Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Frank Krygowski Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Helmet efficacy test Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:38:49 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 54 Message-ID: References: <2fp4uj55n6mfnmn75jk6ocvuuivrkno6em@4ax.com> <7UbHP.1505439$OrR5.1361772@fx18.iad> Reply-To: frkrygow@gmail.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 20:38:50 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c575217018b91787da46598400b4b769"; logging-data="2617936"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18ctRBGXvV/QkQNJdrr5enbHinQRKVwSGE=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:hEqVn7pbbzJThsiDRIMEqju69/s= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 3990 On 4/2/2025 12:58 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote: > On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:45:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski > wrote: > >> On 4/2/2025 10:36 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote: >>> Am 02.04.2025 um 16:32 schrieb cyclintom: >>>> On Thu Mar 27 19:28:12 2025 Frank Krygowski  wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes >>>>> of TBI. And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious >>>>> risk of TBI. But you still tell people just riding on roads that >>>>> they should wear helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for >>>>> people walking near roads, despite evidence of greater risk. Nor >>>>> for people riding in cars, who dominate the TBI statistics for >>>>> transportation. >>>> >>>> Frank, why are you so fixed in convincing people that they shouldn't >>>> wear helmets? Exactly what business of yours what they do? >>> >>> Frank any myself mostly wish to ensure that people aren't pressurized to >>> wear helmets. >>> >>> Making bicycling look like a dangerous activity is likely to reduce the >>> attraction of cycling as a mode of transport. >> >> Right, that's my main motivation, although there are other details. I've >> long been disturbed by the false propaganda portraying ordinary >> bicycling as some high risk activity. I'm also astonished that so very >> many avid cyclists are so committed to furthering that false propaganda. >> As I've said, I don't see that schizoid behavior from avid runners, >> drivers, swimmers, etc. It's just weird. >> >> Some details: Even if cycling were more dangerous than, say, walking in >> a city, I don't think do-gooders should be nagging cyclists to attempt >> to protect themselves with foam hats. People would rightfully be >> offended if they got nagged every time they consumed a hot dog or >> something sweet and carbonated. We don't see government funds telling >> people not to try rock climbing, skateboard tricks, flying in light >> aircraft or even skydiving, all of which are probably far more risky >> than simply bicycling bareheaded. >> >> So why do we accept government or Usenet posters telling us to never >> ride without a helmet, > > Very few governments do that, and Usenet posters are easy to ignore. :-) Not for you! I keep wondering what percentage of my posts you are compelled to snark at. It's got to be high! You've got a problem. Seek help. -- - Frank Krygowski