Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 22:44:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 3/31/2025 9:36 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 19:54:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
 

On 3/31/2025 7:43 PM, John B. wrote:

On Mon, 31 Mar 2025 18:42:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 3/31/2025 3:10 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>

On 3/31/2025 12:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:

    Actually I was talking to Mr. Krygowski.  It seems to me that his
standards for studies on flu shots are different to those for bike
helmets, and I was curious as to what had convinced him of the efficacy
and safety of flu shots.

>
As I said, there is nationwide, ~ whole population data indicating flu
vaccines have high effectiveness in preventing infection and/or
hospitalization. There is no such nationwide data for bike helmets,
and indeed nationwide data shows no apparent benefit. And there are
serious weaknesses in many or most helmet promoting studies.

>
Could you provide a link to that data, and its analysis?

Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during which
helmets became normalized and popular. There is no significant reduction
in fatalities. And I've given links to several articles describing
increases in cyclist concussions.

>
The following data is freely available on the Web. It seems strange
that you are unaware of it.
>
Year   U.S. bicycle fatality/ 100,000 population
1980 -- 0.422
1990 - 0.345
2000 - 0.246
2010 - 0.202
>
>
More Data
>
Year Bicycle Deaths No helmet %              Deaths Helmet %
2013 464 62 127 17
2014 429 59 118 16
2015 439 53 139 17
2016 425 50 138 16
2017 420 52 126 16
2018 525 60 121 14
2019 520 61 127 15
2020 535 57 168 18
2021 599 62 143 15
2022 674 62 159 15
>

>
Data source on that?
>
I personally know of two helmeted riders who were killed in
traffic between 2013 and 2022 so it is certainly not zero
although "what counts?' and 'who's counting?' may be
appropriate questions here.

 
 
I deliberately left the source out as Frank so often does. See above
"Look up cyclist fatality counts since, oh, 1980, the time during
which  helmets became normalized and popular. "

>
John, I also very often _do_ list the sources or give direct links to
them. I rarely get comments on them, which leads me to believe that
neither you nor many others ever bother to read the sources. Again, I'm
pretty sure I hold the record for data posted in these discussions.
>
Regarding Radey's request, it seemed obvious that he wanted to challenge
me. In such a case, the onus is on him to do the digging.
>
About your first table: Per 100,000 population means little if we don't
know the percentage of the population riding bikes. It's well known that
bike sales and bicycling popularity rise and fall. A period when fewer
people ride should be expected to yield fewer bike deaths.
>
About your second table: I'm guessing there must have been another
column labeled "unknown" for helmet use, because your two "deaths"
columns add up to far fewer than the total cyclist deaths in those years.
>
And as Andrew has noted: If a drunken rider dies while wearing no helmet
(as most fatally injured drunken cyclists would), is his death caused by
not wearing a helmet, or by being drunk? Would the more effective
countermeasure be to put a helmet on a drunk, or to stop a drunk from
riding? Is either really possible?
>
This is significant because almost no "case-control" helmet studies have
controlled for confounding factor of blood alcohol content. The one that
did, by Crocker of Austin, TX, found blood alcohol was strongly
correlated with head injury. When data was controlled for the effects of
alcohol, the presence of a helmet was not found to be significant. This
despite Dr. Crocker's purpose for initiating the study, which was to
"prove" to Austin legislators that a mandatory helmet law for all ages
would greatly reduce head and brain injuries. (There is still no
all-ages MHL in Austin.)
>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40684001_Alcohol_bicycling_and_head_and_brain_injury_a_study_of_impaired_cyclists'_riding_patterns_R1
>
Finally: I don't believe that helmets have absolutely zero protective
value. Much more important to me is that the level of TBI risk from
bicycling is NOT high enough to justify the bicycle helmet promotion mania.
>
I'll bet you believe that too - or used to believe it. I'll bet nearly
zero percentage of your lifetime riding was done under a foam cap. And
I'll bet you somehow survived.

"Much more important to me is that the level of TBI risk from
bicycling is NOT high enough to justify the bicycle helmet promotion
mania."

I don't believe that capitalizing terminology magically turns a
subjective opinion into an objective fact.

--
Reality runs up your spine
and the pieces finally fit
- Sir Elton