I ask once again - show us an example where a helmet manufacturer, their employees, or even their authorised lobbyists have stated that wearing a cycle helmet will prevent death or serious injury if a lorry drives over the wearers head.
I just did. If you're not smart to understand that in making a claim that 90% of cyclists deaths - as the Bell sponsored researchers (so certainly lobbyists) did - is impossible unless you include either protection against lorries over the head, then it's not my problem.
And again, the 90% claim require not only that foam hats prevent heads fronm squashed by lorries, but also that they prevent the fatal torso injuries that kill 50% of cyclists. Which is actually much, much more stupid. !
I mean seriously: how can you NOT understand this? How can anyone sanely claim that a helmet can provide a 90% reduction in deaths, when 50% come from torso injuries? Do you understand the difference between the head and the torso? Should I use different words???