| They're all separate issues unless you want better outcomes from helmets in crashes. In that case, any one particular issue could change a bit and there are better odds that you'd see things start moving in the right direction. The existence of private safety standards doesn't mean that you're somehow exempt from the Federal ones. "There are safety standards for most types of helmets. Bicycle and motorcycle helmets must comply with mandatory federal safety standards." http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Safety-Education/Safety-Guides/Sports... I think it's a complicated issue and that there are a number of factors whose confluence is very unfortunate for cycling helmets at the current time. I do agree that this isn't the issue of our time or something that has great influence on the nation. But I tend to get very disappointed when there are federal regulations that are well-intended but end up giving people a false sense of security. From the Bicycling Magazine article: "Thompson sees his challenge as story and price. He has to convince customers that a MIPS-equipped helmet is safer, despite the fact that all helmets pass the same safety test. "If the customer can't digest that message," he says, "you're adding a system that nobody will care about."" http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html "Most helmet designers and marketers are avid cyclists. The entry hall at the Dome is jammed with staffers' bikes. They value their brains and those of their customers. But their customers—from top pros to weekenders—haven't been clamoring for safer helmets, and the unchanging CPSC standards helped to ensure they were never offered one. And the industry's independent safety experts have for years insisted that no helmet can reduce concussion risk. Repeated often enough, that becomes accepted wisdom. When the MIPS system appeared, those experts dismissed it. "That's not doing anything except taking up space," Dave Halstead told me. "It's a wonderful solution for a problem that does not exist." Randy Swart, the ASTM helmet subcommittee's co-vice chairman, said he found the MIPS data "just not compelling." He called MIPS "an unproven technology. I think it just adds complexity—and could add to the thickness of the helmets." In some cases, these assumptions were not true. The MIPS system doesn't make helmets larger or heavier. The idea that the only safer helmet is a bigger helmet has been accepted for so long that it's become an ingrained assumption." |