Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:43:33 -0400
Organization: None of the above
Lines: 131
Message-ID: <87iknsq422.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
References: <vrskop$1qlue$1@dont-email.me> <vrt0d6$24h8c$2@dont-email.me>
	<2fp4uj55n6mfnmn75jk6ocvuuivrkno6em@4ax.com>
	<vruduc$3fet8$4@dont-email.me> <vruh2i$3i4m5$1@dont-email.me>
	<t2k5ujpftk2qp2f8jdn4tsa94fsbmu5c5m@4ax.com>
	<vruk1u$3k0mh$2@dont-email.me>
	<dtl5ujhl59hpq12lnbovebk80os181ulgo@4ax.com>
	<3SEEP.1067220$eNx6.591931@fx14.iad> <vrvog0$j8eo$6@dont-email.me>
	<vs1280$1ri3r$2@dont-email.me> <vs17id$21gj2$1@dont-email.me>
	<vs1m78$26rhi$2@dont-email.me> <vs2glq$35mlr$2@dont-email.me>
	<b5t9ujtrk4ph0rcl8stghedkbcmv2ho64q@4ax.com>
	<vs3uvg$la27$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:43:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5552a67e467d22573845bbdca0ba835b";
	logging-data="3692591"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+58qY64BewDeBBdlRZbi5gZ0r/eZ2oiUA="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VIU7aLjze8pfCrw7c6bpmAYP36A=
	sha1:1MUrAFg4VxvZTr4LAak18qSwZX4=
Bytes: 7823

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:

> On 3/27/2025 2:57 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:28:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
>>>>>>> people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
>>>>>> claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.
>>>>>
>>>>> WHAT???
>>>>
>>>> No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets _prevent_
>>>> serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent it.
>>>
>>> Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
>>> prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
>>> The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted. Try
>>> googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After reading
>>> AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
>>>
>>> And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out of
>>> ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a helmet
>>> would have done what was asked.
>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
>>>>>>> that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be
>>>>>>> over represented in concussion counts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
>>>>>>> (essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
>>>>>>> impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a
>>>>>>> problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain
>>>>>>> caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet
>>>>>>> protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a longer lever
>>>>>>> arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening rotational
>>>>>>> acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose
>>>>>>> scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The
>>>>>>> helmet makes those ineffective.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.
>>>>>
>>>>> What part did you not understand?
>>>>
>>>> I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
>>>> support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause
>>>> more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite.
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
>>> can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows. A
>>> helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
>>> glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius on a
>>> bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses must be
>>> converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
>>>
>>> In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
>>> rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
>>> factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
>>>
>>> See
>>> https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-rise-among-cyclists/
>>>
>>> https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against-concussions/
>>>
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion-risk-scientists-say-1.1367454
>> Before you get up to full speed you might want yo to read
>> https://www.cdc.gov/heads-up/safety/index.html
>> Which says,in part, "There is no concussion-proof helmet"
>> Referring, apparently to
>>   Baseball Helmet -
>>      Batters Helmet
>>      Catchers Helmet
>>      Hockey Helmet
>>      Hockey Goalie Helmet
>>      Bike Helmet
>>      Equestrian Helmet
>>      Football Helmet
>>      Lacrosse Helmet
>>      Skateboard Helmet
>>      Ski Helmet
>>      Snowboard Helmet
>
> Right. Obviously, any helmet is designed to (hopefully) protect
> against impacts of certain type, at a certain intensity. And
> obviously, it's possible for impacts to be more severe.
>
> Bike helmets come with internal stickers saying something like "No
> helmet can protect against all impacts." But the issue I'm raising is
> that helmets are portrayed as greatly reducing brain injury, which
> should include concussion, the most common brain injury. But national
> records of bicyclist concussions show they have risen dramatically,
> not fallen, as bike helmets have become ever more common.
>
> Flu vaccinations get developed based on predictions of upcoming virus
> characteristics. And they are evaluated by after-the-fact reports on
> effectiveness, by counts of flu cases and severity in the general
> population: How much did this year's vaccine reduce flu infections?
> Sometimes the vaccine works really well, sometimes less well.
>
> If that same sort of general population evaluation was applied to bike
> helmets, the conclusion would be "Yeah, our initial tests looked good,
> but they failed in the general population."

I doubt you have looked into flu shots with the same energy you have
bike helmets.  Flu shots are a moneymaker, and are promoted every year
regardless of how well they have done.  This is not to say anything
positive or negative about their efficacy, just that it's not relevant
to the decision on whether to promote them.  Same as bike helmets

You're an odd case.  Most people who begin to doubt the party line on
one issue begin to see parallels with other issues, and their doubts
multiply.  Bike helmets don't work?  Maybe flu vaccines don't either.
Maybe statins are actually bad for you.  Maybe, as Mr. Shadow tells us,
US standards for blood pressure are counter-productive.  Maybe even
those studies on second hand smoke were nonsense.  Who knows where it
will stop?  Maybe eating saturated animal fat is actually *good* for us.

Of course, it's wise not to mention too many heterdox opinions in any
one setting, lest decent people decide you're entirely crazy.  But you
seem quite uncalculating -- It's just bike helmets that are an
unaccountable failure in public health policy, on everything else we
should obey authority.

--