Originally Posted by
CrankyOne
The rate of fatalities due to head trauma is still the same in the U.S., Australia, and Canada with very high helmet use as in The Netherlands with zero helmet use. Helmets don't appear to be doing anything. If helmets were effective then head trauma rates (e.g., head trauma as a percent of all bicycle injuries) should be much lower in countries with high helmet use.
I don't want to turn this into a helmet debate but I find this kind of argument deceptive if not outright disingenuous. There are a lot of differences in cycling in the US vs the Netherlands aside from helmet use, infrastructure being one of them as you've pointed out. You can not compare the head trauma rates between the two countries and come up with any meaningful conclusion regarding helmets. There are simply too many other variables.
If you don't want to use a helmet that's fine, but please don't twist facts in order to convince others to do the same. Pushing for better infrastructure is a worthy goal that ultimately will make everybody safer than any helmet would. However, most places in the US are not there yet. Using a helmet is a reasonable choice even if it violates the image of what cycling should look like in some peoples' minds.
According to the
CDC, head injuries are involved in about 60% of cycling deaths. And only about 19 percent of adults and 15 percent of children wear helmets all or most of the time. I wouldn't consider that "very high use".
Look, statistics can be argued back and forth. I'm not going to get on somebody's case for deciding not to wear a helmet (unless they're one of my kids), but I do get irked when shaky arguments are used to try and talk people out of using one.