Please report to A&S for apocalyptic helmet debate.
I had a wreck in January that split my helmet in three. I am confident that without it I'd be much worse off. That is why you are incorrect.
EDIT: Not sure if you are savvy to some of the nuances in this forum, but the 'incorrect' thing is thrown around like a politician throws around lies - it isn't meant to be critical, it is more of a joke :-)
Originally Posted by
Elduderino2412
There is no need for that type of language around here
OK, sorry for the "inappropriate" language, but to my point, a helmet protects the SKULL from blunt force trauma, yes. BUT it does NOT protect the brain from blunt force trauma. It's a distinction, and though I do wear a helmet, I don't look forward to the day I go headfirst into a wall or something. I've gotten a concussion skiing, even though I was wearing a helmet. The impact forces on the brain to the skull can do just as much damage as splitting your head open, and a helmet does nothing to prevent that. Many bike crashes are thankfully more or less parallel to the ground, resulting in bad road rash rather than going headfirst, directly into the pavement. So helmets do serve a useful purpose, but my point is "blunt force trauma" is not something a helmet will protect your brain from.