Question:
I've done is ask them what percentage of serious head injuries they've dealt with came from bike crashes. In almost every case, they've slunk away, never answering. One psychologist, however, admitted that he'd seen almost no cyclists. He agreed his practice matched national data, with cyclists below 1%. A local head injury therapist I met also agreed, saying most of her clients were motorists, with only one cyclist - a racer - in 7 years. Can anyone comment ?

Answer: Stitches and sub-fatal injuries (which helmets can prevent) are not inconsequential. I would rather pay $60 USD for a helmet than $100 USD for my deductible plus the 20% co-pay for ER treatment. I don't expect a helmet to save my life if I launch head first into a semi, or a tree. It may avoid scalp injury and reduce post-concussion syndrome, though. That's worth the price of the helmet. I took two headers this year (freakish year) and was happy to have been wearing a helmet, which based on the crush pattern saved some skin on my forehead and above.

No, apparently the point of the argument sailed by you without stopping! Let's try again. (I'll type more slowly.)

The point was, that physician justified a helmet while windsurfing simply because he had seen windsurfer head injuries. That same physician had undoubtedly seen far more motoring head injuries. But he didn't, as far as we know, wear a helmet while motoring.

In other words, his rationale for the windsurfing helmet was inconsistent. It was applied to one activity while not applied to another.

And we see a lot of that here. People say "But you COULD hit your head biking" as if that's the _only_ time you could - ignoring the fact that about 50% of America's head injury fatalities happen inside cars. About 40% happen in falls around the home. Not even 1% happen while