On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
> >views on helmets.
> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>
> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
> in preventing injures.
>
> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>
> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
> course, evidence to prove it.

OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?

The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.

But that's false. The easiest indication it's false comes from fatality data. And that data is
the best available because fatalities are tracked most accurately.

So what percentage of American TBI fatalities are bicyclists? Take a guess. 50%? 30%? 15%? 10%?

Take a guess. I'll wait.

The correct answer, last time I dug out the data, was considerably less. Again, what's your guess?

There were several times I gave talks on bike safety to various audiences. A couple bike clubs, a
statewide bike advocacy organization, a transportation organization... and I asked that question.
The most common answer was 30%, probably based on the fear mongering helmet promotions.

What's your guess?

The correct answer, last time I looked it up, was four tenths of one percent. It was far less than
the percentage of TBI fatalities among pedestrians. Way, way less than motorists. WAY less than
people just walking around their homes. Bicycling is, and has always been, a negligible percentage
of American TBI fatalities. And that's despite bicycling being a very common activity in America.

I've never found any data indicating that the numbers are different for "serious" instead of fatal
TBIs, however "serious" might be defined. But I've seen data (which I'd have to dig out again)
indicating concussions are more common in helmeted cyclists than in bareheaded cyclists.

So: Even _if_ lightweight styrofoam helmets were tremendously effective at preventing serious or
fatal brain injuries, why on earth promote them so avidly for an activity that is not a source of
those injuries? Motoring travel, pedestrian travel, walking down stairs all eclipse bicycling as
a source of TBI. Why not advocate helmets for those situations?

Bicycling is simply not dangerous enough to justify the negative attention, or the negative comments
thrown at bicyclists who eschew helmets. (Recall, I've had eight friends and acquaintances killed riding
motor vehicles. Nobody ever said about them "He should have worn a helmet.)

OK, that's a bit about exaggeration of risk. Let me know if you want some info on helmet lack of effectiveness.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
(chomp)
>One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>protective that they should NEVER ride without one.

If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
<https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
"Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

Same with child safety seats:
<https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
"Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."

>It is a scam.

The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
is part of bicycle riding.

What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
effectiveness of your safety equipment.
"Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
<https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
Bicyclist 1 in 3,396

Notes drivel:

1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%

2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
cold if I search for more current numbers.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 08 May 2022 06:25:06 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"I wrote a paper showing...."???
>Tommy wrote a paper?

"Latest CPSC Helmet Standard and US Fatality Trends"
<https://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html> (June 2002)

Not to worry. Tom is never right. Hollywood read Tom's criticism and
created helmets in the opposite manner:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=spaceballs+helmet&tbm=isch>
"Spaceballs: Dark helmet gets Jammed!'
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvf38cnmO_k> (1:35)

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >
>> >I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>> >views on helmets.
>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>
>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>> in preventing injures.
>>
>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>
>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>> course, evidence to prove it.
>
>OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>
>The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.

As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
studies that show that YES, they do work.

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/

I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
reality will have no effect.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>(chomp)
>>One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>
>If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
><https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>"Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>
>Same with child safety seats:
><https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>"Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
>infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>
>>It is a scam.
>
>The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
>that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
>effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
>informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
>alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
>would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
>and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
>would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
>is part of bicycle riding.
>
>What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
>was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
>while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
>getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>"Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
><https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>
>
>Notes drivel:
>
>1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
>from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>
>2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
>numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
>cold if I search for more current numbers.

Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
"helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
come to visit have to wear "helmets".

I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
weighs a ton, or more (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:35 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >
> > >I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
> > >views on helmets.
> > Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
> > "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
> > espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
> >
> > You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
> > go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
> > in preventing injures.
> >
> > You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
> > anguish with no proof what so ever.
> >
> > So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
> > bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
> > course, evidence to prove it.
> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>
> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>
> But that's false. The easiest indication it's false comes from fatality data. And that data is
> the best available because fatalities are tracked most accurately.
>
> So what percentage of American TBI fatalities are bicyclists? Take a guess. 50%? 30%? 15%? 10%?
>
> Take a guess. I'll wait.
>
> The correct answer, last time I dug out the data, was considerably less. Again, what's your guess?
>
> There were several times I gave talks on bike safety to various audiences.. A couple bike clubs, a
> statewide bike advocacy organization, a transportation organization... and I asked that question.
> The most common answer was 30%, probably based on the fear mongering helmet promotions.
>
> What's your guess?
>
> The correct answer, last time I looked it up, was four tenths of one percent. It was far less than
> the percentage of TBI fatalities among pedestrians. Way, way less than motorists. WAY less than
> people just walking around their homes. Bicycling is, and has always been, a negligible percentage
> of American TBI fatalities. And that's despite bicycling being a very common activity in America.

