Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Roger Merriman Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test Date: 31 Mar 2025 11:45:00 GMT Lines: 74 Message-ID: References: <87iknsq422.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <87o6xkmwqn.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <5rteuj1mr9a65enuv3jqj7sfmpgurreaqs@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net g08zhOXjjetQ4CmWm6liEANOz3ijHLX2leyar6al8Bxz4uh4VW Cancel-Lock: sha1:Zv2LSyK61Ac0U6mqlyZclpi1EHo= sha1:k3UfVnrQhK2JNebiKP1LnsPLb+8= sha256:H2Jtsrdaollsl8ywG7pDHWBiC6yliOpdXQVNOIP7/fU= User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad) Bytes: 4744 Wolfgang Strobl wrote: > Am Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:16:26 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski > : > >> On 3/29/2025 8:17 PM, John B. wrote: >>> On 29 Mar 2025 19:19:26 GMT, Roger Merriman wrote: >>> >>>> Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2025 12:35 AM, John B. wrote: > ... > >>> O.K. Try https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x >> >> What was your point, John? I ask because it seems you just grabbed >> another study at random. Roger's and my discussion was about cheap >> helmets vs. expensive ones. I didn't see that addressed. Perhaps when >> you post a link, you could tell us what part of the study was >> significant to our discussions? >> >> I did see this: "Although rotational acceleration has been known to be >> relevant in cyclist injuries, it is still missing in standardized >> testing today. Using full body simulation, Wang et al.24 confirmed that >> rotational acceleration is indeed increased when wearing a helmet." That >> would seem to go back to the issue of a larger moment arm for glancing >> blows. > > IMO, it's not just the larger moment arm, it's the enlarged probability. > This is mostly caused by the bigger cross-section of a helmet, in > comparison to a bare head. Neck muscles are generally strong enough to > hold the head away from the ground or turn it away in the event of a > fall. However, this distance is often smaller than that wat a helmet > adds to size of the head. > > My head was uninjured in a serious bike crash years ago in which I broke > my collarbone and half a dozen ribs. A helmet wouldn't have fitted > between the asphalt and my head, though. > > Does this prove anything? I don't think so. It's just an anecdote, > similar to those anecdotes told by bicycle helmet enthusiasts flooding > the media with "how my helmet saved my life". > > But ... my experience illustrates one mechanism that might partially > explain why bicycles helmets didn't deliver any of the advertised > benefits, despite of all those great expectations. Safety research > perhaps should start analyzing risks caused or enlarged by bicycle > helmets ernestly, such like as enlarged cross section, rotational > traumata and risk compensation. > > We should also not overlook the indirect damage caused by complicating > and inconveniencing a means of transportation that is beneficial to > health. > I believe that Sydney and maybe others cities have pushed in the past to exempt dockless/docked hire bikes from the law for that reason, though I *think* bit like the e scooter in uk the police aren’t interested unless someone really advertises them selfs to them! >> >> And that paper, like almost all, does almost nothing to address the lack >> of reduction in TBI counts in the entire population. They do mention one >> paper by Olivier claiming large reductions in cyclist TBI in Australia >> after their mandatory helmet laws (MHLs). But Olivier is famous in other >> forums for his insistence that there was no reduction in cycling as a >> result of the MHLs. Copious survey and count data indicating large >> reductions in cycling, which would of course lead to large reductions in >> cyclist TBI. >> >> In Olivier's world, prohibiting all cycling would be a great way of >> wiping out almost all cyclist TBI. > Roger Merriman