Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 3/27/2025 8:26 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/27/2025 12:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/26/2025 4:19 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/26/2025 12:51 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
Regarding relevance: What are you trying to achieve?

>
A factual discussion on helmet efficacy.

>
OK, I'd say we're doing that.

 
No, you're hung up on marketing.

>
Well, "hung up" on the weird promotion of bike helmets as hugely
important, and the related false claim that bicycling is so dangerous
that foam protective hats are really necessary.
>

OK, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
>

Are you saying "Forget the monetary cost. Brain injuries are so
terrible we need to prevent them any way possible."?

>
nope

>
Then again, I'm wondering why you promote bike helmets.
>

Are you focused ONLY on calling attention to bicycling's dangers?

>
nope

>
So I wonder why you advocate helmets only for bike riding, not for
other more important causes of TBI injuries and fatalities.

>
And I'm still wondering.
>

I promote helmets because they work.

>
But your promotion efforts seem to apply only to bicycling. I very
much doubt that you really feel foam helmets "work" _only_ in bicyclists.

 
This is true,
 

>
I think at the root of your helmet enthusiasm is a belief that
bicycling really is a very important source of serious and/or fatal TBI.

 
Nope.

>
So explain. You now seem to say they would work for other causes of TBI.
And you say bicycling is not a very important or serious risk of TBI.
But you still tell people just riding on roads that they should wear
helmets. Apparently you don't do the same for people walking near roads,
despite evidence of greater risk. Nor for people riding in cars, who
dominate the TBI statistics for transportation.
>

And I've stated repeatedly that there are times that I _don't_ wear a
helmet. It's all about the risk mitigation. A casual ride on a rail
trial isn't likely going to end up with me hitting the pavement, a tree,
a truck....etc.

>
"I've always counseled people riding on public roadways ... to wear
helmets." All public roadways?
>

You've linked old articles. I've already linked new ones that show the
data. Here they are again since it seems you;ve chose to ignore them
 
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7025438/

>
?? That's 1999! And I can give lots of detail on that Cochrane study,
the one in which Thompson and Rivara used inclusion criteria that
allowed primarily their own studies, and rejected several pertinent
studies that reached different conclusions.
>

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35728-x

>
There seemed to be no data addressing the severely increased national
count of bicyclist concussions.
>

 
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

>
That had no information on helmet efficacy. It did note a significant
increase in cyclist deaths, but it certainly did not point to a
corresponding decrease in helmet use, which would have been necessary to
hint at your point. The "helmets are important" bit is just an
uncorroborated opinion in that piece.
>
It's clear to me that you are now using a shotgun technique, posting
links to any articles that are vaguely helmet promotional. If you have
articles that specifically make some particular point we've been
discussing, give me a quotation as well as the link.
>
Good examples would be articles explaining why, if helmets are so
protective, bike concussions are so much higher than in pre-helmet days.
And article explaining why, with bicycling causing such a tiny
percentage of serious or fatal TBI, we should still nag bicyclists to
never ride without a marginally protective cap.