I'd probably argue with you on your last sentence. We as bicyclists, think bicycling is very common. But is it? Its a very small percentage of the total population. And then when you figure in mileage per bicyclist, its maybe less. Does a person who rides 100 miles a year count as a bicyclist the same as a person who rides 1000 miles? Or a cyclist who rides 5000 miles? I'd bet there is a much bigger discrepancy amongst bicyclists in mileage traveled than amongst car drivers. 3000 miles for minimal car driver (12 miles per day, 6 miles each way, for 250 working days a year). 25,000 miles for heavy car driver (100 miles per day, 50 miles each way, for 250 working days a year). About 8 times difference. But with bicyclists, an active rider does 5000 miles a year. A minimal cyclist may reach 500 miles a year. Or much much less. About 10 times difference. And if a cyclist only rides 200 miles a year, its a 25 times difference.

>
> I've never found any data indicating that the numbers are different for "serious" instead of fatal
> TBIs, however "serious" might be defined. But I've seen data (which I'd have to dig out again)
> indicating concussions are more common in helmeted cyclists than in bareheaded cyclists.
>
> So: Even _if_ lightweight styrofoam helmets were tremendously effective at preventing serious or
> fatal brain injuries, why on earth promote them so avidly for an activity that is not a source of
> those injuries? Motoring travel, pedestrian travel, walking down stairs all eclipse bicycling as
> a source of TBI. Why not advocate helmets for those situations?

I think to judge dangerousness you have to define the population. How many car drivers are there? 90+% of the USA population? How many miles driven? How many hours spent driving? How many people walk (pedestrian)? 99+%? Everyone except wheelchair bound probably.

As for advocating helmets for everyone. In football, American football. Not that European soccer. Every player wears a mouthpiece. You soak the plastic mouthpiece in hot water and then bite down on it to form it to your teeth. But how are you going to injure your teeth in football? You have a facemask protecting your mouth, chin, nose, eyes, face. Your teeth are very safe playing football. Yet everyone playing football has to use a mouthpiece. Why? Perception? You are tackling, fighting, punching, kicking your opponent Therefore your teeth are in danger!!!!!! Even though the facemask 100% protects your teeth and mouth.

>
> Bicycling is simply not dangerous enough to justify the negative attention, or the negative comments
> thrown at bicyclists who eschew helmets. (Recall, I've had eight friends and acquaintances killed riding
> motor vehicles. Nobody ever said about them "He should have worn a helmet..)
>
> OK, that's a bit about exaggeration of risk. Let me know if you want some info on helmet lack of effectiveness.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> (chomp)
>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>
> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?

The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.

But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
cost to the car. They last forever. They are extremely easy to use. And
yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.

Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
of the cost of a bike, they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
replacement, they are inconvenient to transport and store, and their
effectiveness is questionable at best. All this to protect against
largely mythical dangers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:

<snip>

> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?

I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like what they prove!

I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that because a
cyclist, wearing a helmet, died after hitting their head, that this
somehow proves that helmets have no benefit. All the available evidence
proves that helmets have a significant effect in reducing traumatic
brain injury and death. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/>.

What you basically have with Frank, is one person who for years has been
desperately trying to justify a life choice that he has freely made. But
the reality is that he doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.
Everyone makes choices about the level of risk they are willing to take.
This isn’t like Covid-19 where those that choose to not get vaccinated
or not wear masks are putting not only themselves, but also the general
public, at risk; riding without a helmet only increases risks for
themselves.

Intentionally spreading misinformation about helmets, in order to
promote an agenda to justify his own life choices, is something that he
should not be doing, and using a friend's death to try to advance that
agenda is especially deplorable.

On Sun, 8 May 2022 11:21:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> (chomp)
>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>
>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.

>You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
>kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
>a complicated definition.

Yes. The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
drivers. If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
(statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
serious injury. In other words, they would have to have experienced
an injury of some sort in order to qualify for the statistical
reduction. Those who were not involved in an accident, or survived
with injuries that were NOT treated at a hospital, where they
presumably be counted, do not qualify.

Whether the hospitals or police accurately recorded whether a seat
belt was used for those treated in the hospital is somewhat
questionable. Most of the time, they ask the survivors if they were
wearing their seat belts. The obvious answer by the survivors is "of
course I was wearing my seat belt" and those who dies as
"undetermined". This tends to produce a rather high seat belt use
among accident survivors.

It's a little better for bicycle helmet use. Standard ambulance and
ER procedures for bicycle accident victims, where a brain/head/spine
injury is suspected, is to NOT remove the helmet until after the
patient is inspected at a hospital.
<https://www.mayoclinic.org/first-aid/first-aid-spinal-injury/basics/art-20056677>
"Keep helmet on. If the person is wearing a helmet, don't remove it."
This tends to produce a more realist helmet use count, but only for
those treated in a hospital or ER.

>If a person survives such a crash without the
>belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?

Probably. I would need to read through the survey procedures to be
certain.

>The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
>getting in such a crash?

Exactly. Notice that I mumbled:
"Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of getting into an accident in
the first place and NOT on the effectiveness of your safety
equipment."
In other words, wearing a helmet or seat belt will NOT prevent someone
from getting into an accident. The claim is that should someone get
into an accident, the chances are much better of survival if they were
wearing a helmet or seat belt. (I won't go into situations where a
helmet or seat belt might contribute or aggravate an injury).

>For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
>odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
>protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
>crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
>between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
>ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.

