Originally Posted by
Gresp15C
... such as the United States.
I certainly dream of a day when I don't need a helmet.
Exactly. It should be called a dangerous traffic helmet, an outdoor sports helmet or an anti-truck helmet or whatever. It's not the activity of riding a bicycle requires a helmet, so it shouldn't be called a bicycle helmet.
That's my stake in this discussion, I know I'm lucky with my cycling environment and I don't feel I have to defend my choice not to wear one, it's even not really a choice and it will never be mandatory here. It's about keeping the idea of safe and therefore helmetless cycling alive everywhere.
My own view is that "studies" are not going to settle this matter anytime soon. Look up "replication crisis" in the behavioral sciences. Car safety involves far more vehicles and miles of travel, making it more amenable to scientific study, and still it's difficult. Also, the insurance companies have a vested interest in gathering good data for cars. Cycling will always be rare enough in the US that it won't rise to the level of being a public health issue. We have bigger fish to fry. Driving a car is more dangerous than it should be.
In the absence of convincing studies, the next best thing for me is just to use my own common sense. Naturally I can't force that on anybody else.
There are always interests, also personal and trivial ones. If you really want cycling safety you're not going to study helmets you're going to study what makes cycling safer and the helmet won't be a big part of such a study.