Steven M. Scharf wrote:
b_baka wrote:

The answer would have to be that they reduced head injury but the
overall effect might be to make cyclists braver than they should be
whilst wearing a minimal helmet.


Actually, we've seen the opposite assertion here from the anti-helmet
people. They claim that the reason (or part of the reason) why the
injury and fatality rates are statistically lower for helmet wearers, is
not because of any protection the helmet offers, but because helmet
wearers are also more cautious riders.

Not sure which, if any, of these arguments is true. I can see both
possibilities.

Along those lines I would add that if the crash is bad enough to
damage other parts of the body beyond repair, survival might not be
desirable.


We're really talking about head impacts here, not being crushed by a
vehicle. I don't know what the stats are on how many people ended up
living due to a helmet, but were in such a state that they would have
rather not survived. Too morbid.

As an adult the choice of whether or not to use a helmet should be mine.


And that's why I'm against MHLs, but while at the same time being adult
enough to admit that wearing a helmet does have its benefits.

No argument from me, but I do remember one cyclist crashing in the TdF
last year and it was caught on tape, where he went off the bike and hit
the back of his head rather hard. That is exactly the part of the head
that a bicycle helmet should protect since a hard enough impact there
could be fatal.
All from me,
Bill Baka