Originally Posted by OldLion
... Let's just agree that we all think biking is better than not biking.
Once you've gotten to that point, however, the question becomes "with or without a helmet?" And I'm not sure deaths are the only quantifiable measuring stick of the worthiness of a helmet. Concussions/head wounds are worthy of thought.
the question seems to me is, how much more likely (or not) is a head injury on a bicycle than in a car or on foot? Most research shows not any more likely, so we're back to just ride that bike and stop worrying
I too agree deaths are not the only quantifiable measure of a helmet. Superficial injuries are a pain and problem, but they are quite survivable. The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating at 10 mph. That's what they are made for. There is a real problem in quantifing injury below death. One persons scrape is another persons tragedy. Concussions occur to helmeted riders on a regular basis and what's better is most of those concussed riders feel the helmet saved them even though they had a concussion. The mechanics of brain injury reveal helmets cannot prevent the tearing of neural tissue that cause brain injury. It's important to know the limits of helmets and the prevelance of incidences where a helmet could have helped. Most people don't.