Originally Posted by
Monster Pete
Considering a cycle helmet is designed only to mitigate very minor injuries, and certainly not concussions etc, I don't think the equivalence is false at all. In a real accident where vehicles are likely to be involved, body armour is more likely to protect vital organs than a helmet is to prevent brain injury.
No,
this is being pulled from
the same ass that helmet effectiveness is being pulled from. You can't really argue that helmets don't have scientific basis by
speculating.
How well helmets work is a different issue than the fact that
users see head injuries as being much worse than other injuries. And you have no idea whether body armor works either!
All that we can do is assume that helmets and body armor have the same effectiveness (be it good/bad/whatever). Given that users see head injuries as much worse than other injuries, the users will value the effectiveness (whatever it is) of helmets as higher.