Yep. The current trend is something like "if it saves one life, it's
justified". In other words, throw out the odds and only look at the
potential damage. For example, pain killer drug addiction is now
considered a "major problem" a major problem because a very small
percentage of users develop an addiction. Never mind that the
statistical addiction rate is tiny (23,000 out of 7 million opioid
takers in a training sample). Never mind that most opioid addictions
are to recreational drugs, not medical drugs. So, the problem is
handed over to a computer algorithm by NarxCare, which tends to deny
pain killers to many that genuinely need it. It's like swatting flies
with a sledge hammer.
"The Pain Was Unbearable. So Why Did Doctors Turn Her Away?"
<https://www.wired.com/story/opioid-drug-addiction-algorithm-chronic-pain/>
I'll stop here before I get genuinely irritated.

>But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
>helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
>Seat belts have roughly zero detriments.

I still remember the arguments over mandatory seat belt use in the
early 1960's. One could be trapped in the car by the seat belt in
case of an accident. Small children would be strangled by a shoulder
belt. Pregnancy issues and so on. It's still going on today:
<https://automobiles.uslegal.com/seat-belt-usage/why-people-ignore-seat-belts/>
I had to talk my way out of a ticket, while riding as a passenger, for
not wearing a shoulder belt because I had recently had bypass surgery
and there was a risk of ripping my chest open. I'm sure the same
logic used to justify not wearing a face mask could also be used. Face
masks and seat belts are not 100% effective and are therefore useless
and not needed.

>They add a negligible dollar cost to the car.

<https://howmuchly.com/cost-to-replace-a-seat-belt>
"According to 2022 estimates, seat belt replacement cost ranges from
$20 to $250. You have to pay $80-$100 on average for labor costs for a
qualified mechanic. The average price of the seat belt is anywhere
near $20-$150."

>They last forever.

The drivers seat belts in my 21 year old are in need of replacement.
They tend to get dirty, so I wash them every 2 years. The spring
loaded retraction mechanism has digested some debris and will
eventually need to be disassembled and cleaned. I guess by today's
throw-away standards, 21 years might seem like forever.

Marginally related drivel: Lenovo/Motorola just declared my 2 year
old Moto G Power (2020) phone to be "unsupported" and will no longer
qualify for receive updates. Product life is becoming shorter.

>They are extremely easy to use. And
>yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
>bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
>danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.

I could also argue those, but it's easier to just make my point now.
Every single point of contention for safety supports a rather vocal
minority. Pick ANY safety device, and you will find a group of
detractors ready to convince you, the public, and the government that
the safety device is in some manner dangerous, inferior, or
ineffective. I do not consider such detractors to be a problem. I do
consider the laws, rules, and regulations factories to be big
problems.

>Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
>of the cost of a bike, they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,
>they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
>replacement, they are inconvenient to transport and store, and their
>effectiveness is questionable at best. All this to protect against
>largely mythical dangers.

I believe that I just demonstrated that cost, inconvenience, and
effectiveness are issues with ALL types of safety devices. The only
distinction is where you, proponents, vested interests, regulators,
and legislators set their thresholds. I don't see bicycle helmets as
an exception.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

with <c5fe7h9ftbo52f8bhat520p5tib4k9vc2a@4ax.com> John B wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>>On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>><frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

*SKIP*
> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
> come to visit have to wear "helmets".

Are "bosses" wearing Magic Hats?

*CUT*

--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Yes. The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
> drivers. If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
> serious injury. In other words, they would have to have experienced
> an injury of some sort in order to qualify for the statistical
> reduction. Those who were not involved in an accident, or survived
> with injuries that were NOT treated at a hospital, where they
> presumably be counted, do not qualify.

There's always been an under-counting issue when it comes to bicycle
helmets because those involved in bicycle crashes where they don't seek
medical attention because the helmet mitigated their injuries to a
sufficient degree, are not counted. It's the same issue with most
protective equipment that functions as intended.

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:33:19 AM UTC-7, Eric Pozharski wrote:
> with <c5fe7h9ftbo52f8bh...@4ax.com> John B wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
> > wrote:
> >>On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >><frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> *SKIP*
> > Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
> > "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
> > come to visit have to wear "helmets".
> Are "bosses" wearing Magic Hats?
>
> *CUT*
>
> --
> Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
> Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

The difference in injuries and deaths on bicycles are dramatically different. Deaths are almost entirely being hit by autos and a helmet makes NO difference (well in the VERY occasional almost stopped car injury) Injuries are nearly always from fall-over single vehicle accidents. While a helmet can most certainly reduce the severity of an injury in most cases, it is not the magic hat and won't save your life under any but the most unusual case. While there are thousands of injuries per year a case in which a helmet actually saved your life probably only occurs once every couple of years.

Off-road MTB riders are usually involved in more serious accidents but are injured less because the landing surface is softer. I have crashed everywhere under the most unusual conditions and I have never broken a bone though I have lost lots and lots of skin. My wife just reminded me when we were descending Patterson Pass road towards Tracy and I was pedaling hard at over 40 mph and my foot pulled out of a "lollipop" pedal. My foot swung back and then forward and my foot went into the front spokes and I went off the road at speed. Luckily into the uphill side of the road.

