They cherry pick data (often decades old) from specific countries/regions to try to apply their claim that "A high rate of helmet use is a sign that the authorities have failed to design well for cycling" at a global level.
Which of the thirty references in that article do you feel are "cherry picking"?
What is your justification for dismissing data because it is "decades old"?
...particularly given that in the US, especially by the federal government, claims of "80%" helmet efficacy are based on one study of ER patients done in the early eighties?
They cherry pick data (often decades old) from specific countries/regions to try to apply their claim that "A high rate of helmet use is a sign that the authorities have failed to design well for cycling" at a global level.