Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
The real issue with the undefined "crash" stats and associated statements about relative risk (helmet related or not) often cited by self described bicycling safety experts/advocates is the almost complete absence of any reference to injury severity, as they use metrics that ignore injury severity and tabulate every fall and crash as identical in severity.
Risk analyses without consideration of injury severity are just exercises in blowing smoke.
There was one study posted in one of these thread which did get into detail. It was a recent study -- 2014? '15? -- which looked into the efficacy of helmets regarding injury mitigation for various severity levels of injury. Basic conclusions were that helmets would reduce or eliminate injury by a factor of 10 for minor injury, 5 for moderate injury, and 2 for serious injury. I.e., as the severity of injury increased, effectiveness of helmets to prevent or mitigate injury diminished. I don't think I'm getting the numbers exactly right, but after looking at the study parameters, performance, and conclusions, I don't remember anyone being able to claim it was not legit.
It could also be suggested that less severe injuries are more common than moderate and severe injuries, so helmets are effective in preventing or mitigating the majority of cycling-related TBI.
They're certainly not a panacea for all injury, especially if it does not involve the head (duh), and of doubtful efficacy where total cycling safety is concerned, but helmets do have their place and can be effective in rare circumstances.