In car collisions, the death rates from with and without a helmet is exactly the same. So the normal bicycle helmet should be considered nothing more than a fashion item and if Frank prefers to be out of fashion isn't that his business wouldn't you think?

On 5/7/2022 11:28 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>>>> views on helmets.
>>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>>
>>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>>> in preventing injures.
>>>
>>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>>
>>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>>> course, evidence to prove it.
>>
>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>
>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>
> As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
> means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
> studies that show that YES, they do work.
>
> https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/
>
> I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
> reality will have no effect.

Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
question at all?

Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?

Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.

There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
protection levels.)

But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?

Why not answer my question?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 3:02 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 9:13:35 PM UTC-5, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>
>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>>
>> But that's false. The easiest indication it's false comes from fatality data. And that data is
>> the best available because fatalities are tracked most accurately.
>>
>> So what percentage of American TBI fatalities are bicyclists? Take a guess. 50%? 30%? 15%? 10%?
....
>>
>> The correct answer, last time I looked it up, was four tenths of one percent. It was far less than
>> the percentage of TBI fatalities among pedestrians. Way, way less than motorists. WAY less than
>> people just walking around their homes. Bicycling is, and has always been, a negligible percentage
>> of American TBI fatalities. And that's despite bicycling being a very common activity in America.
>
> I'd probably argue with you on your last sentence. We as bicyclists, think bicycling is very common. But is it?

Yes, it is. You, like many avid cyclists, think "bicyclist" is defined
as "Guy wearing lycra riding an expensive machine made of exotic
materials for many thousands of miles per year." But there are regular
national surveys of American recreation, and by the standards of those
surveys, bicycling is one of the most common recreational activities in
America.

> Its a very small percentage of the total population. And then when you figure in mileage per bicyclist, its maybe less. Does a person who rides 100 miles a year count as a bicyclist the same as a person who rides 1000 miles?

There are researchers and agencies that attempt to measure hazards per
mile. Britain has for years gathered data on miles traveled by various
modes, including walking, and published relative risk figures. In the
U.S. that job is more difficult, but Dr. John Pucher of Rutgers has sort
of specialized in it. Both Pucher and Britain's data indicates bicycling
is safer than walking, in terms of fatalities or serious injuries per
mile traveled.

When, oh when, will we begin demanding that pedestrians wear helmets?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 11:46 AM, sms wrote:
> On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what point?
>> Weird....You know about statistics, no?
>
> I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like what they prove!
>
> I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that because a
> cyclist, wearing a helmet, died after hitting their head, that this
> somehow proves that helmets have no benefit. All the available evidence
> proves that helmets have a significant effect in reducing traumatic
> brain injury and death. <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/>.

And on the other hand:
https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757%2808%2900649-9/fulltext

Dr. Crocker conducted a similar study. He stated ahead of time that his
objective was to gather evidence to promote an all-ages mandatory helmet
law for the Austin, TX area. He gathered information on all cyclists
presenting to the area hospitals for treatment.

Unfortunately for his cause, he gathered data on not only helmet use,
but on alcohol use. His surveys and analysis showed alcohol was strongly
associated with head injuries in bicyclists. But when he accounted for
the confounding effect of alcohol use, the effect of helmets protecting
against head injury was found to not be statistically significant. Last
I heard, Dr. Crocker dropped his lobbying for a mandatory helmet law.

This raises a significant question regarding studies like the one Scharf
points to. Did the researchers record and compensate for alcohol use?
Very few such papers have done so.

And if the real problem is really being drunk, rather than being
bareheaded, is there any sense in trying to convince drunks to strap on
helmets? What's the likelihood of any success?

>
> What you basically have with Frank, is one person who for years has been
> desperately trying to justify a life choice that he has freely made. But
> the reality is that he doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.

Scharf is another who is avoiding my main question. The facts are,
bicycling is a very, very minor contributor to serious or fatal TBI
incidents. It's dwarfed almost 100 to one by other causes.

So why is _bicycling_ saddled with helmet shaming? Why are helmets not
promoted for the _other_ 99% of TBI victims?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>> (chomp)
>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>
>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>
>> Same with child safety seats:
>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent for
>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>
>>> It is a scam.
>>
>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seats is
>> that the users of these are not well informed of the (numerical)
>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if they were
>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at keeping them
>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm) would be half
>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack of adequate
>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the other half
>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because taking risks
>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>
>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and NHTSA that there
>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a major accident
>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the risk of
>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>
>>
>> Notes drivel:
>>
>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of not dying
>>from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>
>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009. Current
>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my dinner will be
>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>
> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig without a
> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the "bosses" when they
> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>
> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig that is up
> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive" which probably
> weighs a ton, or more (:-)

I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A few years
ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000 vehicle-per-day 5
lane road near my home. I rode my bike over to watch for a bit.

I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck, park the
pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the roadway, then put a
hard hat on his head.

