Originally Posted by
shelbyfv
This is fairly current and not a goofball source
Nature. This one is older but again, a legit source.
NIH Don't know how many beers I'd need to claim these folks are complicit in the Big Helmet Conspiracy.
That first study was previously addressed a page or so ago. I'll just quote from it, to illustrate why it isn't useful:
"
These numbers are likely higher since cyclists’ injuries are still considerably under-reported, particularly in cases where no automobile was involved4."
Also, entertainingly, they had to whittle-down their dataset from an initial 780 studies to just 10 ( ! ) due to the lacking quality thereof, and some of those studies included as few as 21 cases. Meanwhile, they claim to expect a reduction in cyclist fatalities due to helmet usage, per their estimates, but they declined to explain why that has never occurred in the real world.
The second study you linked was done by one of the same authors who famously had his earlier attempt retracted pursuant to the Data Quality Act, since it was garbage.
https://waba.org/blog/2013/06/feds-w...ent-effective/
So nice try, but you'll want to do better next time.