Originally Posted by
Leisesturm
No, I see no flaw in my logic, and if your information is correct, then it was indeed a very unfortunate factoid to attempt to use to discredit my opinion. I wear a helmet for two reasons. 1.) to be allowed to participate in riding events where the organizers (most) insist that participants be helmeted and 2.) to hold my helmet mirror in the proper location in space. When I ride around town I am as likely as not to be helmetless (and thus also mirrorless). Note that I am not a militant wind in the hair helmet detractor. I think, however, that threads like this one claiming that a helmet (or mirror) "saves" a person who would otherwise have been lost to be overstated and probably wrong.
Here's the flaw in your logic: while kevlar vests are indeed extremely effective in preventing a bullet from penetrating into a wearer's body, there are plenty of ways to be killed on the battlefield where a kevlar vest would be bypassed. For example, one could be shot in the face, or simply blown up by an explosion. Despite of the fact that almost all soldier's in the modern military enter combat while wearing kevlar protection, thousands of American soldier's have nevertheless been killed in the Middle East. This does not prove that kevlar vests are useless, it simply means that these soldiers were killed via means other than being shot in the chest.
Now replace the words soldiers and kevlar vests with bicyclists and helmets. While 62% of dead bicyclists were wearing helmets, there are plenty of ways to be killed on a bike other than head injury. You could be crushed under the wheels of the vehicle, crushed against a static object, cut in half at the waist, have limbs amputated and bleed out, bleed out internally, have your neck broken, have a sharp object penetrate your torso, to name a few. The fact that many cyclists have died while wearing helmets does not prove that helmets are useless. It simply proves that there are more ways to be killed than from head injury.