CPSC/Safety Test Statistics - Where? - Page 4 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

08-24-2004, 02:21 PM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>
> Your spelling indicates you may be east of the Atlantic. If so, I
> believe the corresponding magazine is "Which?" but I don't know if
> they've done such a test.
>
> If they have, I hope they haven't been as credulous as Consumer Reports.
> While skeptical of the need for things like extended warranties and
> trash compactors, CR has been yet another source of tales like "Little
> Johnny toppled off his bike. If not for his helmet, he might have
> died!!!"
>
>

Frank, thank you. Have always been wary of consumer reports in general
but I'll take another look at these. Much appreciated.

Glm

08-24-2004, 02:21 PM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>
> Your spelling indicates you may be east of the Atlantic. If so, I
> believe the corresponding magazine is "Which?" but I don't know if
> they've done such a test.
>
> If they have, I hope they haven't been as credulous as Consumer Reports.
> While skeptical of the need for things like extended warranties and
> trash compactors, CR has been yet another source of tales like "Little
> Johnny toppled off his bike. If not for his helmet, he might have
> died!!!"
>
>

Frank, thank you. Have always been wary of consumer reports in general
but I'll take another look at these. Much appreciated.

Glm

08-24-2004, 02:21 PM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>
> Your spelling indicates you may be east of the Atlantic. If so, I
> believe the corresponding magazine is "Which?" but I don't know if
> they've done such a test.
>
> If they have, I hope they haven't been as credulous as Consumer Reports.
> While skeptical of the need for things like extended warranties and
> trash compactors, CR has been yet another source of tales like "Little
> Johnny toppled off his bike. If not for his helmet, he might have
> died!!!"
>
>

Frank, thank you. Have always been wary of consumer reports in general
but I'll take another look at these. Much appreciated.

Glm

08-25-2004, 03:15 AM

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:45:34 GMT, Glm <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more
or less):

>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:10:56 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.ne t> wrote:
>
>>
>> For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
>> the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
>> bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
>> made of strips of padded leather.
>>
>
>Thank you for the response.
>
>Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
>death from such accidents.

True, but then again people die putting on their socks or using
stairs. I don't think there'll ever be a major push for safety
helmets for these activities. Then again, I've been surprised before!

>Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
>as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.
>
>In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
>silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
>be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.
>
>My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
>evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
>ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.
>
>Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Symbian/Epoc wiki: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-25-2004, 03:15 AM

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:45:34 GMT, Glm <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more
or less):

>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:10:56 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.ne t> wrote:
>
>>
>> For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
>> the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
>> bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
>> made of strips of padded leather.
>>
>
>Thank you for the response.
>
>Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
>death from such accidents.

True, but then again people die putting on their socks or using
stairs. I don't think there'll ever be a major push for safety
helmets for these activities. Then again, I've been surprised before!

>Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
>as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.
>
>In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
>silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
>be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.
>
>My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
>evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
>ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.
>
>Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Symbian/Epoc wiki: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-25-2004, 03:15 AM

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:45:34 GMT, Glm <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more
or less):

>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:10:56 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.ne t> wrote:
>
>>
>> For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
>> the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
>> bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
>> made of strips of padded leather.
>>
>
>Thank you for the response.
>
>Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
>death from such accidents.

True, but then again people die putting on their socks or using
stairs. I don't think there'll ever be a major push for safety
helmets for these activities. Then again, I've been surprised before!

>Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
>as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.
>
>In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
>silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
>be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.
>
>My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
>evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
>ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.
>
>Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Symbian/Epoc wiki: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-25-2004, 03:15 AM

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:45:34 GMT, Glm <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote (more
or less):

>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:10:56 GMT, Gawnsoft
><[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.ne t> wrote:
>
>>
>> For cycle lane travel, where, as you point out, the worst injury to
>> the head is a minor (i.e. shallow) cut (albeit one that looks very
>> bloody), why not try a woolly cap. Or one of the 70's bike helmets
>> made of strips of padded leather.
>>
>
>Thank you for the response.
>
>Not sure that I'd agree that "shallow" always applies: am aware of one
>death from such accidents.

True, but then again people die putting on their socks or using
stairs. I don't think there'll ever be a major push for safety
helmets for these activities. Then again, I've been surprised before!

>Agree, however, that it's not quite as serious
>as being mangled by an 18-wheel truck.
>
>In fact, I am quite happy to wear a helmet: I don't think it makes me
>silly (sic); and if I did I wouldn't care; likewise, I don't tfind them to
>be a major discomfort or inconvenienece.
>
>My challenge seems to be finding some objective, reasonably scientific
>evidence (such as deceleration rates) that show what's good, bad and
>ugly). Have trawled the web, to no avail.
>
>Any thoughts in this regard would be appreciated.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Symbian/Epoc wiki: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

08-25-2004, 06:31 AM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:15:37 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.net > wrote:

>
> True, but then again people die putting on their socks [snip]
>

Quite.

However, at this point all I'm looking for is data regarding the relative
levels of protection offered by bicycle helmets. 'Consumer Reports' has
been suggested; and it seems that Specialized is preferred by the
gentleman who conducts testing in the UK.

If anyone knows of any other sources of information I'd be most grateful
(as, I am sure, would others).

08-25-2004, 06:31 AM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:15:37 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.net > wrote:

>
> True, but then again people die putting on their socks [snip]
>

Quite.

However, at this point all I'm looking for is data regarding the relative
levels of protection offered by bicycle helmets. 'Consumer Reports' has
been suggested; and it seems that Specialized is preferred by the
gentleman who conducts testing in the UK.

If anyone knows of any other sources of information I'd be most grateful
(as, I am sure, would others).

08-25-2004, 06:31 AM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:15:37 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.net > wrote:

>
> True, but then again people die putting on their socks [snip]
>

Quite.

However, at this point all I'm looking for is data regarding the relative
levels of protection offered by bicycle helmets. 'Consumer Reports' has
been suggested; and it seems that Specialized is preferred by the
gentleman who conducts testing in the UK.

If anyone knows of any other sources of information I'd be most grateful
(as, I am sure, would others).