Path: ...!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: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 15:14:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 99
Message-ID: <vshdve$3pl7o$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>
 <vs1kob$26rhh$2@dont-email.me> <vs2e67$35mlr$1@dont-email.me>
 <vs3c0r$44vf$1@dont-email.me> <vs41lu$nm05$2@dont-email.me>
 <vs4a3h$vujk$1@dont-email.me> <vs4ln6$19l8m$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2025 21:14:55 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cba0c9b3efdbd93a255e461a172dcc64";
	logging-data="3986680"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LWavWB9YJTa1XUkoPrKQw36JubrfIEiU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BGcJHEnuazDB+XABqdiUu31gwZM=
In-Reply-To: <vs4ln6$19l8m$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6175

On 3/27/2025 7:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/27/2025 3:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/27/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/27/2025 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you 
>>>>> now seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than 
>>>>> walking. Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value 
>>>>> from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. 
>>>>> Those two points seem inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?
>>>>
>>>> My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to 
>>>> extra protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.
>>>
>>> That explains your personal choice, based on your "view" and your 
>>> "feel." But that doesn't explain your statement "I've always 
>>> counseled people riding on public roadways or riding for performance 
>>> to wear helmets." In fact, "Don't wear them if you don't feel that 
>>> need" sounds quite opposite.
>>
>> It goes like this:
>> "I almost always wear a helmet. If you're riding in traffic or for 
>> performance I would advise you to also, but it's your choice".
>>
>> No contradiction there at all.
> 
> The "I would advise you..." is a statement you don't need to make. 
> You're being a shill for styrofoam. And if you make such a statement for 
> bicycling, but not for other transportation choices like walking or 
> motoring, you're implying (and so probably believing) that bicycling is 
> inherently much more dangerous.
> 
> Yet "most studies have shown that pedestrians are exposed to a higher 
> risk of death than other road users" (from https://www.nature.com/ 
> articles/s41598-023-47476-z). And you apparently don't give your spiel 
> to the pedestrians.
> 
>>
>>> I often discuss actual data when I see that people's "feelings" are 
>>> belied by good data. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to wear 
>>> what you like. But it is certainly true that some personal ideas and 
>>> "feelings" are objectively incorrect.
>>
>> You've interpreted data to support your position, I've interpreted 
>> data to support mine. The difference is that I'm right :)
> 
> :-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative 
> frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
> https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
> 
> Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
> https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
> 
> which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] . But 
> fewer than 500 are bicyclists.

I did address it, I stated that the numbers were relevant to my point.

> 
> And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury :    Motor Vehicle Crashes account 
> for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, 
> and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
>      The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading cause 
> of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation is the 
> leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years.
>      Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts for 
> close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as skiing 
> and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries. (7) "
> 
> Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no more 
> prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI occur.
> 
> I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an 
> unusual and  horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda machine 
> has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for you to educate 
> yourself and put things in the proper perspective.

But I _do_ fault you for repeatedly mischaracterizing my position.
At no time did I state our otherwise imply that "bicycling is an
  unusual and  horrible risk for TBI. I stated this unequivocally 
several times already.
But now it's time for you to stop building strawmen and try arguing 
objectively rather than emotionally.

> 


-- 
Add xx to reply