On May 7, 11:43*am, SMS wrote:

The problem with Frank is that he first decided that he was against
helmets then he went out and looked for data that supported his
position. Unable to find any statistically or scientifically sound data
to support his views, he decided on the approach of the birthers and the
global warming deniers, just make it up!

When confronted with the facts, that he actually knows to be true, he
retreats to the world of "driving helmets" and such.

Ah, Stephen, still posting absolute lies!

To review (not that it should be necessary): I did not begin by
deciding I was against bike helmets. In fact, I was once in favor of
bike helmets. I wore one for almost every ride, and advised others to
do the same. I bought the line that bicycling was a significant
source of serious head injury, and that helmets greatly reduced that
risk.

It was only after I began reading the research papers on the subject
(both pro and con), and digging for data on comparative risk, that I
changed my mind, based entirely on factual evidence. I found that the
risk had been grossly exaggerated, the claims of efficacy wildly
overstated, and the specifications and certification tests of bike
helmets laughably inadequate.

And of course, I've posted citations of those papers and the data I've
found countless times. I've made none of it up.

If you want to discuss a specific point, or some specific data, please
do so. Skip the vague lies and accusations.

We can start with the data in this table, if you like. Show me the
evidence of helmet benefit in these numbers:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1041.html

- Frank Krygowski