A weakness of your argument is that you justify it by quoting a lot of data but without the actual references to support it.
Sorry, but I can't let that pass.
Everytime one of these threads crops up the pattern is exactly the same; those who advocate helmet use turn up the same old anecdote, the same old 'common sense', the same old 'well you'll die a horrible death and don't say we didn't warn you, and by the way you are a stupid monkey for even thinking of getting on a bike without a helmet' rubbish.
As I've hinted at above, IF helmets work as some of you seem to believe, then this SHOULD be represented in the data available, and particularly so because there are people who would love to have this kind of data.
The one thing that NEVER happens in these kind of threads is a sensible, reasoned argument from those who are pro-helmet, backed up with any kind of data.
Why?
It's either because those pro-helmet types don't like to be logical and rational as opposed to emotional and irrational, or it's because the data to support said argument DOESN'T EXIST.
Why?
We've had perfect test conditions; we've had societies where helmet use has been made a legal requirement, we've had a societal change in helmet use; when I started biking no one wore a helmet, now everyone does.
So where is the data?
Both TJ and myself approach this from a sensible, rational point of view; helmets simply aren't the life-saver that they are made out to be, and cycling in general and mountain biking in particular are NOT DANGEROUS activities.
So, put up or shut up; show me the data, prove to me that helmets work, not by anecdote, not by 'my mate said', not by ' a man in the pub told me', but by sensible evidence.
Please.
As for the impressionable newbie argument; I'd rather new people understood that their helmet is useless in all but minor low speed crashes than they ride about thinking I've got my helmet on so I'll be protected...
