Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 3/24/2025 6:02 PM, Mark J cleary wrote:

>
I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about helmets...

Nope, that's not true. In the current echo chamber of avid sport cyclists I am a minority. But very I'm comfortable with not following most of the group's trends. I don't use clipless pedals, I don't use brifters or disk brakes, I don't ride in jerseys that advertise my favorite products or my favorite racing team, I don't use aerodynamic sunglasses, etc.
But in the total population of world cyclists, it's the helmet wearers who are a definite minority.

 ... and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might be good.

That's a common human trait. It leads to lots of bad decisions, but it's common. It's usually wiser to pay attention to good data, when it's available.

I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is.

If you check, you'll see I never initiate helmet debates. But when someone else - um, like you, Mark! - starts stating or implying that helmets have great benefit, and/or states or implies that bicycling is a serious risk for brain injury, I do point out that those notions are false.
Bicycling has never been a major source of serious traumatic brain injury (TBI). On a nationwide basis, bicycling's contribution to TBI counts is low enough to be off most "causes" charts. Bicycling causes fewer then 1% of U.S. TBI deaths, far fewer than pedestrian travel, and far fewer on a "per mile" basis. And historic data over the years shows quite clearly that bicycle helmets are not preventing either fatalities or concussions.
Data on request - but it's been posted or linked countless times.
--
- Frank Krygowski