Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

I don’t even need to read to Data Quality Act to understand that it does not give Federal agencies an affirmative obligation to prove anything to anyone. It’s is quite something that you think that it is an appropriate use of the governments time to have to deal with nags demanding that the government prove and justify everything to you.

According to the account of the very organization you cite, the government determined that WABA could not substantiate their challenge. The government has no obligation to prove it. That would be the obligation of the petitioner and its how the law works.

If you are even remotely capable, try to fathom a world where the opposite is true. That someone could sue you and it would be your obligation to disprove their claim. Aside from the basic problem of not being able to prove a negative it also places the burden of proof and evidence on the defendant.

Get it?

This wasn't a lawsuit.

So let me ask this: why then did the NHTSA agree to remove one of the statements from their website?

Lawsuit, petition, it doesn’t matter. You don’t seem to bright.

If you read to dumb link you posted, WABA presented evidence that demonstrated that the study the 85% claim was based on was not replicable. They could not produce any evidence to substantiate their other claim that the statement regarding helmets reducing injuries was false and the reason for that is pretty obvious. Like duuuuh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

If bike helmets actually reduced head injuries by 83 percent no one would be against them. It would be an open and shut case.

If you look at the contemporary, peer-reviewed literature there is question whether they are effective at all, and wide agreement that the effectiveness is nowhere near that.

The 83-percent effectiveness number comes from extrapolating a study from 1989 that has never been reproduced.

Where is this peer reviewed read that proves helmets are ineffective?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

I don’t even need to read to Data Quality Act to understand that it does not give Federal agencies an affirmative obligation to prove anything to anyone. It’s is quite something that you think that it is an appropriate use of the governments time to have to deal with nags demanding that the government prove and justify everything to you.

According to the account of the very organization you cite, the government determined that WABA could not substantiate their challenge. The government has no obligation to prove it. That would be the obligation of the petitioner and its how the law works.

If you are even remotely capable, try to fathom a world where the opposite is true. That someone could sue you and it would be your obligation to disprove their claim. Aside from the basic problem of not being able to prove a negative it also places the burden of proof and evidence on the defendant.

Get it?

This wasn't a lawsuit.

So let me ask this: why then did the NHTSA agree to remove one of the statements from their website?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

I don’t even need to read to Data Quality Act to understand that it does not give Federal agencies an affirmative obligation to prove anything to anyone. It’s is quite something that you think that it is an appropriate use of the governments time to have to deal with nags demanding that the government prove and justify everything to you.

According to the account of the very organization you cite, the government determined that WABA could not substantiate their challenge. The government has no obligation to prove it. That would be the obligation of the petitioner and its how the law works.

If you are even remotely capable, try to fathom a world where the opposite is true. That someone could sue you and it would be your obligation to disprove their claim. Aside from the basic problem of not being able to prove a negative it also places the burden of proof and evidence on the defendant.

Get it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

I understand enough of the bureaucratic mindset to know that if NHTSA had had the evidence, they would have provided it. And that their reaction when they couldn't find the evidence was to say, "You can't make us."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

In all sincerity you don’t seem to understand how stuff works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Read the article. The Data Quality Act is a federal law that requires information on federal web sites to be accurate and supported by appropriate research. WABA complained that the bicycle helmet information on the NHTSA website did not comply with the DQA. In response to WABA's complaint, NHTSA agreed to remove statements that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. They stopped short of removing the statement that helmets are single the most effective way of preventing head injuries, even though they could provide no evidence that the statement was supported by appropriate research, as the DQA requires.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

What are you’re talking about. Data Quality Act?

Here’s the interaction.

NHTSA: helmets reduce brain injury.
WABA: you’re wrong.
NHTSA: say what, do you have any proof that we’re wrong?
WABA: no but what’s your proof that you’re right?
NHTSA: leave me alone morons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Under your interpretation the Data Quality Act has no meaning. If a statement is a complete fabrication, how do you show that it is unsupported by the science?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

I don’t think you understand how burden of proof works. It is the petitioner who has the burden to substantiate their claim and If this account from WABA is to be believed, NHTSA determined that WABA failed to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

If bike helmets actually reduced head injuries by 83 percent no one would be against them. It would be an open and shut case.

If you look at the contemporary, peer-reviewed literature there is question whether they are effective at all, and wide agreement that the effectiveness is nowhere near that.

The 83-percent effectiveness number comes from extrapolating a study from 1989 that has never been reproduced.