Bontrager claims WaveCel helmets set new standards in safety

Freddy56 wrote:

Laughing at the Flat earther saying helmets dont work!

Assuming that you're new to the GHD, not just a troll, take a look at cyclehelmets.org

Then you can tell us that the Earth is flat.

burtthebike wrote:

Freddy56 wrote:

Laughing at the Flat earther saying helmets dont work!

Assuming that you're new to the GHD, not just a troll, take a look at cyclehelmets.org

Then you can tell us that the Earth is flat.

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Also, quoting population statistics all you like isn't going to make any difference to whether someone wears a helmet or not, they want to know if their brain is better off if they hit a car or the road with or without one on.  The theory on the site as to whether helmets help/do not help in crashes refers to EPS liners and their inability to deform on impact, which is irrelevant in this case as the Bontrager helmets don't use EPS.

Population statistics are in fact interesting and thought provoking but there is a word for focussing on some evidence and ignoring or dismissing other evidence.  I'm sure you know what the word is!

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

Quote:

...

Population statistics are in fact interesting and thought provoking but there is a word for focussing on some evidence and ignoring or dismissing other evidence.  I'm sure you know what the word is!

"Pro-helmet", I think  

brooksby wrote:

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

As a start, their 'Helmet saved my life' page has a number of partial facts, inferences, whataboutery and even down-right wrong statements. There's some useful stuff on there, as always, but it's hardly what one might call 'neutral'.

Edit : I've not an axe to grind one way or another, and don't want to get dragged into yet another slanging match with folk with entrenched positions - I just have a thing for using data and science in general in an unbiased fashion, it's often enlightening and not what you think you want or expect; i've had that when I was in research and outside and makes for an easier, and often more illuminating, life.

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

As a start, their 'Helmet saved my life' page has a number of partial facts, inferences, whataboutery and even down-right wrong statements. There's some useful stuff on there, as always, but it's hardly what one might call 'neutral'.

 

Edit : I've not an axe to grind one way or another, and don't want to get dragged into yet another slanging match with folk with entrenched positions - I just have a thing for using data and science in general in an unbiased fashion, it's often enlightening and not what you think you want or expect; i've had that when I was in research and outside and makes for an easier, and often more illuminating, life.

So no actual examples, just your opinion?

And you've no axe to grind but you are happy to accept the evidence of one side, but not the other?

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

As a start, their 'Helmet saved my life' page has a number of partial facts, inferences, whataboutery and even down-right wrong statements. There's some useful stuff on there, as always, but it's hardly what one might call 'neutral'.

 

Edit : I've not an axe to grind one way or another, and don't want to get dragged into yet another slanging match with folk with entrenched positions - I just have a thing for using data and science in general in an unbiased fashion, it's often enlightening and not what you think you want or expect; i've had that when I was in research and outside and makes for an easier, and often more illuminating, life.

So no actual examples, just your opinion?

And you've no axe to grind but you are happy to accept the evidence of one side, but not the other?

I gave you an example from the site - go and read and digest that page, and then in a first instance you decide whether you believe it to be entirely factual - in particular in light of this article and related subjects. The wording, in context, regarding the childrens helmet paper is also interesting.

I accept data from all sides, and there is some useful data on that site as i've already said. My opinion, and it is that, is that the manner of it's presentation is not without a certain bent. I've said as much about publications that, in my opinion, have a contrary bias e.g. a number of recent papers regarding the accident statistics in Australia.

fukawitribe wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

brooksby wrote:

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

As a start, their 'Helmet saved my life' page has a number of partial facts, inferences, whataboutery and even down-right wrong statements. There's some useful stuff on there, as always, but it's hardly what one might call 'neutral'.

 

Edit : I've not an axe to grind one way or another, and don't want to get dragged into yet another slanging match with folk with entrenched positions - I just have a thing for using data and science in general in an unbiased fashion, it's often enlightening and not what you think you want or expect; i've had that when I was in research and outside and makes for an easier, and often more illuminating, life.

So no actual examples, just your opinion?

And you've no axe to grind but you are happy to accept the evidence of one side, but not the other?

I gave you an example from the site - go and read and digest that page, and then in a first instance you decide whether you believe it to be entirely factual - in particular in light of this article and related subjects. The wording, in context, regarding the childrens helmet paper is also interesting.

 

I accept data from all sides, and there is some useful data on that site as i've already said. My opinion, and it is that, is that the manner of it's presentation is not without a certain bent. I've said as much about publications that, in my opinion, have a contrary bias e.g. a number of recent papers regarding the accident statistics in Australia.

You gave no example of any factual error and still haven't, just your opinion.

burtthebike wrote:

You gave no example of any factual error and still haven't, just your opinion.

I asked you to go to that page and see what you thought, and said that this article was relevent - you either haven't, or you have and haven't seen any errors, i'm interested in which.

Here's a quote from that page 

Quote:

Current cycle helmets are not designed to mitigate rotational forces and therefore offer very little protection against most life-threatening injuries

brooksby wrote:

abrooks wrote:

I went to that site and it is clearly written by someone with a bias against helmets.  I can give you an example if you like.  

Please do 

Quote:

...

Population statistics are in fact interesting and thought provoking but there is a word for focussing on some evidence and ignoring or dismissing other evidence.  I'm sure you know what the word is!

"Pro-helmet", I think  

I think we can all agree that the 'evidence' on both sided is fourth rate at best.  My only strong conviction, give that fact, is that helmets should be optional.  I do wear one though.

Rich_cb wrote:

'Helmet manufacturers never make safety claims because helmets don't work' Helmet manufacturer makes an explicit safety claim. 'Thats not a safety claim!'

Well, it's a claim, I'll give you that, but like the previous claims of 85% reduction in deaths to cyclists claimed by helmet proponents previously, it has yet to be proved in practice.  All previous claims of massive reductions in deaths and injuries to cyclists made for helmets have proved to be false, so should we be just a little sceptical when more such claims are made?

burtthebike wrote:

Well, it's a claim, I'll give you that, but like the previous claims of 85% reduction in deaths to cyclists claimed by helmet proponents previously, it has yet to be proved in practice.  All previous claims of massive reductions in deaths and injuries to cyclists made for helmets have proved to be false, so should we be just a little sceptical when more such claims are made?

So repeated false claims should lead us to greater scepticism of all future claims...

A very interesting suggestion Burt.

burtthebike wrote:

Very clever.  Will it stop drivers knocking us off?

No, it's a helmet. I was equally disappointed in the '70s when my Rector Protectors didn't stop me coming off my 'board.

Joe Totale wrote:

What kind of impact does this wavecel layer have on ventilation? 

I sweat a lot and anything that prohibits ventilation would make this helmet too uncomfortable for myself. 

Dunno, but it looks a hell of a lot airier than Koroyd - guess we'll find out when it's reviewed...

longassballs wrote:

So is this Trek's "Cycling's most important change in 30 years" that's supposed to come out on the 20th?

Not unless the most important change in 30 years is 'announcing things a day early'.

simonmb wrote:

longassballs wrote:

So is this Trek's "Cycling's most important change in 30 years" that's supposed to come out on the 20th?

Not unless the most important change in 30 years is 'announcing things a day early'.

Bizzarely it appears to be exactly that