Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: zen cycle <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 08:14:38 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 542
Message-ID: <vstr7f$27p9l$11@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>
 <vsper9$7ia8$2@dont-email.me> <vsq973$19q77$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 14:14:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a234526dc6533b54861bf1ed0d8d1618";
	logging-data="2352437"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zIbubiETOZMVGXtn9kMT35o9Te9mI3r4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9Q7Gu5SrOmfJJnj+wLdjfuQvXbw=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vsq973$19q77$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 28361

On 4/4/2025 11:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 4/4/2025 4:18 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>> 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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========