The "gotcha!" scenario is simple; there is nothing in the "certification" standard that refers to what effectiveness the "certified" helmet might have for specifically reducing bicyclist risk or head injuries; or how passing the tests in any way "certifies" bicyclist protection with "less than serious head injuries, direct impact"; or why a certified helmet is more effective at reducing cyclist risk than a non certified helmet.

I crashed my bike again today. No helmet, didnt get hospitalized, won't be recorded by
statisticians.

Ya mean the bulky and heavy Laser Disk players and disks? The DVD format is better in every way. I have both but only use the Laser Disk player for the few titles that I own but haven't been able to easily find on DVD.

I don't disagree with everything else you said, either. A judge who will not consider studies which run counter to their wishes is a poor, ignorant judge.

What I quoted above, though, is the most important part of your post and something I've advocated for in the past. Show up to public hearings and argue your point. Write to officials. It does not have to be an organization; it could be just individuals. If you feel the need to have an organization, create one and recruit.

Too many times MHLs pass because there is no, zero, none, no-one showing up to oppose them when they have the opportunity to do so.

Which is it, guys...? Can't have it both ways. :innocent:

You read it? Did you check out the Common European standards as well?

Actually, you can. No substantiated reduction in injury that can be accredited to helmet use is very similar to nothing in the certification standard that refers to what effectiveness the certified helmet might have, except of course for the money made by selling the gullible what they don't need. :innocent:

Substantial bicycle helmets have been in use by motorpaced racers for at least 100 years. And relatively light "beanie" motorcycle helmets have been available for many decades as well. IOW, protection has always been available; but few saw the need for it.

Indeed. But in its day, the playback quality of laserdiscs was vastly superior to the predominant VHS format, which was truly craptastic. Even DVDs are a bit of an anachronism these days. Just indulging in a bit of nostalgia, like the pre-BMX bikes in the video with the ape hangers and banana seats.

Huh. Well. If you trust that impact attenuation testing is relevant to potential head injury, then certification indicates some kind of minimum protection standard.

The standard doesn't claim or try to prove that helmets reduce risk. Not the point, not within the scope of the standard, unsure why you bring it up.

The certification indicates that the helmet passed the impact test. Again, assuming as above that the impact test has some relevance to injury mitigation, it offers cyclists some minimum standard of protection in the unlikely event of a crash involving potential bead injury.

"Less than serious head injury..." because I accept findings of studies showing no real change in serious head injury rates where helmets are required; figures indicating that forces which usually result in serious head injury far exceed the minimum standards; but since there are no studies regarding less than serious head injuries, which might include impacts of such force where standards testing indicates effectiveness, there's no indication they don't work to minimum standards.

"...direct impact." because that's the physics of the test.

Non-certified helmets may indeed provide better protection. A motorcycle helmet comes to mind... More to the point, the POC Backcountry MIPS. But the test is a minimum standard, no telling how many helmets far exceed the standards.

I'm more concerned about two other aspects of the CPSC doc:

- Bicycle helmets are defined by how they're marketed. Wuuuuuuuuut?!?

- Manufacturers certify that their helmets meet CSPC requirements. That just doesn't seem right, a stone's throw away from self-policing.

-but-

No mention of abrasion and laceration protective capabilities. Are such protective characteristics attributed to helmets in dispute?

The "problem" here is "minimum" standards, as I see it... JMO. Just because a helmet and helmet standards was/were designed to meed "minimum" standards to keeping heads/brains in working order at say... 20MPH impact (a made up number) ... It doesn't mean it's useless at 20 MPH or less or even a bit faster. So if it's not capable at keeping the brain case/and brain safe above 20 MPH + it doesn't mean the helmet is completely useless for the average bicycler falling and hitting their head on the pavement when they crash... JMO as I see it.

The reason is that you have posted more than once that the reason bicycle helmets make sense for bicycling is because they are "certified" for that activity, while the same helmets do not make sense for other activities such as walking, skiing, ice skating, because they are not "certified" for those activities.

The impact attenuation is the same for all the activities; the "certification" provides no more assurance of risk reduction for bicyclists than it does for any other relatively low speed activity. The bicycle helmet is just as worthwhile, or just as worthless for risk reduction for all these activities.

Pedantry: Ah, but the standard is for helmets marketed as "bicycle helmets." Is there a certification standard for "walking helmets"? It might be exactly the same test, and after looking the impact attenuation test requirements over, they might actually be more appropriate for such a classification.

You can wear a bicycle helmet for any of those other activities, but they are only certified regarding their marketed use, in this case bicycling.

My son just got a $30 ticket for not wearing a helmet and a $100 ticket for no lights... He bought a light, but still won't wear a helmet. :(

Actually, now that I think about it, I've never seen a skateboarder not doing tricks wearing a helmet. This area of town is fairly walkable, plus I'm on campus a lot, so I see a lot of skateboarders (and longboarders) that are mostly just going from place to place. I never thought about it until now... the only time I see lids is when I pass the skatepark.

Same goes for skiing actually, though I've only been a few times. Unless it was a particularly difficult slope (I'd imagine... never been on one myself :p), I didn't see any helmets. Only a lot of stocking caps.

I don't know if that really means anything, but it just crossed my mind and I thought it was interesting.

I've seen mental patients wearing a bicycle helmet walking around due to something is wrong with the skull and could kill them should something hit them.

Here are the things that have gotten me to my seventh decade of relying on a bicycle as my primary means of transportation:

• Be predictable. Follow the rules of the road. Hold a steady line. Position yourself according to destination at intersections. Communicate your intentions to other drivers.
• Be visible. Not just passive visibility (lights/reflectors/hi-viz clothing/etc.) but also active visibility, positioning yourself on the road so that you appear on other drivers’ radar. Be where they’re looking.
• Be vigilant. Leave the earbuds at home and use all your senses to continuously keep track of what’s going on around you in all directions. A cyclist has too much skin in the game to be an obliviot.
• Be defensive. Assume other drivers won’t do what they SHOULD do but will do what they COULD do, and know what your evasive action is before you need it. Allow some space between you and the edge of the road. Expect the doors of parked cars to open. Accept 100% ownership for your own survival, no matter who screws up.
• Be courteous. Take the lane when safety demands, but don’t be a self-centered ass about it when it doesn’t.

Wear the Styrofoam hat if it if you must. But just remember that the most important piece of safety gear you own is the one you carry around between your ears.

Welcome.

Ride a lot. In all conditions. Experienced riders are safer riders.

350htrr

See-------------it is just as I said. B'crats dont give a damn about safety they just pass ignorant MHLs to collect money for them to blow.

With all these posts pro and con, the simple fact remains---------If a helmet prevents even the slightest injury it is a good thing. It is really kind of dumb to argue against that fact.

Yep. Helmets for everyone, 24/7. It's only sensible.

Of course, "it is a good thing":rolleyes:! "There is always the slightest possibility that such action might prevent the slightest injury", sometime, somewhere; maybe.

I've got a choice to wear a tight short brim Cinelli hat or my helmet. I'm riding through a congested city area then out to some nice country roads. I like the hat and the helmet doesn't hinder my riding. I'm one who's benefited from a helmet, backpack, long pants accident in a comute situation. Sometimes I'm more worried about losing skin then breaking a skull.

Yea, This particular tax collector with a gun didn't like my sons "attitude" about the $30 non-helmet ticket and told him he was being "difficult", so then she proceeded to give him the $100 no-light ticket... It seems that being pro non-helmet can have a price other than a lump on the head or other hurts... :innocent: