SmallFront

Not necessarily. What those figures doesn't show is the type of cycling that went on before the crash. In the US, apart from Freds, it seems only superserious cyclists and mountainbikers wear helmets, whereas in the Netherlands, (and much more in Denmark), a wider array of cyclists wear them. I think the US is up there with Netherlands because the people wearing helmets in the US drive much more aggressively (mountainbiking, road cycling (i.e. training on "road bikes") etc.). In other words, it is not an argument against wearing helmets, as you can't tell from those figures what kind of cycling took place before the crash/accident.

[Edit: And you would need to compare the severity of head injury between the same sort of cycling, grouped in people with vs without helmets /end edit]

Slightly off-topic, perhaps:

I can't remember if it was in this thread, but someone said that a helmet doesn't protect you if you are rear ended. That is a weird claim, considering the back of your head is really, really likely to hit something if you are rear-ended. The latest I have seen was that video posted here, where a motorcyclist rear ends a cyclist. In the slow motion portion of the video, follow the cyclist's head, and see it smash down on the asphalt. Now, imagine that without a helmet. He would have been seriously injured had he not worn a helmet. The same goes with a car rear-ending you, only you will propably hit your head on the car and not on the asphalt.