I seem to be arguing no such thing. I am arguing that poorly developed arguments made for helmet use hurt cycling- both safety and participation. Many pro-helmet arguments are fallacious at the core in that they primarily appeal to emotion (fear) in order to achieve questionable results rather than doing in depth study of real accidents and trauma and publicizing the results. I also feel these efforts would be better spent trying to address the rather difficult task of improving the general safety of our streets and the specific habits of cyclists and drivers (in their relationship to cyclists). Constructing arguments for helmet safety that demonize all cycling as a dangerous sport is akin to applying a tourniquet to a head wound.

I also wonder about the helmets Bell, Giro, and others collect, post-accident. Neither the data nor the results from the study of these helmets is readily obtainable—I would think that if the study of these damaged helmets made the helmet manufactures look good we would see the results proudly posted on their sites. However, the inverse cannot be assumed, perhaps they just throw the helmets away and only collect them as a public relations ploy—I just don't know.

Helmets do work to offset minor head wounds (abrasions, bumps, and the like) but, as I stated earlier, I would never suggest they prevent more serious injuries—in fact I am fairly convinced that helmets, through increased risk taking and the whole causing rotational injury through shape, are overall as harmful as they are helpful. However, to ride in most group rides, one must don a helmet so I do.