Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 3/26/2025 6:50 AM, zen cycle wrote:

On 3/25/2025 9:50 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

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

>
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.

 so, because people don't wear walking helmets, they shouldn't wear cycling helmets....got it.

If activity A causes more TBI deaths than activity B - whether measured in total (i.e. "cost to society") or, say, in lifetime odds of death (as in "odds of dying by...") or in, say, number of deaths per mile (for transportation modes) - then why should activity B get subjected to helmet nagging when activity A does not?
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You obviously don't believe that, but that just means you have more reading to do.

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.

 And you're ignoring "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", for which there is scant data from the 1980s.

Yes, stitches are regrettable. But stitches on the head are no more serious than stitches on the elbow or knee. Yet I see very few articles of any type calling for elbow and knee protectors for all bike rides.
What we get instead are tales saying "I got a cut on my head! I was lucky I didn't DIE!!!"

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.

 You _surmise_ the hits were hard enough to damage the helmet. You don't know that because you weren't wearing one.

That's funny! We're supposed to believe every "My helmet saved my life!" tale based on those personal impact estimates, but you can't believe my tales even though you (probably) don't remember the details?
Some might say that's strong evidence of your bias!

(I can relate the incidents yet again, if you like.)

 How many trips to the ER did you have to take to get stitches in your head? I've had two even with the helmet. In both those cases the helmet was shattered. You can believe I wouldn't have suffered any more injury than a few stitches if you wish, I believe otherwise.

Believe what you like. I'll not dispute your specific instances - although, again, you'd probably do better to take fewer risks.
But I think it's obvious that most "My helmet saved my life!!!" and "My helmet prevented a concussion!!!" claims are mistaken. Why? Because there are hundreds of such claims across the country each year; there has never been a corresponding drop in the number of cycling deaths or concussions. Regarding concussions, the needle isn't even moving in the right direction.

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.

 Read up on crumple zones - if the helmet doesn't absorb the impact, it goes into your skull. Yes, it's designed to do that, not to get you to buy a new one, but to protect your head, and yes, despite the cherry picked data you present, they work.

They work despite no observed drop in fatalities?
The do crumple. They are oversized and fragile and easily dented. If the cycling accessories industries could find a way to sell garishly colored, greatly oversized styrofoam cycling shoes, then every dented toe box would lead to a claim that "My protective cycling shoes SAVED MY FOOT!"   ;-)

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.

 It's a risk of competition that I'm willing to take.

I choose my risks with more care. I'll post about some of my risk compensation later.
--
- Frank Krygowski