding a bicycle are nearly the same as the odds of being killed by a bolt of lightning (this author has, in fact, been struck by lightning -- albeit indirectly -- so he is well aware that "extremely improbable" is not quite the same as "impossible"); the odds of sustaining a serious head injury while riding a bicycle are about half the odds of sustaining a serious injury while out for a walk.
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13371730)
if you continue to be worried about hurting your head from falling over, you may want to wear your helmet while walking as well because,
The tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground.
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13375196)
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13399300)
If protection from being hit by a car is your concern, a helmet might be a good choice if it was designed to provide such protection, but it is not.
"bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand the impact of collisions with motor vehicles" "The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13399400)
not rational at all.
... an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's better to not get hit. That's what real bicycle safety is about.
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13402721)
[regarding motor-vehicle/bicycle collisions as it pertains to the utility of helmets in such]
"The tests cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground... helmets protect in falls without any involvement with motor vehicles...in todays road traffic accidents, it's not unlikely for a cycle helmet to be subjected to severity loads far greater than it was designed to cope with"
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13410891)
a bicycle helmet is not designed for impacts with other vehicles.
Impacts with other vehicles introduces additional forces that were not designed for... here's a third source that explains a bit more "when a cyclist is knocked off by another vehicle, this frequently results in the head being spun and subjected to torsional effects. One consequence of this is that they tend not to hit the ground as cleanly as children who are typically involved in low-impact, non-twisting injuries,"
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13414809)
according to the Canada Safety Council, it is more important to wear a helmet than text while cycling
Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet And people question helmet skeptics when they say helmet promotion reduces cycling safety?
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13428357)
[examples of pro-helmet groups citing discredited studies, which groups also push for MHL legislation, and which are supported by helmet manufacturers]
http://www.helmetssavelives.org/imag...LogoHeader.png http://www.helmetssavelives.org/ The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a helmet. Bike Helmet: Difference of Life or Death Paying attention to riding and avoiding distractions from cellphones and music players ranks second on the Canada Safety Council's top tips for improving cycling safety — behind wearing a helmet. |
Originally Posted by closetbiker
(Post 13431411)
I think you've answered your own question there
As shown all over the world, when helmets are mandated, more helmets are bought. It doesn't matter to them that fewer people ride bikes, or what happens to the people riding those bikes, what they want are laws to ensure sales to sustain their profits |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.