Girl who went under car after braking too hard and going over handlebars now campaigning to make helmets compulsory

Cugel wrote:

In what way did this helmet prevent which injuries that would have resulted in her death? The uninformed opinion of the doctor (or rather what the girl relates the doctor told her) is no evidence.

Let's see her helmet. Was it's polystyrene foam crushed flat in an area that covered a critical part of her head? If not, the helmet did nothing to mitigate head injuries.

Cycling helmets are flimsy things. It doesn't take much of a blow to make them look wrecked. For them to have actually absorbed any significant force (of the mere 7 Newtons they are build to absorb, at best) the polystyrene must go from fully expanded to fully crushed. A cracked shell and/or a broken part does not mean that the helmet protected the head in any significamt way.

Stories like this also have that unintended consequence of making wearers over-confident which increases their risk appetite. 

These are probably the main reasons that helmet wearers statistically suffer more head injuries than non-wearers. Helmets protect very little; they make wearers believe they are immune from harm ("It'll save my life").

As to the opinion that people refuse to wear them because they are "not cool".... In fact, the "coolest" dogma-riding MAMILs and similar would not be seen dead without a helmet, to go with all their other pretend-I'm-a-professional pose. I never a met a helmet wearer yet who knew anything about the testing regime (or lack of it) for cycling helmets - what they can and can't actually protect from. They wear one because everyone else does; and they read an advert about how Cav or Bertie wears one.

Why are the facts that helmets provide little protection and induce over-confidence never mentioned in the "a helmet saved my life" anecdotal news blurbs? Perhaps there is a PR thing going on somewhere, paid for by helmet purveyors? Those things must be highly profitable! £100 or more for a bit of plastic that probably costs a few pence to make. As we know, 95% of so-called news these days is in fact PR blurb uncritically reiterated by so called news sources because it's a lot easier than doing real journalism.

How did this particular story emerge into the BBC News and elsewhere, eh?

Cugel the sceptical.

 

I don' t think that helmets should be compulsory, however a proper helmet does provide protection, not the very vented plastic covered Polystyrene Foam crap, which are I know 1st hand is weaker and often doesn't protect enough of the head!

I had tooth lose and expensive dental repair from a crash, and immediately realised that any helmet without chin protection cannot protect the jaw, so only look for full-face helmets now!

I discovered the inferiority of plastic skin covered Polystyrene Foam helmets compared to tougher helmets:

* I had two MET Parachutes, a slightly tougher MTB-shape plasic-covered Polystyrene Foam helmet, with hard plastic chin guard, with loads of annoying wind noise, no insect screens, annoying securing, and needed a rain cover during wet weather; on crashing , both were mostly-cracked complete-write-offs, with localised shell deformation and compression, and minor stunning; the 2nd ones chin guard protected my chin, but cut my chin.  Never buying them again!

* I've had two Urge down-o-matic helmets, with a Fibreglass shell and padding, insect screens, easy securing; the 1st  only had about a 1mm of the chin guard scrapped off despite it being grated for about 1 to 2m at higher speed, no cracks, no stunning, and no damage to my head/face, but replaced anyway.  They don't need a rain cover in wet or cold weather either.

I don't wear a helmet all the time, but do for commuting, steep gradiants, or longer distances.

ashliejay wrote:

i've got 3, inch and a half long scars on my right eyebrow, from a crash last month, and still i'll fight for it to be the riders choice to wear a lid.

Your choice to use a mere lid; just wait until you see damage further down, including teeth!

lllnorrislll wrote:

Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.

It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over.  I've had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don't provide leverage adjustment!

The helmet is probably a distraction, but a lid is pretty flimsy protection and trivial against tonnes of metal with several horsepower moving it, and it couldn't protect the rest of her body from injury, which can be easily be fatal!  I somehow doubt that even motorcyclists would want to wear substantial body armour!

Enclosed vehicle drivers need to be aware of just how vulnerable to injury and death people not in enclosed vehicles are, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclist.  I'm aware of the several years of struggle and surgery, with permanent tendon/wrist damage, for a fully kitted motorcyclist friend, who nearly died after colliding with a motorist who pulling out of a junction without looking properly!

PRSboy wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

The problem is that as far as I know there are no proper tests of helmets so its impossible to argue convincingly for, or against.

Either you're new to this or a troll, and I'm going to assume the first.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. 

What I'm trying to get at is; assuming I have made the decision to buy a helmet, how do I know which will provide the best protection within the sort of circumstances in which such a device could reasonably be expected to help?

