Originally Posted by
RazrSkutr
It's revealing that you think an article illustrated with a picture of a helmet which split, rather than crushed and which starts off quoting Thomson, Rivara and Thomson 1989 (85% reduction) is "fairly balanced". I would summarize the treehugger article as relatively biased and ignorant and would suggest that anyone doubting this should take a long, hard look at that first citation.
This is a definitively bad study: the researchers, sponsored by a helmet maker, took a population of middle class kids riding supervised in parks with helmets, and a population of helmetless kids riding on inner city streets and concluded that EVERY difference in injury rate was due to the Magic Helmets! Even when the injuries weren't to the head! This is the sort of thing which end a career in physics or biochemistry - it's a very crude and obvious attempt to fake a conclusion. Is anyone surprised that children watched by adults in parks are injured less than kids riding on busy streets alone?