Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 23:28:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 3/26/2025 3:57 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/26/2025 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

 

 

Trouble is, the protection from a bike helmet is far, far less than
people are led to believe. Look up the standardization test.

>
"led to believe" by what metric? I've never seen any literature
claiming a helmet _prevents_ serious head trauma.

>
WHAT???

 
No helmet manufacturer or helmet advocacy group claims helmets _prevent_
serious head trauma. They _can_ reduce severity, not prevent it.

>
Seems to me you're focusing on the difference between "_always_
prevents" (which was never stated by anyone) and "can reduce severity."
The latter is more honest, but is NOT how helmets are promoted. Try
googling "Do bike helmets prevent serious head trauma?" After reading
AI's "Yes" try follow the resulting links.
>
And logically, if a helmet did prevent serious head trauma in one out of
ten cases, that would justify a "Yes" answer. In those cases a helmet
would have done what was asked.
>

Oh, and about helmets mechanically causing injury? Curiosity about
that surged once it became clear that helmeted cyclists seemed to be
over represented in concussion counts.
>
Well, since the helmet certification standard was established
(essentially less than 300gs linear deceleration in a 14 mph
impact), it became known that linear deceleration was far less of a
problem than rotational acceleration. Twisting the head and brain
caused far more brain injury than smacking them. But a helmet
protrudes at least an inch from the head, providing a longer lever
arm for glancing blows, potentially worsening rotational
acceleration. (Note that a bare head's slippery hair and very loose
scalp are probably evolutionary tricks to reduce that hazard. The
helmet makes those ineffective.)

>
a specious argument with no scientific substantiation.

>
What part did you not understand?

 
I understood all of it. What I'm stating is that you have no data to
support the that helmets "provide a longer lever arm and thus can cause
more injury" claim. Every study I've link states the exact opposite.

>
Well, I suppose the "thus" is not totally proven. I don't see how you
can claim they do not provide a longer lever arm for glancing blows. A
helmet absolutely is larger than the head. The radius upon which a
glancing force acts on a helmet is certainly larger than the radius on a
bare head. And BTW, that means that a certain number of misses must be
converted to hits. I hope that's obvious to you.
>
In any case, _something_ seems to be causing a correlation between
rising helmet use and rising cyclist concussions. If it's not the
factors I speculated on, I'd be interested in hearing your theories.
>
See
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/i-team-concussions-on-the-rise-among-cyclists/
>
https://www.slatervecchio.com/blog/bike-helmets-dont-protect-against-concussions/
>
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bike-helmets-should-address-concussion-risk-scientists-say-1.1367454

Before you get up to full speed you might want yo to read
https://www.cdc.gov/heads-up/safety/index.html

Which says,in part, "There is no concussion-proof helmet"

Referring, apparently to

 Baseball Helmet -
    Batters Helmet
    Catchers Helmet
    Hockey Helmet
    Hockey Goalie Helmet
    Bike Helmet
    Equestrian Helmet
    Football Helmet
    Lacrosse Helmet
    Skateboard Helmet
    Ski Helmet
    Snowboard Helmet
--
Cheers,

John B.