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 21:23:08 -0400
Organization: None of the above
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <87y0womxz7.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>
	<87iknsq422.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:23:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6b6f773a5d7b2a3c57c34c9935c8a8b1";
	logging-data="29897"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yYZ78Q7Bk7rpKmONFBoV5my322KPxLP8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ajmhYIdg08q0DApmuEEb5XqrRYU=
	sha1:7J/PSiMiwaCrREnx75mVJ8ES9bQ=
Bytes: 8143

Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> writes:

> 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,

Of course, I meant to write "Dr. Shadow", would have elevated the whole post.

> 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.

--