Re: 1972 Legnano in the news

On 11/10/2024 11:55 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

 To argue against mandatory helmet laws is one thing, but to argue
against someone choosing to wear one is stupid and ugly.

Because it's blasphemy to question the helmet religion?
Because no one should ever examine all the relevant data?
Because you, personally, believe parents should not have the right to make this decision regarding their own children? That is what you said.

As helmets seem to at a population level be statistically insignificant in
that no effect can be found at population levels.

Absolutely true. Almost all bike helmet propaganda is based on dishonestly labeled "case-control" studies - dishonest because there's been solid evidence that the two groups being compared typically varied in many more ways than helmet use. The most famous example being the 1989 study by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, in which helmets had been worn by over 20% of the kids brought to hospitals for bike crashes. That was at a time when street surveys by the same team found only 3% of kids were wearing helmets. So helmeted kids were FAR more likely to be brought in. We could discuss likely reasons why - if this were a more rational group.
When data (mostly time series data) is examined for entire populations of cyclists, helmet benefits vanish. In fact, as bike helmets became more common over the years, bicyclist concussions increased, not decreased.
But to me, the biggest fallacy is pretending that the rate of bicycling brain injury is so extreme that helmets should be recommended, let alone mandated. There's been propaganda like "You could fall over in your driveway and die," which is exactly as true as "You could fall while walking in your home and die." Except that the latter happens far, far more often than the former. Ditto for fatal brain injuries inside cars. Yes, despite seat belts and air bags.
--
- Frank Krygowski