Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 3/27/2025 3:49 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/27/2025 1:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/27/2025 7:15 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/26/2025 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/26/2025 3:32 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/26/2025 12:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
On average, bicycling is safer than walking by all those metrics. You obviously don't believe that,

>
I don't? My, how kunich-esque of you.

>
Perhaps you should explicitly state your positions. As it is, you now seem to be implying that you do think bicycling is safer than walking. Yet you apparently think that bicyclists get great value from special protective hats, but pedestrians don't need them. Those two points seem inconsistent.
>
So am I misinterpreting your views? What exactly are your views?

>
My view is that helmets work. Wear them if you feel you need to extra protection. Don't wear them if you don't feel that need.

>
That explains your personal choice, based on your "view" and your "feel." But that doesn't explain your statement "I've always counseled people riding on public roadways or riding for performance to wear helmets." In fact, "Don't wear them if you don't feel that need" sounds quite opposite.

 It goes like this:
"I almost always wear a helmet. If you're riding in traffic or for performance I would advise you to also, but it's your choice".
 No contradiction there at all.

The "I would advise you..." is a statement you don't need to make. You're being a shill for styrofoam. And if you make such a statement for bicycling, but not for other transportation choices like walking or motoring, you're implying (and so probably believing) that bicycling is inherently much more dangerous.
Yet "most studies have shown that pedestrians are exposed to a higher risk of death than other road users" (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47476-z). And you apparently don't give your spiel to the pedestrians.

 

I often discuss actual data when I see that people's "feelings" are belied by good data. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to wear what you like. But it is certainly true that some personal ideas and "feelings" are objectively incorrect.

 You've interpreted data to support your position, I've interpreted data to support mine. The difference is that I'm right :)

:-) Such confidence! I note that you haven't addressed the relative frequency of TBI shown in the big pie chart at
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets
Or maybe you haven't seen data like in
https://www.internationalbrain.org/resources/brain-injury-facts
which states "United States Annually: 50,000 people die" [of TBI] . But fewer than 500 are bicyclists.
And "Causes of Traumatic Brain Injury :    Motor Vehicle Crashes account for 50% of all TBIs. This includes autos, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians hit by vehicles.
     The leading causes of TBI vary by age: falls are the leading cause of TBI among persons aged 65 years and older; transportation is the leading cause of TBI among persons under the age of 65 years.
     Estimates suggest that sports related brain injury accounts for close to 300,000 injuries each year, with winter sports such as skiing and ice-skating accounting for close to 20,000 brain injuries. (7) "
Again, bicycling is barely mentioned, and is justifiably given no more prominence than autos, inside which far more incidents of TBI occur.
I don't really fault you for having believed that bicycling is an unusual and  horrible risk for TBI. After all, the propaganda machine has been in high gear for decades. But it's now time for you to educate yourself and put things in the proper perspective.
--
- Frank Krygowski