Originally Posted by
chasm54
Let's be clear. I am all in favour of helmets in certain circumstances. Young children learning to ride are the group most at risk of the sort of incidents where helmets are likely to help - low-speed falls with no other vehicle involved. Downhill MTB-ers are highly likely to come off at speed in potentially unforgiving terrain - full-face helmets are a good idea. And I'm all in favour of anyone who thinks they need a helmet, wearing one. But it does not follow that helmets are necessary for ordinary road cycling, or will significantly alter your already tiny chances of suffering a serious injury. So recognise that for the most part, while they may make you feel safer, they probably aren't doing much to help you be safer. And the subliminal message that is being sent - "cycling is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die" - is both inaccurate and has highly negative consequences; including, for example, fostering a belief that cyclists don't belong on the roads with other traffic.
What is "significantly alter"? If it alters at all some will say it's worth it. Statistics are highly irrelevant to the individual who falls outside of the norm indicated by the statistics.
I'm not interested in "for the most part". I'm interested in the range of possibilities from which my decision can be made.
I'm not actually asking the helmet to do much. I simply want it to provide a level of cushioning that is not there with its absence.
Actually cycling is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die. This is not an inaccurate statement at all. Your odds of having this happen are another thing entirely.
I can't buy your argument that wear a helmet sends signals to stay off the road. Wearing seat belts, logically should then send the same message.