Guys! We've had a civil discussion about helmets! Holy Sh*t!

Anyway, I would like (civilly) to see a link or bibliography of some of the studies that bostontrevor mentions. Why?

#1) Because the drastic increase in bike quality over the last 30 years has meant that a far less fit/skilled population is now able to do things, on a bike, that can hurt them. This is independent of helmet use -- i.e., risk factors associated with cycling have gone up. For example, everyone with a $600 road bike can climb a 9% grade -- though they may not have the skills to descend at 35 or 40 mph, especially if it's technical. Similarly, it's far easier to get a modern bike up to 24 or 25 mph than, say, a heavy 70s French bike. These increase the severity of injury during a crash independent of population

#2) I'm a dork and I'd like to see the regressions used.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the fact that helmets are designed for 14 mph crashes is not a valid argument against helmet use -- in fact, it's an argument for tougher requirements for helmets.