If you'll notice, nobody is arguing the figures of pro cyclist deaths from head injuries.
We (I'm pretty sure I can say 'we' safely) are arguing for common sense.
So far your only arguement is deaths, have you gone through and listed any head injury, be it a scratch to brain damage.
No I bet you haven't, I'm guessing it will be a little hard to research anyway.
But like I have mentioned (with Salvoldelli as example) how about all those guys who have even remotely hit their head. Without a helmet the damage is sufficiently greater than if the rider where to be wearing a helmet.
Whilst your using an argument of a helmet in a "real" collision would make no difference. Thats quite correct. Why? because the person has also probably sustained serious injuries elsewhere on the body, potentially fatal injuries.
How about for the sake of argument you go and test your theory.
Go and take a running hit (head first) into a concrete wall and tell us what the difference was.
Oh! but do us a favour, do the helmet one first.
If we don't hear from you for a while we'll asume you must have gone the no helmet option.
I should also say that this debate with you is like banging our collective heads on the wall, as your to obstinate to see the reasoning.
Lucky we wear helmets.
ps:your file link didn't work.
but if it's a document showing helmets/no helmet figure show no difference.
I can safely tell you that in Australia when the mandatory helmet rule came in the death rate reduced significantly (by over half).
Yes I have also seen stuff where it is claimed head injuries went up, well if the said writter used comon sense they would realise it's a sliding scale. Those head injury patients used to be deaths and a lot of the former head injury patients would be ok. Don't forget a hospital record will list you in the statistics. Just say bike crash then your injury no matter the severity (or lack thereof) is listed in the statistics.
We (I'm pretty sure I can say 'we' safely) are arguing for common sense.
So far your only arguement is deaths, have you gone through and listed any head injury, be it a scratch to brain damage.
No I bet you haven't, I'm guessing it will be a little hard to research anyway.
But like I have mentioned (with Salvoldelli as example) how about all those guys who have even remotely hit their head. Without a helmet the damage is sufficiently greater than if the rider where to be wearing a helmet.
Whilst your using an argument of a helmet in a "real" collision would make no difference. Thats quite correct. Why? because the person has also probably sustained serious injuries elsewhere on the body, potentially fatal injuries.
How about for the sake of argument you go and test your theory.
Go and take a running hit (head first) into a concrete wall and tell us what the difference was.
Oh! but do us a favour, do the helmet one first.
If we don't hear from you for a while we'll asume you must have gone the no helmet option.
I should also say that this debate with you is like banging our collective heads on the wall, as your to obstinate to see the reasoning.
Lucky we wear helmets.
ps:your file link didn't work.
but if it's a document showing helmets/no helmet figure show no difference.
I can safely tell you that in Australia when the mandatory helmet rule came in the death rate reduced significantly (by over half).
Yes I have also seen stuff where it is claimed head injuries went up, well if the said writter used comon sense they would realise it's a sliding scale. Those head injury patients used to be deaths and a lot of the former head injury patients would be ok. Don't forget a hospital record will list you in the statistics. Just say bike crash then your injury no matter the severity (or lack thereof) is listed in the statistics.