If you have made the decision to buy a helmet, you are ignoring all the reliable evidence.  What data and evidence did you consider before making this decision?

urbane wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

Watch the BBC video and it clearly shows the white car, hit her after it crossed the hashed give way markings, there is even a bike painted on the road indicating a cycle way. The girl tried to brake and lost control, which may be down to inexperience, but it's clear that she took invasive action due a car being driven without due care and attention. Take the helmet debate out and this child was hit by a driver who was not paying attention, just like the many videos road.cc insists on showing. This is where the focus should be and maybe a campaign for cycling perficiancy to be included in the school curriculum.

It sounds like the driver was at fault for creating a risky situation which cause her to panic and emergency brake, which can cause front wheel lock and an over-handlebar crash, then run-over.  I've had over-handle-bar crashes while getting used to stronger V-brakes, then sussed to tuned front brake lever for slightly less relative leverage than back, on adjustable (premium) brake levers; unfortunately most V-brake levers don't provide leverage adjustment!

If you cycle on the pavement and then suddenly join the road,  which this girl admitted doing and I've personally have seen a lot of teenagers do, you cannot expect those using the road to see you and stop in time regardless of road markings and the vehicle they are using.   There are lots of Youtube videos of cyclists doing this to other cyclists.  Most are near misses but not all of them are.

rnick wrote:

Well, a helmet can help..granted it won't make you immortal. A family member had a recent low speed 20kmh off, helmet broken, head OK and the unprotected parts of head now stitched back together. It's harrowing applying your basic first aid in such situations to keep someone breathing, there's a lot of blood and mess, but sitting in the ambulance, waiting in the Emergency Department etc I was relieved to think at least the head had some protection, the Drs thought similarly and the patient walked out the hospital a few days later.

You are so full of shit it even leaks out into your posts.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How do you know the helmet reduced the injury, are you deducing that from the fact the helmet was "destroyed"?
Given that his head was under the car and his face pushed upwards into the underside of the car don't you think this was entirely due to the extra circumference of the helmet and the fact his face/head was reasonably ok(as in face not ripped off) if he wasn't wearing a helmet his face would have been untouched? It certainly shows that his face/flesh is stronger than the polystyrene foam in the helmet.
If the pressure of the car on his face was enough to destroy the helmet did it crack/split, did it compress fully before being destroyed?
It's all too easy to add helmet and have survival = helmet mitigated but in instances like this the crushing force of a car is well beyond the protective capacity of the helmet so they fail rapidly absorbing a very tiny fraction of the forces and if the material does not depress fully then this means it's reached nowhere near its lab test thus has failed. That you have the extra circumference added to the head pushing the face up into the vehicle says to me the helmet did not mitigate at all, but probably made matters much worse.
Have a think about it.
Also the logical step isn't to continue wearing, if the driver was at fault then the driver behaviour neefs modifying, if your sons fault then he needs training and as I've mentioned before, kids wearing helmets take far greater risk than those not wearing. Consider that too.
I'm glad he's alive but simply adding up to your conclusion is too simplistic and the global and indeed nationwide stats re helmet wearing don't back that conclusion that it mitigated otherwise we'd see massive reductions over and above what we see in other activities involving road users, which we don't and is explained at length on another thread and elsewhere on the www.

A simple home experiment might help those who need proof. You'll need a friend to assist plus a shovel or other similar flat, blunt object which for this purpose replicates a car door / road. Ask the assistant to apply the shovel, with modest force to your head, whilst not wearing and then wearing the helmet (order does not matter). Now, I guess most people will find the "with helmet" experience a little better.

rnick wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How do you know the helmet reduced the injury, are you deducing that from the fact the helmet was "destroyed"? Given that his head was under the car and his face pushed upwards into the underside of the car don't you think this was entirely due to the extra circumference of the helmet and the fact his face/head was reasonably ok(as in face not ripped off) if he wasn't wearing a helmet his face would have been untouched? It certainly shows that his face/flesh is stronger than the polystyrene foam in the helmet. If the pressure of the car on his face was enough to destroy the helmet did it crack/split, did it compress fully before being destroyed? It's all too easy to add helmet and have survival = helmet mitigated but in instances like this the crushing force of a car is well beyond the protective capacity of the helmet so they fail rapidly absorbing a very tiny fraction of the forces and if the material does not depress fully then this means it's reached nowhere near its lab test thus has failed. That you have the extra circumference added to the head pushing the face up into the vehicle says to me the helmet did not mitigate at all, but probably made matters much worse. Have a think about it. Also the logical step isn't to continue wearing, if the driver was at fault then the driver behaviour neefs modifying, if your sons fault then he needs training and as I've mentioned before, kids wearing helmets take far greater risk than those not wearing. Consider that too. I'm glad he's alive but simply adding up to your conclusion is too simplistic and the global and indeed nationwide stats re helmet wearing don't back that conclusion that it mitigated otherwise we'd see massive reductions over and above what we see in other activities involving road users, which we don't and is explained at length on another thread and elsewhere on the www.

