[Seaplaner]

Any chance the neurosurgeon is suffering from sampling error? Those cyclists who bang their heads but survive without major injury because of a helmet don't see him and similarly those who are killed without helmets don't see him either. Only those who are severely injured but survive, whether they were wearing a helmet or not, get on his patient list. Has he done a statistical analysis of the number of riders, number of riders in accidents and the severity of their injuries outside of those who end up as his patients? Or does he just go by his anecdotal knowledge of his patients.

Nicely stated.

The neurosurgeon's analysis is different from an epi study, which would have taken a large sample size, included reporting bias and other errors.

I focused on the "too flimsy" comment. Flimsy can be good when it comes to impact attenuation.

I will wear my flimsy helmet as well.

.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Good question. Is this an actual scientific study.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation in the USA, which HAS accessed scientific studies, always recommends the helmets, though keeping its hands off of political treatment of the issue.

Maybe there is a perverse point here. Basket cases with a helmet might have just died without the helmet.

[Bobalu]

Yup, the neuro guys conclusions are poorly reasoned.

Somehow it just seems safer to wear a helmet, it’s a simple common-sense notion that I have.

[Freeping Since 2001]

I remember first learning why they put those lycra “panties” on the foam Gyro helmets: “It’s to protect your head on the second bounce.” (Because the helmet turns into packing peanuts on the first strike, and keeping them around your head actually helps.)