Originally Posted by
350htrr
Both of those scenarios (probably a few more) where the helmet can fail to protect, are used to promote not needing a helmet, and while there is some truth in there, the overwhelming numbers where crashes result in head hitting the ground and the helmet actually helps is dismissed because of a small % of failures where the helmet failed... That's fallacious thinking to me, and I hope many others...
This is the "
X has to be perfect to be useful" argument. The anti-helmeteers use it very frequently. It's dumb.
It would seem very likely that there have been collisions where the victim would have been better-off not using a seat belt. Yet no one argues "don't use seatbelts".
The issue is whether they help more than they hurt.