On 2/19/2019 6:22 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 9:05:57 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/19/2019 10:05 AM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 7:33:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 7:40 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 12:48:41 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/18/2019 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 9:42:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/17/2019 4:52 PM, wrote:

Why would you say "anecdotal" when I have timed the two bikes many times over the same stretches of road?

You never give us data, Tom. Give us your data.

Also are you suggesting that people have gotten stronger and that is why there is a one mile per hour gain in speed from 2006 to 2016 on the world 10 mile TT records? You might perhaps not think of that as much but it is all hell and gone faster for speed records to jump that much.

Let's back up a bit. The article by Moulton makes clear that elite bike
racing deaths have increased significantly, not decreased, with the
popularity of (or mandates for) helmet use. IOW, that data gives no
evidence that helmets save lives. The needle isn't even moving in the
right direction.

Are you now trying to say that helmets are actually terrifically
effective at saving lives, but their wonderful benefit is totally wiped
out by a few miles per hour more speed?

That's weird in several ways. In other places - such as when you
compared time-series counts of pedestrian and bike fatalties - you said
helmets were obviously NOT saving lives. (Note, that was a rare instance
of you actually giving data.)

Perhaps you should concisely clarify your real position on the
effectiveness of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities.

Exactly where in the hell are you coming from? At what point did I ever say that helmets save lives? We were talking about the aerodynamics of the newer bicycles increasing the speeds.

Your dopey losing track of the conversation is rather silly. I don't have to give you ANY of my personal experiences when I can show huge speed increases in the 10 mi TT speeds.

Is your Alzheimer's acting up today?

Oh good grief! Talk about forgetfulness! Start about six posts up, in
your response to John.

Never mind, since you've demonstrated difficulty with your mouse's
scroll wheel, I'll paste below the end of his remark and your response:

As Dave Moulton pointed out in his Blog, more professional cyclists
have died since the helmet law went into effect then had died prior to
the law's enactment.

--
Cheers,
John B.

To that, you wrote: "This probably has nothing whatsoever to do with
helmets. Professional cycling speeds have gone up significantly..." etc.

You didn't specifically say they might save lives. But you implied that
the lack of life saving was not some fault of the helmets, that minor
speed increases were the cause.

Why not just concisely clarify your real position on the effectiveness
of bike helmets regarding prevention of fatalities? Maybe that will
clear up the confusion.

Frank - I really don't follow what in he heck you mean. Are you saying that wearing a helmet CAUSES more cyclist's deaths?

What I mean is what I said in my last paragraph above. Don't deflect
into aerodynamics, downhill speeds or anything else.

Please concisely clarify your real position: How effective do you think
bike helmets are at preventing fatalities?


--
- Frank Krygowski

I'm deflecting but you refuse to actually say what you mean. I will ask you again: Are you saying that helmets cause fatalities?

I don't think bike helmets directly cause many fatalities, although they
may cause some. The mechanism that's been proposed is this: Since the
helmet is obviously larger than the bare human head, there must be a
certain number of glancing blows to the helmet that would be near misses
of a bare head, or perhaps that would have barely hit the head.

Glancing blows induce rotational acceleration of the head, which is the
predominant mechanism for brain damage. If the hit is hard enough and
the rotational acceleration large enough, there can be shear damage to
the blood vessels and other tissues in the brain. Damaged blood vessels
can cause intercranial swelling, which can be fatal.

But I don't think it's possible to determine how often this causes
fatalities, nor other traumatic brain injuries, such as concussions.

Yet it's pretty clear that bicyclist concussions have risen, not fallen,
during the time period that helmet use rose. Likewise, its clear that
elite racer fatalities also rose. One way or other, the use of helmets
seems to make things worse.

Some have said a more likely mechanism is risk compensation. I think
that's extremely likely regarding mountain biking, a sport in which
risky riding is actively promoted. I suspect that if the plastic hats
were forbidden instead of required, riders would be much more careful. I
think the effect for road riders is probably less, but not absent. Over
the years in this forum and elsewhere we've had remarks like "I'd never
ride that road without a helmet." That's direct evidence of risk
compensation.

But all the above is detail, in my opinion. The bare fact is, despite
the treasured anecdotes about lives saved, despite all the claims of
tremendous protection, data on actual injuries and deaths show that bike
helmets are not working. And that's not at all surprising to people who
really understand their minimal certification standards.

But I don't think that means bicyclists should worry. Data on actual
injuries and deaths show that bicycling is, on average, a very safe
activity. It's NOT the death trap that helmet promoters make it out to
be. And every relevant study has found that its benefits FAR outweigh
its tiny risks.

OK, Tom, that's my view. Now can I ask you (for the third or fourth
time): How effective do _you_ think bike helmets are at preventing
fatalities?

The primary means of traumatic head injuries is a blow and NOT rotation force ...

Oh really? And your source is...?

As I pointed out in my paper and you do not seem to understand - there doesn't not seem to be any statistical evidence that a helmet save any life. But of course just as you hedge your bet - there could possibly be a rare outlier in which a helmet makes the difference between a serious injury and a fatality.

OK, that's an answer, finally, after several requests. Thanks.

So why wouldn't you answer my question until five messages of prodding?

Wow...

--
- Frank Krygowski