Anyone even slightly versed in the topic knows that helmet testing and certification has been a long-standing problem.
I should hope that's rhetorical, because you've already been told several times that the data is available from the NHTSA. Are you unable to comprehend those 5 letters?
So, just to confirm then -- you lack the sufficient faith in your position to state that you will admit to being wrong, after I post the evidence?
What are you scared of? If you are certain that I am either wrong, or unable to defend my position, just state here publicly that you will admit to being wrong after I do so. You've nothing to lose, right?
Let's see -- in no particular order:
- the crisis in peer review
- the fact that some products which do not protect people remain for sale
- the fact that modern products do not necessarily improve on millennia of evolution
- the nearly useless-quality of cycling injury statistics
- the difference between Buzzfeed and fivethirtyeight
- the many substances in the environment that are not harder than a human head
- that paddlers do not wear helmets because of the "hardness" of water
- that manufacturers do not rigorously test their helmets
- and most importantly, that bicycle helmets exhibit the precise statistical signature of a placebo
OK, so we should not wear helmets because some testing is slightly lacking. Really good logic.
You keep saying this data exists but yet you CANNOT prove it. It is not on me to find the data to back up your position. It is not on me to have to argue on your behalf and provide evidence to prove something that is so ridiculous. You cannot prove me wrong literally your position is untenable. "Helmets are unsafe because of helmet hair and someone might think cycling is dangerous if you wear helmets and because Amazon and others sell bad helmets they must all be unsafe, VA Tech has to rate them now.. Oh and if you want to find the data to back up my position you need to do because I can't" I think I have summed up your position pretty well and I am sure your response will be "you got it all wrong you won't let me post the data because you won't agree to my silly terms" or some such nonsense.
So no real education then because none of that is actual education. It is you trying to make more silly claims or say something that was already known. I know why paddlers where helmets yet you are trying to claim that rocks are some how significantly harder than pavement and because of that one should not wear a helmet. Some manufacturers do rigorously test their helmets some don't. You haven't educated about placebos you have just used the word over and over and over making false claims.
Your favorite blog and Buzzfeed are different but the article you posted was again listing Buzzfeed as their first source and then a tweet from Buzzfeed and the only mention of helmets was "helmet hair" which is very very very very very very very poor support for your argument.
I feel like if you had a good argument against helmets you could articulate it clearly and concisely and provide something to back up what you are saying. You cannot do that therefore you do not have a good argument against helmets. Not only that there really isn't a good argument against helmets. There are issues with helmets but not a good argument to not wear one. You certainly don't actually have one otherwise you would have posted it.