The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a meteor. And
really, his biggest chance of a head injury would have been while
driving the truck, unless he tripped on exit. But apparently no
regulation said to wear a helmet while driving or exiting.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/8/2022 2:46 PM, sms wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 10:27 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yes.  The 45% reduction is a percentage of those who were injured in
>> an accident and NOT a percentage of the overall number of automobile
>> drivers.  If someone is NOT injured, they are not part of the group
>> (statistical population) the experienced a reduction in death rate or
>> serious injury.

If that sort of undercounting were significant, it would show up as an
otherwise unexplained drop in the number of serious bike injuries or
fatalities. Such drops have not occurred, especially for fatalities.

http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/kunich.html

And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 8 May 2022 16:14:30 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>And examining the other side of the coin: I don't believe any agency
>will be noting the failure of my friend's helmet to prevent his brain
>injury fatality. Since it was a solo crash with no motor vehicle
>involvement, it's not likely to make the usual databases.

For your amusement:

"What We Learned from Tracking Cycling Deaths for a Year"
(Jan 29, 2021)
<https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/what-we-learned-tracking-cycling-deaths-year/>

I randomly clicked on the red dots on the US map. Part of the
database for each accident appears in a box. There's a "Suspected
DUI" field. Most of the one's I read showed a blank for no data. A
few said "no" and none showed a DUI. There's no mention of drinking
or DUI in the article. There's more info at:
<https://bikemaps.org>
but the DUI and hit-n-run fields have been dropped.

Of course, the conclusion and recommended solutions have little or
nothing to do with the data:

Where to Go from Here
"Despite this harrowing data, we remain optimistic that safer roads
for cyclists are possible. Across the country and the world, leaders
are pushing legislation and expanding infrastructure projects to make
roads safer for users who are not in a car."

So there you have it. It's all about building infrastructure, for
profit of course.

Also see the "A Note on Our Methodology" section near the bottom of
the web page for additional horrors.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 5/8/2022 3:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 11:46 AM, sms wrote:
>> On 5/6/2022 11:13 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> A friend died and you babbling about helmets to make what
>>> point? Weird....You know about statistics, no?
>>
>> I'm sure that he knows about them, he just doesn't like
>> what they prove!
>>
>> I hope that no one is naïve enough to extrapolate that
>> because a cyclist, wearing a helmet, died after hitting
>> their head, that this somehow proves that helmets have no
>> benefit. All the available evidence proves that helmets
>> have a significant effect in reducing traumatic brain
>> injury and death.
>> <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/>.
>
> And on the other hand:
> https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757%2808%2900649-9/fulltext
>
>
> Dr. Crocker conducted a similar study. He stated ahead of
> time that his objective was to gather evidence to promote an
> all-ages mandatory helmet law for the Austin, TX area. He
> gathered information on all cyclists presenting to the area
> hospitals for treatment.
>
> Unfortunately for his cause, he gathered data on not only
> helmet use, but on alcohol use. His surveys and analysis
> showed alcohol was strongly associated with head injuries in
> bicyclists. But when he accounted for the confounding effect
> of alcohol use, the effect of helmets protecting against
> head injury was found to not be statistically significant.
> Last I heard, Dr. Crocker dropped his lobbying for a
> mandatory helmet law.
>
> This raises a significant question regarding studies like
> the one Scharf points to. Did the researchers record and
> compensate for alcohol use? Very few such papers have done so.
>
> And if the real problem is really being drunk, rather than
> being bareheaded, is there any sense in trying to convince
> drunks to strap on helmets? What's the likelihood of any
> success?
>
>>
>> What you basically have with Frank, is one person who for
>> years has been desperately trying to justify a life choice
>> that he has freely made. But the reality is that he
>> doesn’t need to keep trying to justify it.
>
> Scharf is another who is avoiding my main question. The
> facts are, bicycling is a very, very minor contributor to
> serious or fatal TBI incidents. It's dwarfed almost 100 to
> one by other causes.
>
> So why is _bicycling_ saddled with helmet shaming? Why are
> helmets not promoted for the _other_ 99% of TBI victims?
>
>

An obvious solution is to require helmets for drunken
bicyclists and seat belts for drunk drivers!

(which would be as effective as 'banning firearms for
convicted criminals' who by definition are lawless.)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>> (chomp)
>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>> helmet failed even
>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>> helmets are SO
>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>
>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>
>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>> reduce the risk
>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>> wearing seat
>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>
>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>
>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>> percent for
>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>
>>>> It is a scam.
>>>
>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>> safety seats is
>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>> (numerical)
>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>> they were
>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>> keeping them
>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>> would be half
>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>> of adequate
>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>> other half
>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>> taking risks
>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>
>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>> NHTSA that there
>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>> major accident
>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>> risk of
>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>
>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>
>>>
>>> Notes drivel:
>>>
>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>> not dying
>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>
>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>> Current
>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>> dinner will be
>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>
>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>> without a
>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>> "bosses" when they
>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>
>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>> that is up
>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>> which probably
>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>
> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
> over to watch for a bit.
>
> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>
> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
> while driving or exiting.
>

