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: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 16:18:49 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 416
Message-ID: <vsper9$7ia8$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vs751k$3k5eb$1@dont-email.me>
 <87o6xkmwqn.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
 <5rteuj1mr9a65enuv3jqj7sfmpgurreaqs@4ax.com> <vs92mm$1j1nq$2@dont-email.me>
 <m4qvduFb17oU1@mid.individual.net>
 <p83hujhub0kjjqbldnkenuod55mq8uu4nt@4ax.com> <vsa9hq$2ret2$1@dont-email.me>
 <ofihujd2o07rbh7crvbght0v8q35emp49b@4ax.com>
 <87iknpxigi.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vsel0o$p14u$4@dont-email.me>
 <87tt79kodg.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <vsf5o5$1f45h$1@dont-email.me>
 <62cmuj1f1dvq0kig96gflu90uat89d6ssj@4ax.com> <vsfdh3$1mqm7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vshhdj$3pl7o$5@dont-email.me> <vsjutp$2fsig$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 22:18:50 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="563a731878696a8188c13742b0e28fe6";
	logging-data="248136"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19l0Io0m0B0D5x3Gy4yulGJf4kkW1eKqYc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fXP7UPG9nGMewWEflkPDTqcIt/8=
In-Reply-To: <vsjutp$2fsig$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 20561

On 4/2/2025 2:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/1/2025 4:13 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> On 3/31/2025 8:54 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
>>>>>>>>    Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski.  It seems to me that 
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>> standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
>>>>>>>> helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the 
>>>>>>>> efficacy
>>>>>>>> and safety of flu shots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data 
>>>>>>> indicating flu
>>>>>>> vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
>>>>>>> hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
>>>>>>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
>>>>>>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?
>>>>> Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
>>>>> helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant 
>>>>> reduction
>>>>> in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
>>>>> increases in cyclist concussions.
>>>>
>>>> The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
>>>> that you are unaware of it.
>>>>
>>>> Year   U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
>>>> 1980 -- 0.422
>>>> 1990 - 0.345
>>>> 2000 - 0.246
>>>> 2010 - 0.202
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More Data
>>>>
>>>> Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet    %              Deaths Helmet    %
>>>> 2013    464    62    127    17
>>>> 2014    429    59    118    16
>>>> 2015    439    53    139    17
>>>> 2016    425    50    138    16
>>>> 2017    420    52    126    16
>>>> 2018    525    60    121    14
>>>> 2019    520    61    127    15
>>>> 2020    535    57    168    18
>>>> 2021    599    62    143    15
>>>> 2022    674    62    159    15
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Data source on that?
>>>
>>> I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in traffic 
>>> between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero although "what 
>>> counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be appropriate questions here.
>>>
>>
>> You may have missed it in all the chatter but Frank has repeatedly 
>> been shown the following information as well as other _recent_ 
>> corroborating studies but has refused to acknowledge them, instead 
>> choosing to state "There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets, 
>> and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are 
>> serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies."
>>
>> The information below very _clearly_ contradicts all three of those 
>> claims. Instead of arguing the merits, data, and conclusions of these 
>> studies, he instead deflects to rail against marketing tactics, 
>> engages in whataboutism with walking, and builds strawmen to attack 
>> the person (me) presenting the information.
>>
>> 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%. "
>>
>> The other studies previously posted here that prove the effectiveness 
>> of helmets (which Frank also chooses to dismiss with no rational 
>> explanation) are:
>>
>> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
>>
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
>>
>> https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds- 
>> More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it- 
>> Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
>>
>> https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may- 
>> surprise- you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk- 
>> jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
> 
> Let's see: A "Case-control" study of cyclists presenting to ER. Oh, and 
> another "case-control" ER study. And what's this? Yet another "case- 
> control" ER study? And gosh, another "case-control" ER study?

Sure, why not?

> 
> OK: Case-control studies are very easy to do, and if they confirm the 
> accepted truth (that bike helmets are very worthwhile) they are easy to 
> get published. 

I'd be very surprised if someone came up with different findings 
_couldn't_ get them study published due to your perceived cultural bias

> The message - either implied or specifically stated - is 
> that "since the people in ER without helmets did worse than the people 
> in ER with helmets, then everybody should wear a helmet each time they 
> ride a bike."

ok, how about "since the people in ER without seatbelts did worse than 
the people in ER with seatbelts, then everybody should wear a seatbelt 
each time they drive a car."

Seatbelt data is taken from ER visits. According to you, that data is 
worthless.

> 
> The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are representative 
> of "everyone who rides a bike." That is obviously not the case. Only a 
> minuscule percentage of people who have ridden bikes have ever presented 
> to ER. Almost all bike riders will never bump their head, at least never 
> beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will never ever need a helmet.

ok, how about "The first hidden assumption is that the people in ER are 
representative of "everyone who drives a car." That is obviously not the 
case. Only a minuscule percentage of people who have driven cars have 
ever presented to ER. Almost all drivers will never crash their car, at 
least never beyond the level of "ouch!" Most people will never ever need 
a seat belt."

Your claim of the assumption that most people in the ER not being 
representative of everyone that rides a bike is a red herring. Sure, the 
vast majority of people who ride bikes will never need a helmet, just 
like the vast majority of people who drive will never need a seat belt. 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========