There are no merits on those positions. There's just no way that NO PROTECTION is better than SOME PROTECTION.

Yes... it really is that simple.

Keep in mind that I agree the bike helmets aren't the best. But they're 100% defintely better than nothing at all.

And don't waste my time repeating useless stats. Those aren't real world examples. Those are just numbers put together by possibly biased people. Ignore one factor and it skews the results.

Example: Most people that are uninjured in bike crashes don't report anything.
Example #2: if most deaths in one area were because of some type of accident where helmet or no helmet you'd be dead anyway, then the stat is meaningless.

See what I'm getting at? The stats can be skewed if certain factors are not taken into account or voluntarily ignored.

DON'T TRUST STATS!