Sufficient for What?

Given how many cyclist wearing helmets die of head injury, it would seem those "more comfortable' Dixie Cup-in-a-Solo Cup cycling helmets do not provide sufficient protection.

Here is another huge hole in the "helmets just make sense" case: cycling helmets are Much more geared towards comfort than protection. You want to see some Serious cycling helmets, look at downhillers' full-face helmets or indeed motor Cyclists' helmets.

Much more protection, because after all, it is all about protection, right? No, obviously, it is about promoting a product, and if the product were more effective but less comfortable, there would be more protest and fewer sales.

Bicycle helmets lets the scared "make life risk-free" people think they are doing something, lets helmet makers charge outrageous bucks, and create the illusion of safety for cyclists ... but ask them to wear a Serious helmet ...

And what about a HANS device?

Who gets to determine how much protection is "sufficient"? How does one decide for others how much protection is "sufficient"?

Why, if people are going to push "protection," why not push Serious protection?

Because people don't actually think ... they take a stance based on an emotional response to some persuasive (to them) person or publication, and then elevate that stance to the status of Divine Commandment.

Whatever.