Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 22:09:20 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

 

On 3/25/2025 4:19 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

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.

>
Impossible to document that.

 
Wrong, as usual.
 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/
 
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x
 
https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/New-CDC-Report-Finds-
More-Adults-Are-Dying-from-Bicycle-Related-Accidents-CPSC-Says-it-
Highlights-the-Importance-of-Helmets
 
https://www.nsc.org/safety-first/bicycle-safety-statistics-may-surprise-
you?srsltid=AfmBOoq4LC_IGLItTnDBXBm4Yu6K20nqSHjsZbqpkk-jQ2y4Y1J7hfbf
 
https://biausa.org/public-affairs/media/keep-your-brain-safe-while-biking
 
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/3/
e2022058878/188764/Helmet-Use-in-Preventing-Head-Injuries-in?
autologincheck=redirected
 
These all contradict Frank, but that isn't the point of this message.

>
I'm willing to discuss any of those. A couple quick points: Several
discuss "head injury" not "brain injury." Bike helmet promoters bank
heavily on conflating the two in order to scare the public. The most
notorious example I'm aware of was the notorious Thompson & Rivara 1989
paper that generated the false claim of "85% benefit." T&R actually
counted abrasions of the ears as "head injuries" when computing benefit.
Yes, technically, it's part of the head - but it's not what people have
been led to think about.
>
Second quick point: That T&R study has been thoroughly discredited. One
issue which should make it obviously invalid to anyone with scientific
knowledge is that its levels of protection have _never_ been
corroborated by subsequent studies.
>
There's much more I could say, but those are quick and easy points.
>
As to documentation of my points above: Yes, you can find enthusiastic
propaganda making it sound like bicycling is a major source of brain
injury. But if it doesn't give numbers for other sources, the claim has
not been demonstrated. You'd have to compare with other activities - for
example, descending stairs; or walking in a city; or riding in a car. Or
heck, just look up the total numbers for brain injuries in America and
compare with bicycling.
>
The easiest data to find, in my experience, is brain injury fatality
data. What I've found is over 55,000 TBI fatalities per year in the U.S.
In that time period there were about 500 bicycle TBI fatalities, so
significantly less than 1% of the total.
>
Will we ever get helmets on the other 99%?
>
And have helmets reduced those deaths? Have they reduced bicycling
concussions, the most common (albeit mild) brain injury? I've found no
evidence. In the years that helmets suddenly went from rare to common,
there was no corresponding drop in bike fatalities. Pedestrian
fatalities actually dropped more during that time. And recorded bike
concussions have actually risen.

"I'm willing to discuss any of those."
 
Why? Nobody is going to change their minds about helmets.

--
C'est bon
Soloman