It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
motor vehicles.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 8 May 2022 15:34:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/7/2022 11:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:13:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 7:21:22 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 09:45:23 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be very surprised if you could accurately and honestly summarize my
>>>>> views on helmets.
>>>> Well, I admit to being a bit, well, sarcastic with my comment.
>>>> "Perhaps he didn't know how to fall" but your view on helmets, as
>>>> espoused here is "They ain't no good!"
>>>>
>>>> You disparage reports of helmets and visits to emergency clinics and
>>>> go on and on, yet you offer no proof that bicycle helmets do not help
>>>> in preventing injures.
>>>>
>>>> You are exhibiting the same fallacies that Tommy does, loud cry's of
>>>> anguish with no proof what so ever.
>>>>
>>>> So get with it and produce some statistics, something like, "In 2019
>>>> bicycle helmets prevented no head injuries what so ever!" With, of
>>>> course, evidence to prove it.
>>>
>>> OK, let's start from the beginning: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>>>
>>> The typical assumption is that bike helmets are necessary because bicycling imposes a large risk of serious
>>> brain injury (TBI); certainly a larger TBI risk than other activities for which no helmet is required.
>>
>> As far as I remember (granted always suspect) helmets were touted as a
>> means of limiting head injuries and there is literally miles of
>> studies that show that YES, they do work.
>>
>> https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324679729_Bicycle_helmets_-_To_wear_or_not_to_wear_A_meta-analyses_of_the_effects_of_bicycle_helmets_on_injuries
>> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30173006/
>>
>> I could go on, and on, but why bother. You've made up your mind and
>> reality will have no effect.
>
>Certainly you "could go on" citing brief summaries of papers you haven't
>read. That's easy! But can you not see that you didn't address my
>question at all?
>
>Here it is again: Why are helmets promoted for bicycling?
>
>Bicycling is and has always been one of the least contributors to the
>problem of Traumatic Brain Injury. Again, last I looked, well over 99%
>of TBI fatalities had nothing to do with bicycling. My friend's
>unfortunate experience is incredibly rare, blessedly rare.
>
>There are still serious questions about the level of protectiveness of
>bike helmets, even if nobody says there is zero protection. (If there
>were no questions, you wouldn't find papers trying to determine
>protection levels.)
>
>But if these thin, fragile, lightweight, disposable hats _are_ effective
>protection, why are they being wasted on an activity that produces only
>one half of one percent of the danger? Why _not_ push them on
>pedestrians, who are actually at more risk per mile traveled than
>bicyclists? Why not have at _least_ elderly people wear them all the
>time around the house, since falls in the home are a much more common
>cause of serious TBI? Why not add such simple protection to motorists,
>whose seat belts and air bags fail them over 35,000 times per year?
>
>Why not answer my question?

Rather like Tommy. I provide data and you provide supposition and
opinion.

As Kipling wrote, "Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under
their skins".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>> (chomp)
>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>
>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>
>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>> reduce the risk
>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>> wearing seat
>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>
>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>
>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>> percent for
>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>
>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>
>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>> safety seats is
>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>> (numerical)
>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>> they were
>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>> keeping them
>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>> would be half
>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>> of adequate
>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>> other half
>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>> taking risks
>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>
>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>> major accident
>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>> risk of
>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>
>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>> not dying
>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>
>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>> Current
>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>> dinner will be
>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>
>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>> without a
>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>> "bosses" when they
>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>
>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>> that is up
>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>> which probably
>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>
>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>> over to watch for a bit.
>>
>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>
>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>> while driving or exiting.
>>
>
>It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>motor vehicles.

No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.

Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
who was NOT wearing a helmet.

As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
>>>> <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
>>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
>>>>> (chomp)
>>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
>>>>>> helmet failed even
>>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
>>>>>> helmets are SO
>>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
>>>>> reduce the risk
>>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
>>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
>>>>> wearing seat
>>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same with child safety seats:
>>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
>>>>> percent for
>>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a scam.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
>>>>> safety seats is
>>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
>>>>> (numerical)
>>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
>>>>> they were
>>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
>>>>> keeping them
>>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
>>>>> would be half
>>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
>>>>> of adequate
>>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
>>>>> other half
>>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
>>>>> taking risks
>>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
>>>>>
>>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
>>>>> NHTSA that there
>>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
>>>>> major accident
>>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
>>>>> risk of
>>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
>>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
>>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
>>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
>>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Notes drivel:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
>>>>> not dying
>>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
>>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
>>>>> Current
>>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
>>>>> dinner will be
>>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
>>>> without a
>>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
>>>> "bosses" when they
>>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
>>>>
>>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
>>>> that is up
>>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
>>>> which probably
>>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
>>>
>>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
>>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
>>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
>>> over to watch for a bit.
>>>
>>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
>>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
>>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
>>>
>>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
>>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
>>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
>>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
>>> while driving or exiting.
>>>
>>
>> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
>> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
>> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
>> motor vehicles.
>
> No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
> drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
> was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
> a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
> your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
>
> Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> who was NOT wearing a helmet.
>
> As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
> obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
> any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
>

