"Ozark Bicycle" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm looking for three data points he

1) My head struck on object (pavement, vehicle, another cyclist, etc.)
whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and I feel the helmet lessened
the extent of my injuries.

or

2) My head struck on object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I doubt it either lessened or worsened the extent of my injuries (i.e.,
the helmet made no difference).

or

3) My head struck an object whilst cycling; I was wearing a helmet and
I feel the helmet worsened the extent of my injuries.

Please limit responses to the three scenarios as outlined above. As
simple or as detailed as you like. And, *first hand* accounts only
(i.e., it happened to you). And no responses of "studies show",
"statistics prove", etc.

Beside the obvious and well-known flaw that self-selected responses are an
_extremely_ poor way to gather data, you have omitted a whole class of
instances in which had the cyclist been wearing a helmet, they would have
struck their head on an object - but because they were not, they did not.

You say you wish to exclude such instances - is this bias for helmets by
choice or accident?

And why do you wish to avoid real studies that have been done that already
show what is needed to determine the value of helmets and MHLs?