Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:51:47 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 3/27/2025 4:19 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>

On 3/27/2025 2:58 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/27/2025 2:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/27/2025 12:03 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/27/2025 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/27/2025 11:11 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 3/27/2025 8:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/27/2025 5:10 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:54:11 +0700, John B.
<slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:41:46 -0400, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:48:09 +0700, John B.
<slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 09:54:32 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>

On 3/25/2025 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 3/25/2025 12:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/25/2025 11:02 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

Am 25.03.2025 um 16:53 schrieb Catrike Ryder:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:11:14 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
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.
>
The point of this message is to point out,
once again, your
unsubstantiated conclusions rooted in
willful ignorance.

>
How one would go about proving that bicycle
helmets are not preventing
either fatalities or concussions?

>
Statistical accident analysis, just like it
was possible to show the
use of seat belts.
>

>
Which is valid for groups and more accurate on
the probabilities for
larger groups and/or for greater frequency
incidents.
>
But, as noted here often, any given individual
in any given incident
can fall anywhere along those curves.

>
I'll agree with that last statement, with some
reservations. But I'll
point out that the helmet propaganda tends to
say that _anyone_ is at
risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet. Example:
"You can fall over in your driveway and die."
>

>
I've never seen any literature as alarmist as that.

>
Frank has number of times, mentioned this
"I'll point out that the helmet propaganda tends
to say that _anyone_
is at risk of death or worse if they _ever_ ride
without a helmet.".
>
Admittedly I don't spend my time reading helmet
advertisements but
I've never come across this. Perhaps Frank could
post a number of
references so we all can be aware of that these
evil minded scoundrels
are doing.

>
Krygowski can't argue the facts, he has to make up
ridiculous childish
strawmen to attack. As usual, he goes on and on as
if he had something
important to say.
>
Junior (Zen) has pretty much whipped Frank now so
he has changed to
his secondary tactic. He changes the subject and
demands that Junior
explain why he's promoting helmets, which, near as
I can see, is not,
at all, what Junior is doing.
>
I'd be more interested in why Krygowski is trying
to convince people
not to wear helmets. It's really no skin off his
nose if some people
choose to wear them.

>
Well... its no skin off anyone's back whether you
pray to "The God of
Abraham" and call him "Allah", or "Yahweh", or
"Jehovah" but the
adherents have spent nearly as many years killing
each other "in the
name of God" as they have spent praying.
>
Thus, I suspect, that no matter of any proof to the
contrary Frankie
will go on demanding that "his way" is the "only
way" and all should
adhere to his beliefs.

>
Humans fight over the stupidest, nonsensical things.
Look at the
morons in the US Congress wanting to
"censor" (whatever that means)
over one of them referring to a guy in a wheel chair
as "hot wheels."
>
We pay those jackasses for that?
>
-- C'est bon
Soloman

>
+1
>
Since Texas doesn't have term limits, that video of
Rep Crocker (Texas 30th) is Mr Abbott's ready-made
2028 campaign ad.  With any luck, she will make an ass
of herself more between now and then.
>

>
But Bobo should get a pass over "pimp cane", right?
>

>
Go ahead, quote her here.  Show us who she is and how
she thinks.
>
I'm big on free speech.  And quoting someone in her own
words, no matter who, can be entertaining and useful.
>

>
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5190480-boebert-
stands- by-green- cane-comments/
>
"...if that gold-plated cane isn’t a pimp cane, I don’t
know what is.”
>
In terms of insulting and demeaning comments, Calling
Abbot "hot wheels" pales in comparison to "pimp cane". We
can speculate on what bobo knows about pimps and how she
knows it, but for someone who herself shouted at the
president during a SOTU address to scold Green on _any_
level is beyond hypocritical.
>
>

You may be surprised to know that I agree with you.

>
Not really, you have (somewhat) consistently been a
refreshing voice of rationalism from a conservative view
point. (FWIW, I've never claimed to be a voice of
rationalism on (especially) political issues. I may be a
loud-mouthed asshole, at least I admit it.)
>

>
Mr Green running his mouth made clear who he is and what
he thinks. Meh. Some Republicans over reacted (including
Ms Boebert). Which only shows their pettiness.

>
And for balance "Ms Boebert running her mouth made clear who
she is and what she thinks. Meh. Some democrats over reacted
(including Mr Green) which only shows their pettiness."
>

>
If enough Members would cut the snark and write a budget
commensurate with this year's tax revenue, we'd be in a
better place. (fat chance of that)

>
You have thank Ronald "Deficits Don't Matter" Reagan to
thank for that.
>

>
That "Just So Story" version survives as an urban myth but
the actual story is more complex.  As with the disastrous
amnesty for illegal aliens in exchange for tighter
immigration laws, only half the bargain happened. The other
half never did.
>
https://www.history.com/articles/ronald-reagan-grace-commission-government-efficiency
>
We agree though that the result was a typical fiasco of debt.
>
As I've bitched and moaned here before, no party and no
President (since Jackson anyway) looks good in this regard.
The DOGE effort is yet in progress, but people who follow
politics (me) are not at all hopeful for results.

>
What do you expect when they make a big fuss over third grade level
name calling and introduce bills and start legal proceedings they know
beforehand have no possibility to succeed.
>
--
C'est bon
Soloman

>
That's mostly theater and image making fluff.
>
The real agendae are under the table, as Sen Menendez (11
years for bribery by Egypt). In a perfect world, Sen Roger
Marshall (R, KS) will be his cellmate for a long while after
his pathetic advocacy for Qatar today (yes that Qatar, the
people who fund jihadis to kill Jews and US servicemen).

 Term limits.......  we need them.....  we're not going to get them.
--
C'est bon
Soloman