You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
your life:

https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:21:42 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/7/2022 11:01 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> > (chomp)
> >> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's helmet failed even
> >> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told helmets are SO
> >> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >
> > If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> > <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> > "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk
> > of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> > In other words, if you get into a major accident while wearing seat
> > belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> You seem to be implicitly defining "major accident" as one that could
> kill you without seat belts (or, I presume, air bags). Obviously, that's
> a complicated definition. If a person survives such a crash without the
> belt or bags, is the crash automatically said to not qualify?
>
> The other relevant probability is, of course, what are the odds of
> getting in such a crash? For roughly 75 years, society judged that those
> odds were low enough. Not zero, but low enough that no additional
> protection was needed. (I can report never having had a moving on-road
> crash in any motor vehicle.) Then, post Ralph Nader, the boundary
> between "sufficiently safe" and "Danger! Danger!" was shifted to include
> ordinary motoring, and seat belts became a requirement.
>
> But to fully understand the seat belt decision in contrast to bike
> helmets, I think it's necessary to consider Benefits vs. Detriments.
> Seat belts have roughly zero detriments. They add a negligible dollar
> cost to the car.

Probably true. Seatbelts, cheap. Airbags, more expensive. But both compared to the cost of a $40,000 car, somewhat negligible. A helmet will cost anywhere from $50 to $300. That is the cost of Bontrager helmets when I did a Google search. Tommy boy's preferred Wavecell helmet is up to $300. But Bontrager sells much cheaper ones too. $50. Walmart has bicycle helmets for $7.91, $9.59, $13.71, $14.75, $16.99, $18.28, $19.99, $21.99, $30.70, $34.97. And maybe a few more prices I missed. Google search on Walmart bicycle helmets. I have no idea what the average price of bicycles is now days. Couple hundred dollars? Couple thousand dollars? Wide range in bicycle cost. Walmart has road bikes listed at $269 and $329 and $449. Drop bars. And hybrid/mountain bikes listed at $128 and $192 and $469. Trek probably has bikes listed from $1000 to $14,000. So the cheapest Walmart helmet at $7.91 paired with the most expensive Walmart road bike at $449 is 1.76%. The cheapest Bontrager helmet at $50 paired with the most expensive Trek bike at $14,000 is 0.36%.

> They last forever. They are extremely easy to use. And
> yes, tests show they are reasonably (not perfectly) effective. (BTW, air
> bags add very little more protection, at much higher cost and some added
> danger.) Seat belt benefits easily exceed their negligible detriments.
>
> Bike helmets fail by those standards. They are a much higher percentage
> of the cost of a bike,

See my reply above. Maybe they are a higher percentage of the cost, maybe not.

> they are difficult to fit and properly adjust,

Are they? My helmets have always had nylon straps that you adjust with those clasps located underneath the ears and under the chin. Its a pretty simple process to understand. Slide the straps through the clasps until they are in the right spot. Even our resident genius Tommy seems to be able to adjust his helmet straps. We should be happy to have Tommy around to establish the absolute lowest threshold for tasks. If Tommy can do it, it can't be too hard.

> they are fragile and are promoted as needing relatively frequent
> replacement,

Fragile? The only helmets I have broken were in crashes. And after the crash, breaking the helmet was the least of my worries. So I have found helmets to be tough enough. Not fragile at all. I have read and heard that helmets should be replaced every so often. Every 5 years? Or 10 years? Due to sunlight or age degrading the plastic and/or foam. I can believe that. Very few things last forever. Leather shoes need replacement too. Either from wear and tear. Or the leather just becomes fragile and cracks from age.

> they are inconvenient to transport and store,

Huh? I transport helmets by just putting them on the backseat or floorboards of the car. Or wearing them of course. Seems pretty easy to me. And for storage, I just put the helmet beside my bike shoes. Or hang it from the brake lever. Pretty darn easy storage. To me at least.

> and their
> effectiveness is questionable at best.

OK. There is debate and argument on how protective helmets are depending on what kind of crash they are involved in. Get run over by 9 of the semi's wheels and you are almost certainly dead. In your friend's case he fell over at slow speeds with a helmet and died. I have hit a car windshield with no helmet and lived. And hit a car windshield with a helmet and lived. And hit the pavement with a helmet and lived. So all I can conclude is their effectiveness is variable.

> All this to protect against largely mythical dangers.
>

Mythical? I don't think crashes with cars and trucks is mythical. Or even crashes without cars or trucks. They are real dangers and can cause injury. No myths. Crashes are real. And no, I am NOT saying all the cars and trucks are going to run you over and kill you. No, thankfully. Its just a small percent that run you over and try to kill you. But it is a real danger. Not mythical. And crashes do happen. Ride long enough, and you will crash. Watch any bicycle race on TV and you will see a crash. Crashes happen.

Frank, are you telling us you have never ever been involved in a crash? You have never ever hit the ground? You have never ever hit a car? You are one lucky biker. Or great biker. Never ever been involved in a crash. Wow. Is Tommy boy even that lucky or skilled?

