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 16:17:04 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <nfcbuj5rg5ocei3hdcllb6spjbcbk497hd@4ax.com>
References: <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> <vs3f94$44vf$2@dont-email.me> <vs410a$nm05$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:17:05 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="58caf3e4b8d11d4419dbe840d7a7b255";
	logging-data="1081171"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Bpd28IXWM2edFK/keKGWvMFnHbCT8jFo="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Ej6eLqs1sb/28RSy8M7NLBwcyQ=
Bytes: 7956

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:13:45 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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."
>
>So "they protect against brain injury, disability, and death" (with the 
>never corroborated "85%" that's been disallowed in U.S. government 
>publications). Perhaps you'll now say "That's not _exactly_ the same 
>wording?"
>
>>>>>>> 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 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."
>
>We're both discussing possibilities, not definite 100% effects, aren't we?
>
>
>> 
>>>  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 terms of physics it's a logical path, but you have to purposely 
>> ignore that are no studies done which show the added leverage of the 
>> helmet causes more injuries than an beare head,...
>
>Of course there are no studies on that detailed point. How on earth 
>would such a study be done? By testing a helmet with and without a 
>radius larger than a bare head?
>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 
>> wow...ok, first off, you're again stuck in the past. All three of those 
>> are over 11 years old. 
>
>It's still the same universe, Zen.
>
>Secondly, you missed one important statistic, as
>> stated in 
>> 
>> "Traffic-related bike fatalities decreased despite the sharp increase of 
>> cyclists on the road.....Fatalities were down, but brain injuries were up".
>> 
>> 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.


Nobody cares, Krygowki.

--
"Let it be"
--Paul McCartney