Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:46:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 158
Message-ID: <kqobuj5ph0bmd2rigeucernvq391pklnki@4ax.com>
References: <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> <vs3f94$44vf$2@dont-email.me> <vs410a$nm05$1@dont-email.me> <vs4bk1$vujl$1@dont-email.me> <vs4msg$19l8m$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:46:51 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4343279e825db02f553d8274879fd9ef";
	logging-data="1471238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+pTyQDIo82K5a+wVC64WyRjnu8uc4MkTg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dcCPiT+ieyy/NkEz8MdTdPdvV5c=
Bytes: 8773

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:27:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/27/2025 4:14 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/27/2025 1:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2025 8:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2025 11:28 PM, Frank Krygowski 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."
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I am.
>>>>> The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted.
>>>>
>>>> So you're saying helmets are promoted as preventing serious head 
>>>> trauma, yet your only "evidence" is:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Yet there is no published literature from any manufacturer or 
>>>> advocacy group which supports your claim 'thats how helmets are 
>>>> promoted'. an AI answer does not qualify as marketing literature.
>>>
>>> I don't have a stock of marketing literature, but I suppose we can 
>>> both search online. There's this: https://sonomasaferoutes.org/sites/ 
>>> default/ files/lesson_7.pdf  that states "Why Are Helmets Important? 
>>> (10 minutes)
>>> • Ask students to articulate why wearing helmets is important (because 
>>> they protect against brain injury, disability, and death). Share that 
>>> helmet use has been estimated to reduce brain injury risk by 85 percent."
>> 
>> OK, you came up with one source - I'll give you that.
>
>It used to be very common. It's less common now, probably because of this:
>
>"Government agencies drop 85% helmet benefit claim
>
>"US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
>(NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have decided that they 
>can no longer justify citing the claim that bicycle helmets reduce the 
>risk of head injury by 85%. No subsequent research has ever found a 
>benefit anywhere near as great.
>
>"The agencies had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why 
>they still continued to cite the earlier estimate, which is often seized 
>upon to exaggerate the potential benefits of helmets and to support 
>helmet laws" That's from https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=103
>
>> We can have a semantic discussion over "protect against" vs "prevents". 
>> My view is "prevents" is absolute, "Protects against" is not and is more 
>> in line with "_can_ reduce severity". Your interpretation will likely vary.
>
>Humpty Dumpty: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean..."
>> 
>> WRT the 85%, again, this is the first I've heard of anyone promoting 
>> that. They shouldn't be doing it.
>
>Agreed, and they never should have done it. It was on a par with "A 
>daily tablespoon of our special vinegar can help you lose up to 85 
>pounds in a year!!"
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't. I wrote 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."
>>>
>>> I don't see you've linked any studies that specifically address the 
>>> lever arm! 
>> 
>> And you wont. Who would volunteer as a test subject?
>> 
>>> And I'll note a parallel between your previous objection on a related 
>>> issue, and my statement:
>>>
>>> You put high value on the word "can" by saying "... They _can_ reduce 
>>> severity..." to excuse the countless times they do not. Yet you're 
>>> ignoring my statement where I'll emphasize: "... a longer lever arm 
>>> and thus CAN cause more injury."
>> 
>> Nope, that's a false equivalence. "can reduce severity" is supported by 
>> data, 'longer lever arm" is not.
>
>"Longer lever arm" is supported by things like a ruler! It's a 
>measurement of distance. And while I'm speculating a bit on details of 
>the mechanism (using rather straightforward physics), an increase in 
>concussions as bike helmet use increased _is_ supported by data.
>
>>>> More people wearing cycling helmets means less fatal head trauma. The 
>>>> result is more _non_ fatal head trauma.
>>>
>>> Look at the numbers, please. They're comparing 1997 to 2011 (in the 
>>> same old universe!).  Wiki says 1997 had 814 bike fatalities. 2011 had 
>>> 682 (one of the lowest counts ever).  That difference of 132 can't 
>>> possibly be enough to explain this: “Between 1997 and 2011 the number 
>>> of bike- related concussions suffered annually by American riders 
>>> increased by 67%, from 9,327 to 15,546”? 
>> 
>> 
>>> You've got at least 6000 concussions you haven't explained.
>> 
>> Sure I have. They were wearing helmets. If they weren't there be be a 
>> lot more deaths from head trauma.
>
>You can't pretend that 6000 potential deaths were converted to 
>concussions unless you had more than 6000 deaths to begin with. During 
>the time period cited (and since) there have never been close to 6000 
>annual cyclist deaths. Annually, they have sometimes risen, sometimes 
>fallen, despite the ever increasing popularity of bike helmets.
>
>But concussions have consistently risen. Your excuse for that is not at 
>all plausible.

--
"when will they ever learn?"
--Pete Seeger