>>937644>I would rather have a concussion over being a potato.Except helmets only protect you against the concussion. The mode of protection is by the foam collapsing and absorbing some of the force, slowing your head down over a (very short) period of time instead of instant stop.
At low speed/force it doesn't collapse at all, and offers no more than skin protection. At high speed/force it splits and isn't allowed to compress, or collapses rather than "slowly" compressing, also not offering protection.
The sweetspot inbetween is where helmets offer protection. A helmet manufacturer can to some extent choose where this sweetspot will be on the force spectrum _in_theory_, but mandatory bike helmet testing and certification mean they can't in practice. They're required by law and governance to put this sweetspot in the moderate-force-region of falling over from standing height, or getting reared by a car traveling at 20km/h. This making sure they can't offer much protection in the potato-inducing accidents.
Contrast this to motorcycle helmets that say the 'flying fuck with concussions - we want to prevent potato as much as possible.' Put one on and go bang your head hard. You'll end up with a concussion, because the foam is not designed to start compressing until you realy get to skull-cracking or brain-liquifying levels of force.
>$50 for a helmet is good insurance for the 9%9% is combined neck and head trauma. There is no evidence sound that helmets actually offer any protection for these 9% - some studies finding no statistically significant effect at all, some studies finding a rise in neck injuries with helmets making up for the reduction in light to moderate head trauma.
This is the conclusion of the EU investigation ment to provide member countries with a factual basis for making decisions about bike helmet laws. You don't have to take my words for it.
