Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:50:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 3/25/2025 11:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/25/2025 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/25/2025 7:52 AM, John B. wrote:

>
As I've said many times before, I haven't been the U.S. for many
years ...

>
Perhaps you should come visit to refresh your knowledge.
>

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".

>
John, I live two blocks from a Village football field - the old high
school field - and an adjacent flat grassy field. Both are used by
young guys and kids for a variety of "pick up" sports, including touch
football.
>
Guys playing touch football do not wear helmets. There is no mandate,
and apparently the guys judge that the risk of serious head injury is
low. I played touch football on an intramural team in college, and
none of us wore helmets.
>
Bicyclists volunteer to wear helmets mostly because of dishonest fear
mongering that convinces them that risk of brain injury is huge, far
worse than other normal activities. Here, I post data showing that's
false.

 
There may not be any greater risk than any other activity, but that
doesn't mean that wearing a helmet won't protect you when your head hits
the asphalt.

>
Which is also true when running (as Mark does), when walking (I've had
friends seriously injured while walking on concrete sidewalks) and when
doing other things with non-zero risk of brain injury.
>

I'm a helmet wearer. I've always counseled people riding on public
roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets. For going on a
casual, low-risk ride on a smooth recreational rail trail, not much of
an issue and I've even gone out for such rides without one (as recently
as our trip to Aruba last year). But any time I'm going out on the road
or any ride at a 'fitness' level or higher, I always wear one.

>
Of course you do. And you wear special shorts, shoes, jerseys, gloves,
jackets and all the rest. I'm not trying to talk you out of any of that
kit.
>
But understand, until about 1980, "fitness" and competitive cyclists
wore all that stuff - but no helmets. It wasn't until the false
propaganda about unusual brain injury risk appeared that the foam hat
became part of the costume.
>
Did all those prior avid cyclists somehow not notice that their buddies
were getting brain injured? Nope, it was never a sizeable problem. Now
it's an "Omigosh!" serious risk.
>

40+ years of commuting, training, and racing have left me with a number
of incidents where I hit my head hard enough to damage the helmet.

>
Funny thing - I've had a couple of those that I remember. Except I
wasn't wearing a helmet. (I can relate the incidents yet again, if you
like.)
>
Helmets are _very_ easily damaged. It's part of the marketing strategy -
a minor bump can damage it. If one takes a bump, you're advised to
immediately replace it, even if no damage is visible. And some companies
still claim you should replace it every few years, just in case... or
because they want the sales.
>
What other device do you own that has those same caracteristics?
>

I can't say for sure it protected me from any brain injury, but I _do_
know it's protected me from bashing my head on rocks, trees, signposts,
asphalt, walls, cars... - All of which would have required trips to the
ER for stitches. For that reason alone it's worth it to me to wear one.

>
And of course, you're allowed to. Please keep in mind I'm talking about
normal riding, which for most people never involves any of those
inicidents. BTW, if I had such a list of events, I'd consider revising
my riding style.

<shaking my head and smiling>  With Krygowski, everything that people
do that he doesn't do is because of dishonest marketing, and he's on a
Quixotic mission to put a stop to it.

--
"Nothing's gonna change my world"
-- John Lennon