Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: 1972 Legnano in the news
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 21:11:14 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vgrp45$l9ej$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vgmf32$3ebok$1@dont-email.me> <vgmka9$3f32b$4@dont-email.me>
 <vgo1a0$3rpj5$1@dont-email.me> <8ncvijlu04i6u3ujr5454a6t4sciab6pud@4ax.com>
 <vgojai$3vdgi$1@dont-email.me> <vgp7fl$2sh5$3@dont-email.me>
 <3ic1jj5bsevrg3g4h2njh7vn762hecp5oe@4ax.com>
 <lpbvipFife8U1@mid.individual.net>
 <23n1jjlkers8u81m92t7d7vt8dtq07q2qh@4ax.com>
 <lpc6s5Fjhc2U2@mid.individual.net>
Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 03:11:17 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="89c1a79f3ee136a9758944583878ccfe";
	logging-data="697811"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+VdBQf9MRHXI6nvyRyLAX50Ag1V1geL/E="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cUIa7TDKqwZGHfND6dbpz86/t/o=
In-Reply-To: <lpc6s5Fjhc2U2@mid.individual.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3435

On 11/10/2024 11:55 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> 
>> To argue against mandatory helmet laws is one thing, but to argue
>> against someone choosing to wear one is stupid and ugly.

Because it's blasphemy to question the helmet religion?

Because no one should ever examine all the relevant data?

Because you, personally, believe parents should not have the right to 
make this decision regarding their own children? That is what you said.

> As helmets seem to at a population level be statistically insignificant in
> that no effect can be found at population levels.

Absolutely true. Almost all bike helmet propaganda is based on 
dishonestly labeled "case-control" studies - dishonest because there's 
been solid evidence that the two groups being compared typically varied 
in many more ways than helmet use. The most famous example being the 
1989 study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, in which helmets had been 
worn by over 20% of the kids brought to hospitals for bike crashes. That 
was at a time when street surveys by the same team found only 3% of kids 
were wearing helmets. So helmeted kids were FAR more likely to be 
brought in. We could discuss likely reasons why - if this were a more 
rational group.

When data (mostly time series data) is examined for entire populations 
of cyclists, helmet benefits vanish. In fact, as bike helmets became 
more common over the years, bicyclist concussions increased, not decreased.

But to me, the biggest fallacy is pretending that the rate of bicycling 
brain injury is so extreme that helmets should be recommended, let alone 
mandated. There's been propaganda like "You could fall over in your 
driveway and die," which is exactly as true as "You could fall while 
walking in your home and die." Except that the latter happens far, far 
more often than the former. Ditto for fatal brain injuries inside cars. 
Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.

-- 
- Frank Krygowski