Originally Posted by
mconlonx
In the event of a crash, a helmet may provide some injury mitigation. Or it may not.
Note the deliberately ambiguous, inexplicit and dubious tone the poster casts over helmets.
What does he mean, that helmets won't prevent a broken leg? Road rash?
It is fairly clear that for every helmet damaged in a fall the rider would be worse off if that damage had been to the head instead. Why shroud this question in doubt? To what or whose benefit? Sane minds wonder.
Cyclists have every chance to survive a crash without injury or death, even if they are not wearing a helmet.
Really? Even those who were injured or died?
The poster sounds as he believes that "chance to survive" is something you carry in a bottle in the seat tube and it's up to the rider to sip it at the right moment.