Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 15:32:27 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 193
Message-ID: <vs1kob$26rhh$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vrru3v$152e3$3@dont-email.me> <B0kEP.112929$Xq5f.111799@fx38.iad>
 <f9k3ujl9ev5nopn2f329cuesca36o9c7j0@4ax.com> <vrskop$1qlue$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrt0d6$24h8c$2@dont-email.me> <m4f68uFpiqsU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ogu4ujpkvk3ck8tojoh6fkq5tbmkmh1oor@4ax.com> <vru3fn$31kv7$1@dont-email.me>
 <4s45uj1f7a09kdh5cuau8e2k37snjcm2g5@4ax.com> <vrudkh$3fet8$3@dont-email.me>
 <vruj8u$3i4m6$3@dont-email.me> <vrvmhi$j8eo$3@dont-email.me>
 <vs0m66$1h7oe$2@dont-email.me> <vs18m6$21gj2$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:32:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4a40d1b1dab3aa63b9be56abeceb2612";
	logging-data="2321969"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX180/e9CdZGkxvQSmlgk27MjzQL8WJizM6E="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GTQrh88IyfSa6hs6D8DniyCUmdI=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vs18m6$21gj2$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9806

On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/26/2025 6:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:
>> On 3/25/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest 
>>>>> fear mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is 
>>>>> huge, far worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data 
>>>>> showing that's false.
>>>>
>>>> There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that 
>>>> doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head 
>>>> hits the asphalt.
>>>
>>> Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've 
>>> had friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) 
>>> and when doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
>>
>> so, because people don't wear walking helmets, they shouldn't wear 
>> cycling helmets....got it.
> 
> If activity A causes more TBI deaths than activity B - whether measured 
> in total (i.e. "cost to society") or, say, in lifetime odds of death (as 
> in "odds of dying by...") or in, say, number of deaths per mile (for 
> transportation modes) - then why should activity B get subjected to 
> helmet nagging when activity A does not?

Yup, so you're following Johns argument about why we should ignore mass 
shootings with assault rifles....got it.

> 
> On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You 
> obviously don't believe that, 

I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.

> but that just means you have more reading 
> to do.
Since that's a conclusion to a strawman argument, I'll suggest you have 
read any studies on helmet efficacy since the millennium, and maybe you 
should catch up.

>>>> I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public 
>>>> roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a 
>>>> casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much 
>>>> of an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as 
>>>> recently as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out 
>>>> on the road or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always 
>>>> wear one.
>>>
>>> Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, 
>>> gloves, jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of 
>>> any of that kit.
>>>
>>> But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists 
>>> wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false 
>>> propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat 
>>> became part of the costume.
>>
>> And you're ignoring "All of which would have required trips to the ER 
>> for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one", 
>> for which there is scant data from the 1980s.
> 
> Yes, stitches are regrettable. But stitches on the head are no more 
> serious than stitches on the elbow or knee. Yet I see very few articles 
> of any type calling for elbow and knee protectors for all bike rides.
> 
> What we get instead are tales saying "I got a cut on my head! I was 
> lucky I didn't DIE!!!"

More sensationalist bullshit.

> 
>>>> 40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a 
>>>> number of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the 
>>>> helmet. 
>>>
>>> Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I 
>>> wasn't wearing a helmet. 
>>
>> You _surmise_ the hits were hard enough to damage the helmet. You 
>> don't know that because you weren't wearing one.
> 
> That's funny! We're supposed to believe every "My helmet saved my life!" 
> tale based on those personal impact estimates, but you can't believe my 
> tales even though you (probably) don't remember the details?
> 
> Some might say that's strong evidence of your bias!

Another conclusion based on a strawman.

> 
>>> (I can relate the incidents yet again, if you like.)
>>
>> How many trips to the ER did you have to take to get stitches in your 
>> head? I've had two even with the helmet. In both those cases the 
>> helmet was shattered. You can believe I wouldn't have suffered any 
>> more injury than a few stitches if you wish, I believe otherwise.
> 
> Believe what you like. I'll not dispute your specific instances - 
> although, again, you'd probably do better to take fewer risks.
> 
> But I think it's obvious that most "My helmet saved my life!!!" and "My 
> helmet prevented a concussion!!!" claims are mistaken. Why? Because 
> there are hundreds of such claims across the country each year; there 
> has never been a corresponding drop in the number of cycling deaths or 
> concussions. Regarding concussions, the needle isn't even moving in the 
> right direction.

Heres one:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6747631/

"There was a significantly higher crude 30-day mortality in un-helmeted 
cyclists 5.6% (4.8%–6.6%) versus helmeted cyclists 1.8% (1.4%–2.2%) 
(p<0.001)."

"Cycle helmet use was also associated with a reduction in severe 
traumatic brain injury (TBI) 19.1% (780, 18.0%–20.4%) versus 47.6% 
(1211, 45.6%–49.5%) (p<0.001), intensive care unit requirement 19.6% 
(797, 18.4%–20.8%) versus 27.1% (691, 25.4%–28.9%) (p<0.001) and 
neurosurgical intervention 2.5% (103, 2.1%–3.1%) versus 8.5% (217, 
7.5%–9.7%) (p<0.001)."

and another

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28945822/
"Helmet use was shown to be protective against intracranial injury in 
general (OR 0.2, CI 0.07-0.55, p = 0.002). A protective effect against 
subdural haematoma was demonstrated (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.72, p = 0.02). 
Wearing a helmet was also protective against skull fractures (OR 0.12, 
CI 0.04-0.39, p<0.0001) but not any other specific extracranial injuries."

And another

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
"179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the 
meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head 
injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 
53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously 
injured cyclists by 34%. "

Again, I think you're the one that needs to read more.

> 
>>> Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing 
>>> strategy - a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're 
>>> advised to immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And 
>>> some companies still claim you should replace it every few years, 
>>> just in case... or because they want the sales.
>>
>> Read up on crumple zones - if the helmet doesn't absorb the impact, it 
>> goes into your skull. Yes, it's designed to do that, not to get you to 
>> buy a new one, but to protect your head, and yes, despite the cherry 
>> picked data you present, they work.
> 
> They work despite no observed drop in fatalities?

Again, I think you need to read more, especially papers that don't align 
with your confirmation bias.

> 
> The do crumple. They are oversized and fragile and easily dented. If the 
> cycling accessories industries could find a way to sell garishly 
> colored, greatly oversized styrofoam cycling shoes, then every dented 
> toe box would lead to a claim that "My protective cycling shoes SAVED MY 
> FOOT!"   ;-)

More sensationalist bullshit.

> 
>>>> I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========