the positive reaction to the OP's post is full of flawed logic. it's called "the nirvana fallacy". The Nirvana Fallacy is when you dismiss anything in the real world because you compare it to an unrealistic, perfect alternative, by which it pales in comparison.


most bike accidents do not cause sever head injuries. ok lets accept it as fact. the matter for dispute is not the head injuries in light of the total amount of accidents if we want to determine the usefulness of helmets. it should be accidents involving head injuries (while using a helmet) in light of the total amount of head injuries from bike accidents.

another faulty bit of logic here is to assume that a head injury is equal to any other injury that could be sustained on a bike. of course we dont wear full padded armor on our bikes. but frankly put, most body parts that are likely to get damaged in a bike accident can heal properly without much worry about life altering permanent damage. the same cannot be said about the human head.