Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: zen cycle 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: References: <87o6xkmwqn.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <5rteuj1mr9a65enuv3jqj7sfmpgurreaqs@4ax.com> <87iknpxigi.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <87tt79kodg.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net> <62cmuj1f1dvq0kig96gflu90uat89d6ssj@4ax.com> 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: 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 >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: >>>>>>>> Frank Krygowski 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 ==========