Originally Posted by
NOS88
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.
So were it to be clear that the benefit of wearing helmets was insignificant, they'd still be worth it? And of course if you've sustained a head injury, the probability of you having sustained a head injury is 1. But statistics are highly relevant to assessing the probability that such an event might transpire in the future.
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 don't think you really read what I said. I suggested there were scenarios - young children, downhilling MTBs - where helmets make sense to me. But
for the most part adult cyclists don't fall into these categories, and they don't fall into them at all when just riding along. And of course the range of possibilities from which your decision can be made includes absolutely every possible contingency, including your being struck by a meteorite. I'm guessing you think that statistics are relevant when assessing the chances of that one, no?
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.
This is reasonable. Unfortunately there is a fair bit of evidence that helmets often fail to do that, breaking rather than deforming and thereby simply transmitting the shock rather than dispersing it. However, I'm happy to concede that helmets do sometimes help, especially in preventing some bumps and scrapes.
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.
No, the odds are not another matter entirely. Odds are what determine where something lies on the spectrum from dangerous to safe. And the statement is no more accurate than "being a pedestrian is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die." Both are only true if you define dangerous so widely as to be misleading. And of course one can equally say, for example, "cycling is quite safe and if you don't wear a helmet you're unlikely to come to any harm", which is fairer reflection of the odds.
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.
Should it? I don't think so. The experience of being in a car and on a bike is completely different, and so is most people's attitude to driving as opposed to cycling. My point was about the constant reinforcement in the public mind of the "cycling is dangerous" message. I don't know about where you live, but I frequently talk to people here who are intimidated out of cycling on the roads. They are usually incredulous when the actual statistics are presented and say things like "ah, but a thousand-to-one chance could still happen". They're right, it could. But they then proceed to behave in ways that are much more dangerous, unhelmeted and without a second thought.