Originally Posted by
Winston Payne
... There's nothing Darwinian about it, but that's a separate point. For example, if closetbiker were given a choice to wear or not to wear a bicycle helmet before being hit in the head with a baseball bat, but chose not to wear one, because he believed the evidence that a helmet might protect him is inconclusive, then he wouldn't be making a decision based on his own interest in self-preservation. Maybe he would look cooler as he was struck by the bat? ...
you really should read some of the links that have been provided if you want to get to the point of the discussion.
One of the links (
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/curnow.pdf) specifically explains how the scenario you laid out doesn't apply when you're cycling.
Read the whole thing if you want to understand, but summed up this quote addresses the point
Demand for protection of the head stems from fear of fatal and disabling injury to it. A public accustomed to soldiers, miners and construction workers wearing protective helmets naturally looked to the similar products on offer for cyclists, not realising the critical difference between protecting the brain within a stationary head struck by a fast-moving object and that of a moving person in collision.
I really don't care if I look cool or not (what is cool anyway?) but I do want what I'm using to work in what I'm using it for. If it doesn't, why bother?