Cyclismas interview Afterword
You can read the entire Bikezilla wrap up to our interview (part 1 and part 2) here. But I wanted to follow up on a few of the comments that he makes.
It’s clear from his summary that he is approaching this entire topic from the point of view that, not only are current generation bicycle helmets not safe enough, but that they are indeed actually unsafe:
I do not mean to say – not in any way or to any extent – that helmet manufacturers intentionally make unsafe helmets. But, I do mean that they are ready and willing to settle for “safe enough” while using the known-to-be-inadequate legal testing standard as a shield and a convenience.
…
Chris and the guys at Lazer, POC and other helmet companies are not evil people. They don’t want you to have unsafe helmets just so they can line their pockets with fat stacks of your cash.
Bikezilla complains that…
is it a cop-out when a company builds helmets within the current – and admittedly inadequate – legal testing standards, and falls back on the argument of ‘lack of empirical data’ as a reason for continuing to make helmets without faired or recessed vents; or with more and larger vents even though it means that smaller sections of harder foam crush against a rider’s skull in the event of a crash; with a visor; or to justify the “aero tail” for purely recreational riders when it gives no clear benefit but may in fact increase the chance for a rotational brain injury?
and yet provides no data, nor a link to any data that might show that current generation bicycle helmet design is as inadequate as his theory postulates.
As I stated during the course of our interview Lazer helmets, as I believe is the standard in the bicycle industry, pass the current legal testing standard by at least a factor of two. Is the current legal testing standard adequate in my personal opinion? No. But our helmets, and the helmets of our smart competitors, more than exceed this testing standard. Maybe Lazer should invent its own special testing standard that our helmets would pass, but is this really going to mean anything to the consumer? I’m not so sure it would. More likely it would appear to be some kind of BS marketing scheme.
The claim of not knowing or being able to tell if certain features, like faired vents, recessed vents, rounded vent opening edges, or lack of an aero-tail are truly safer or not because of a lack of empirical data and lack of testing standards, on the one hand is true and practical, but on the other is disingenuous. They’d have that empirical data if they gathered it.
The reality is that helmets with these features are already on the market and available for consumers to purchase.
Are you a triathlete looking for a performance helmet but have a concern that an aero-tail helmet may not be safe?
Here you go.
Are you a road cyclist looking for a helmet with more foam around your head to provide as much protection as possible?
How about this? Not good enough?
Hey, try this one.
Recessed vents? Rounded vents? No aero features of any kind?
or 
All of these are Lazer products, currently on the market and ready for consumers to purchase. Yes, we market these helmets to a specific cycling industry segment, but a consumer that is truly concerned with helmet safety and finds the features of the above shown helmets appealing can easily obtain one. Many of our competitors in the helmet business are offering similar products.
Competitive cyclists are looking for performance and safety. Recreational riders are looking for comfort and safety. Urban cyclists are looking for style and safety. Each of these consumers are using their own personal judgment to decide which way to balance the scale to achieve their goal in regards to helmet choice.
But to approach this discussion from the point of view that “helmet manufacturers are negligent” and that the current generation of helmets are “unsafe”? I don’t buy it. As a matter of fact I would be confident in stating that the current generation of bicycle helmets available to consumers today are safer than any generation preceding it. Is Lazer satisfied? Of course not. Are our competitors satisfied? I doubt it. Research and development continues to move forward in regards to helmet safety and as new technology is available and deemed valuable for use in the helmet market you can be sure it will be deployed.
In other words, even if you do get off your ass and direct your needs, desires and complaints to the guy or the place where it matters – or should matter – you’ll get brushed off. Why? Because companies like Lazer don’t really give a damn about what you want? They only care about focusing on selling you what they want to sell you? When it comes right down to it, that’s really how it seems to be.
In 2011 Lazer offered 26 models of helmets in 8 categories. We’re adding even more helmets to the line up for 2012. Does that sound like a company that does not give a damn what you want? Maybe if we were offering something like, say, one helmet model you could get away with a statement like that. And as far as a brush off, between the Twitter replies, the Skype interview and this post you are reading probably the longest brush off in recorded history.
So contact the manufacturer of your favorite helmets and express your opinions. Then get your friends to do the same. And have them get their friends involved. And so on.
Indeed. Please do not hesitate to let me know what you think. If I get enough requests for a product or a feature that is not already available in some form in our product line you can be certain that I will forward the request to our helmet designers.
Until then, wear your helmet and USE YOUR HEAD!
Christopher T. Smith
Lazer Sport NV
