On 5/17/2017 2:31 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2017 23:02:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/16/2017 4:48 PM, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:26:05 AM UTC-7, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Because you require a base line with which to
strike comparisons.

Shouldn't the comparison be helmet vs.
no helmet on biker in accident with
head injuries?

--
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573

Exactly how do you do that? 98% of bicycle accidents are never reported since they have no severe injuries. And they do not list whether or not a serious injury was wearing a helmet and hospitals have enough to do without worrying about keeping statistics for someone else.

What we do know is that from zero helmet use to almost universal use by sports riders there has been no change in injuries. If that isn't good enough for you then perhaps you can gather the statistics.

I wonder if Emanuel has looked at TBI data for the Tour de France.
Roughly 100 years, typically hundreds of riders per year, doing
thousands of miles, in the most grueling conditions, and for almost its
entire history without helmets.

Where was the plague of serious brain injuries?

It might also be interesting that the bulk of the professional riders
participating in the major bicycle races in Europe resisted vigorously
the enforcement of the mandatory helmet rule.

Exactly. If they had observed lots of serious brain injuries among
their cohorts, would they not have welcomed a helmet mandate? Instead
they went on strike to prevent the rule, until back room deals caused
the rule to be imposed on them.

Speaking of deals: Can you imagine the increase in profits that have
resulted from changing the image of pro racers? Once the "fast
recreation riders" AKA wannabee racers would buy the $10 cotton caps
their heroes wore. Now they buy $200 styrofoam sculptures.


--
- Frank Krygowski