softlips wrote:It's for statistical reasons they ask, same with seat belts or was.
Although after working in A&E myself and seeing deaths and worse which would have been avoided with a helmet I'd agree with the previous post.
As a health care professional, I would agree that in some cases with low speed impacts that helmets may prevent head injury , but with a proviso
I see far more pedestrians, car drivers and children than cyclists, with drunken falls and assaults being the main causes in adults ands simple falls in children
All the Cohort studies support the fact that Alcohol is the biggest single factor, cyclist rarely actually making the risk groups, and all would have demonstrably been suffering impacts far more in line with the specific performance envelop of helmets that cyclists
Many of these would also benefit form helmets, yet the narrow minded and blinkered unprofessional breach of evidence based practice simply chooses to stick their fingers in their ears and sing LALALALALALALALAL when presented with reality
Are you really stating that in your experience that cyclists are the majority of cases in your experience and that none of the pedestrians, drunks, or assault victims would not have benefitted from head protection?