Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:19:18 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

Am 25.03.2025 um 11:11 schrieb John B.:

On 25 Mar 2025 08:02:38 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
 

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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.
>
>

Helmets for cycle safety are distraction to use one of UK bike
personalities/transport experts aka Chris Boardman.
>
With cycling the danger and risk is almost entirely introduced by
motorists, which should be the focus.
>
Helmet “debates” as ever seem to go nowhere as folks have such intrenched
positions.
>
Roger Merriman

 
I've told this story before but once again.
 
When I was working around oil well drilling rigs the word came down
from the Drilling Company -  "When you come back from break be sure
you are wearing a "Hard Hat"(i.e. helmet) or don't bother to come
back". And you know? Everybody came back with a hard hat and there was
never a mention,  good, bad or indifferent, whether people wanted to
were a helmet, or not, or any of the other  arguments I hear in
bicycle circles.

>
How many people get paid to go bicycling? Most people cycle voluntarily,
or stop cycling voluntarily.
>
What is the cost to society if people "don't bother to come back" (as
hapened in Australia)?
>
Why did the "don't bother to come back unless you wear a seat belt" not
work in the USA?

As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many years
but the country I do live in has a 2,000 baht fine for driver or
passengers in an auto without a safety belt. Which  is, in foreign
terms, about 6 days salary at minimum salary rates.

But do people in other parts of the world avoid playing baseball or in
an English "colony", Cricket, because one must wear a helmet, or U.S.
football. or riding to the hounds or all the various activities that
require  a helmet".
--
Cheers,

John B.