Originally Posted by
mconlonx
So while even skeptics admitted all along that a helmet could help regarding possible superficial injury, they couldn't really counter the study's conclusion that helmets help against a whole range of injury. Just that -- to no-one's surprise -- as the level of severity ramps up, the effectiveness of helmets in mitigating such injury drops.
Assuming that helmet wear "could" help mitigate the severity of some injuries to some degree, what do you think explains the absence of injury statistics that demonstrate this mitigation effect when comparing bicycling populations where the percentage of helmet wear is relatively high as in North America or Australia vice countries where helmet wear is low as in NL or DE?