JJ wrote:
I'm not saying halo hasn't saved anyone since its introduction, but certainly not as many as people claim. The only way to find out would be to re-enact all those accidents without halo and see what happens. And that's not possible.
I prefer to kind of look at it in reverse. In the last 22 years, there have been six fatalities in Indycar. It's impossible to 100% say, of course, but the aeroscreen might have helped prevent a fatality for any accident where the death was caused in part or wholly by a solid object hitting the driver's head (Wilson, Wheldon, Moore).
More to the point, it probably would have helped prevent non-fatal injuries due to head strikes, like that suffered by Hinchcliffe in the 2014 Indy Grand Prix. It might give extra protection in a crash like
Johnny Rutherford in 1980 @ Phoenix, a case where the car flipped hard enough to snap the rollbar (the helmet saved Rutherford's life in this case). And it gives extra protection to crashes where no one was injured in the end, but might have been. EG:
Dario Franchitti @ Michigan 2007 where his car flips and comes down on top of Scott Dixon's car, and AJ Foyt IV's helmet was reportedly also hit by a tire. Or
Aleshin burying his car under Montoya at Toronto in 2014.
Yeah, "saved lives" for every crash where the aeroscreen deflects debris / cars / etc. is hyperbole, but that's what happens with any bit of safety technology. Hyperbole happened with the HANS and SAFER barrier too. It's hard to prove whether these "saved lives" at an individual crash level, to be honest. But at *minimum* these technologies prevented some serious injuries, probably even saving a life or two along the way. I look at the aeroscreen in the same way, so I kind of forgive the exaggerations.
I think the important point people forget is that it isn't a 'guaranteed fix' device. It's true that Brundle wasn't seriously hurt by taking a spinning wheel to the head, but nobody would say he was not incredibly lucky. The halo reduces the influence of dumb luck enormously.