On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:08:44 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:54:54 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:01:45 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 9:18:48 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:32:46 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:41:45 PM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 8:49:53 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/16/2019 8:36 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I didn't see a ton of bicycle accidents as an ambulance driver...

Which is my point! Could you take a guess at the percentage of serious
head & brain injuries you saw that were bicyclists?

Well, there weren't a lot of cyclists back then, and undoubtedly not many who required ambulance transportation from an accident...

Nonetheless, it's been very consistent for decades that
of the nation's serious TBI, less than 2% are bicyclists.
The other 98% are not told they should have worn helmets.
And I know, from asking audiences of talks I've given
to various audiences, that it's common for people to
believe that 30% of America's TBI fatalities are
bicyclists. Now how do you suppose that idea popped up?
Hint: It was NOT spontaneous.

But a bunch of studies have said
that's true of bicycling.

That means that dissuading people from riding bikes (by helmet mandates
or scary helmet promotion) probably causes net detriment to public health.

I don't see any helmet promotion, but I do see a lot of people in helmets. I'll quiz the bazillion helmeted cyclists I see every day and see why they wear helmets.

You don't see any helmet promotion?

OK, I'll grant you that it's a bit less than it has been,
partly because people have spent years pointing out
the lies helmet promoters used. Some people did listen,
for example the bike club that sued to get NHTSA to
stop using T&R's obviously false "85%" claim.

But I think the main reason there's _less_ (but
definitely not NO) helmet promotion is that "big helmet"
as you call it is satisfied. They've got helmets
installed as the default choice among people who think
they're being responsible. They've got cyclists mocking
others who ride without helmets. They've got every
day care in America forbidding kids to use any wheeled
toy without a helmet, even though most are fitted
terribly and totally unnecessary.

That did NOT happen without decades of dedicated,
persistent and dishonest helmet promotion. It's
incredibly naive to think otherwise.

I wear a helmet because I whacked my head a bunch of times, had my face stitched up twice and believe there is value in wearing a helmet. And yes, de-gloving scalp injuries can be painful and nasty to repair. It is trauma worth avoiding. I wear a helmet voluntarily, so If I were compelled to wear a helmet, I wouldn't stay off my bike. I rode my bike with my legs in ortho boots, with a shoulder sling, broken and plated hand -- and currently with massively arthritic knees. Out of my cold dead hands! I don't understand people who refuse to ride with a helmet. I get the whole "Don't Tread on [my Head]" thing, but I couldn't imagine not riding even if someone made me wear an orange vest.

Do you not understand that you're the tail of the bell
curve? You'd probably ride a bike if they passed a law
requiring you bungee twenty pounds of concrete blocks
onto a rear rack. But it's pretty well proven that
many, many people feel differently. And even if they
did not, what is the sense of imposing a law that
mandates a commercial product of very questionable
efficacy, to prevent a problem of tiny proportions,
when other activities demonstrate far greater risk?
It's absolute nonsense.

Really, it doesn't matter to you primarily because
you've bought into the nonsense. It wouldn't bother you
if they said you have to wear a helmet because you
believe a helmet is wonderfully valuable. Maybe for you
it is, but others who don't have your crash history
shouldn't be harangued, and shouldn't have to justify
their choice to ride as everyone rode before 1980 or so.

- Frank Krygowski

In the spirit of honest advertising I wonder whether a little decal
shouldn't be placed on each helmet sold stating something like, "This
Helmet was tested at an equivalent speed of 14mph (22.5kph) and speeds
exceeding this figure may prove dangerous.

After the public is entitled to know the limitations of the safety
gear that they are being sold :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

That is a totally incorrect depiction of a helmet. They are designed to withstand a fall of 6' with ONLY the weight of your head on the helmet upon impact. And the design is to protect you from a skull fracture alone. They CANNOT protect you from concussion.

Most serious falls have much more mass behind the helmet than just your head. And the most serious injuries are from concussion since this usually leads to damage of the prefrontal lobe cortex - the part of your brain with which you think.

But since you instinctively have a desire for self preservation you seldom are in such a position to cause such injuries.

And helmets do a reasonable job of protecting you from minor injuries.

But, as Frank has pointed out, bicycle head injuries are far
outnumbered by head injuries among motor vehicle operators and even
those who walk.

Why are bicyclists singled out as needing to wear helmets and other,
larger groups, totally ignored. Perhaps because bicyclists are not
knowledgeable and easily influenced?

Certainly, a lot of them are. It's been shown here many times.

The helmet wars have changed over the years. It used to be there were
quite a few people saying "Helmets are really, really necessary if
you're going to ride a bike" and "Helmets are really really protective.
They are life savers!"

After reams of data have been presented on lack of risk and lack of
efficacy, it's now toned down to "Well, they're still valuable for the
type of macho riding _I_ do" and "I wear one only because they protect
against minor injuries."

But so many still won't be caught riding without one.

Scalp lacerations can be serious. I'd post some grisly pictures, but I'll let you do the
Googling. Even without skull fracture, you can get a complex
laceration/avulsion that is like sewing-up a jigsaw puzzle. Wearing a
helmet is a personal choice, but from a purely biomechanical
standpoint, helmets can prevent injuries that are serious by any
standard.

-- Jay Beattie.


But riding in a "sensible manner" and not attempting to run over your
own son can, frequently, prevent injuries :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.