>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 4:27:22 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sun, 08 May 2022 16:55:01 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/8/2022 3:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/8/2022 12:19 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 07 May 2022 20:01:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
> >>>> <je...@cruzio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 17:04:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Here's the certification test for seat belts and airbags:
> >>>>>> https://youtu.be/n8vf9EJBBfw?t=24
> >>>>> (chomp)
> >>>>>> One of my points in my posting was that my friend's
> >>>>>> helmet failed even
> >>>>>> that minimal level of protection. Yet cyclists are told
> >>>>>> helmets are SO
> >>>>>> protective that they should NEVER ride without one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If that's a scam, so are seat belts in automobiles.
> >>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/seatbeltbrief/index.html>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts
> >>>>> reduce the risk
> >>>>> of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%".
> >>>>> In other words, if you get into a major accident while
> >>>>> wearing seat
> >>>>> belts, toss a coin to see if you're going to live.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Same with child safety seats:
> >>>>> <https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811387>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71
> >>>>> percent for
> >>>>> infants and by 54 percent for toddlers in passenger cars."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It is a scam.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only part of bicycle helmet, seat belt, and child
> >>>>> safety seats is
> >>>>> that the users of these are not well informed of the
> >>>>> (numerical)
> >>>>> effectiveness of the safety devices. The problem is if
> >>>>> they were
> >>>>> informed that they were only about 50% effective at
> >>>>> keeping them
> >>>>> alive, would they continue to use them? My guess(tm)
> >>>>> would be half
> >>>>> would immediately give up bicycle riding because the lack
> >>>>> of adequate
> >>>>> and effective safety equipment is too risky, while the
> >>>>> other half
> >>>>> would continue riding and ignore the statistics because
> >>>>> taking risks
> >>>>> is part of bicycle riding.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What would YOU do if you were informed by the CDC and
> >>>>> NHTSA that there
> >>>>> was still a 50% chance of dying should you get into a
> >>>>> major accident
> >>>>> while wearing a helmet? Hint: It mostly depends on the
> >>>>> risk of
> >>>>> getting into an accident in the first place and NOT on the
> >>>>> effectiveness of your safety equipment.
> >>>>> "Preventable Deaths - Odds of Dying"
> >>>>> <https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/preventable-death-overview/odds-of-dying/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 101
> >>>>> Bicyclist 1 in 3,396
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Notes drivel:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Wearing two helmets does not improved the chances of
> >>>>> not dying
> >>>>> from 50% to 100%. It only improves it to:
> >>>>> 1 - (0.50 * 0.50) = 0.75 = 75%
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. Yes, I know the seat belt statistics are from 2009.
> >>>>> Current
> >>>>> numbers would be better but there's a 50% risk that my
> >>>>> dinner will be
> >>>>> cold if I search for more current numbers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Try going on "the floor" of an oil well drilling rig
> >>>> without a
> >>>> "helmet". It is cause for termination and even the
> >>>> "bosses" when they
> >>>> come to visit have to wear "helmets".
> >>>>
> >>>> I might add that about the only thing on a drilling rig
> >>>> that is up
> >>>> above your head and might fall down is the "Top Drive"
> >>>> which probably
> >>>> weighs a ton, or more (:-)
> >>>
> >>> I've described similar weirdness among road paving crews. A
> >>> few years ago they were doing nighttime paving on the 30,000
> >>> vehicle-per-day 5 lane road near my home. I rode my bike
> >>> over to watch for a bit.
> >>>
> >>> I saw a construction guy drive over in a white pickup truck,
> >>> park the pickup at the side of the road, get out onto the
> >>> roadway, then put a hard hat on his head.
> >>>
> >>> The only object overhead might, I suppose, have been a
> >>> meteor. And really, his biggest chance of a head injury
> >>> would have been while driving the truck, unless he tripped
> >>> on exit. But apparently no regulation said to wear a helmet
> >>> while driving or exiting.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's not only a workplace rule (or regulation), it's also a
> >> variant of 'virtue signalling'. No politician with a sense
> >> of self-preservation would ever propose required helmets in
> >> motor vehicles.
> >
> > No, probably not, and from memory wearing helmets (hard hats) on
> > drilling rigs was not mandated by any government. Again from memory it
> > was the Insurance company's that mandated it. But not "You Gotta wear
> > a Hard Hat" but rather, "If your guys don't wear a hard hat we cancel
> > your insurance". And Bingo! Hard Hats were a requirement.
> >
> > Perhaps that is the solution to the Great Bicycle Helmet Debate".
> > Simply cancel any insurance scheme for anyone injured in a bike crash
> > who was NOT wearing a helmet.
> >
> > As Tom and Frank tell us that there is no need for helmets ten
> > obviously this will not, in any way, cause any hardship whatsoever to
> > any USian bicyclist and it might reduce insurance costs a bit.
> >
> You've been away from our socialist utopia for a while. Some
> guy in an office in DC knows better than you how to live
> your life:
>
> https://www.safetybydesigninc.com/osha-hard-hat-requirements-hard-hat-safety-rules/

Is it any surprise that Johnny baby who lives in a dictatorship is so happy and proud of it? No wonder he never returned to the US. All that freedom would kill him in a minute.