Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 08:49:32 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 3/25/2025 6:19 AM, Rolf Mantel 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?
 

>
In a perfect world, I would probably wear a seat belt when
driving. But since the State made it mandatory, which
naturally engenders defiance,  I just restrict myself to
exempt autos and drive without.

(:-) do we assume that you also ignore state laws against, oh say,
theft and taxes?
 
--
Cheers,

John B.