A simple home experiment might help those who need proof. You'll need a friend to assist plus a shovel or other similar flat, blunt object which for this purpose replicates a car door / road. Ask the assistant to apply the shovel, with modest force to your head, whilst not wearing and then wearing the helmet (order does not matter). Now, I guess most people will find the "with helmet" experience a little better.

I see that you like arguing about helmets. Can I interest you in a thread that just needs a few more comments? http://road.cc/content/news/233382-dad-stops-kid-crashing-bike-parked-ca...

In the meantime, your comment is somewhat simplistic. Most people think that helmets provide a certain level of protection against impacts, but the issue is whether they provide sufficient protection to out-weigh the disadvantages of wearing one.

The problem is that when people try to insist that everyone on a bike needs to wear a helmet, it's making riding a bike seem to be much more dangerous than it actually is. You are actually more likely to damage your head whilst being in a car, but there's very little call for compulsory helmets for car passengers/drivers.

In fact, the whole helmets issue is a complete misdirection. You know what makes people safer? Good infrastructure.

hawkinspeter wrote:

In the meantime, your comment is somewhat simplistic. Most people think that helmets provide a certain level of protection against impacts, but the issue is whether they provide sufficient protection to out-weigh the disadvantages of wearing one.

I've found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I've only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones).  So, if there's ice/frost on the ground then I'll wear a helment​ helmet - the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door... 

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

In the meantime, your comment is somewhat simplistic. Most people think that helmets provide a certain level of protection against impacts, but the issue is whether they provide sufficient protection to out-weigh the disadvantages of wearing one.

I've found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I've only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones).  So, if there's ice/frost on the ground then I'll wear a helment​ helmet - the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door... 

A door-frame in my kitchen is only just above my head, but I nearly always bang my head on it when wearing a helmet. The number of times that I've thought "glad I was wearing a helmet" before realising that I don't bang my head when not wearing one.

rnick wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

How do you know the helmet reduced the injury, are you deducing that from the fact the helmet was "destroyed"? Given that his head was under the car and his face pushed upwards into the underside of the car don't you think this was entirely due to the extra circumference of the helmet and the fact his face/head was reasonably ok(as in face not ripped off) if he wasn't wearing a helmet his face would have been untouched? It certainly shows that his face/flesh is stronger than the polystyrene foam in the helmet. If the pressure of the car on his face was enough to destroy the helmet did it crack/split, did it compress fully before being destroyed? It's all too easy to add helmet and have survival = helmet mitigated but in instances like this the crushing force of a car is well beyond the protective capacity of the helmet so they fail rapidly absorbing a very tiny fraction of the forces and if the material does not depress fully then this means it's reached nowhere near its lab test thus has failed. That you have the extra circumference added to the head pushing the face up into the vehicle says to me the helmet did not mitigate at all, but probably made matters much worse. Have a think about it. Also the logical step isn't to continue wearing, if the driver was at fault then the driver behaviour neefs modifying, if your sons fault then he needs training and as I've mentioned before, kids wearing helmets take far greater risk than those not wearing. Consider that too. I'm glad he's alive but simply adding up to your conclusion is too simplistic and the global and indeed nationwide stats re helmet wearing don't back that conclusion that it mitigated otherwise we'd see massive reductions over and above what we see in other activities involving road users, which we don't and is explained at length on another thread and elsewhere on the www.

A simple home experiment might help those who need proof. You'll need a friend to assist plus a shovel or other similar flat, blunt object which for this purpose replicates a car door / road. Ask the assistant to apply the shovel, with modest force to your head, whilst not wearing and then wearing the helmet (order does not matter). Now, I guess most people will find the "with helmet" experience a little better.

Did you read BTBS's comment? A more accurate experiment (if you trusted your friend) would be for them to take a really hard swing at your head with the shovel so that it comes within 1cm of your skull. While probably scary, with no helmet there would be no contact. With a helmet, there would be contact, albeit with the helmet itself. However, your skull would be in the helmet and so would also absorb some of the forces.

rnick wrote:

A simple home experiment might help those who need proof. You'll need a friend to assist plus a shovel or other similar flat, blunt object which for this purpose replicates a car door / road. Ask the assistant to apply the shovel, with modest force to your head, whilst not wearing and then wearing the helmet (order does not matter). Now, I guess most people will find the "with helmet" experience a little better.

So you wear a helmet 24/7, just in case someone hits you on the head with a shovel?  Seems a mite eccentric, but each to their own, I guess.

head injuries per million hours travelled (from http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets#.VFi8mfmsXPs)

Cyclist – 0.41
Pedestrian – 0.80
Motor vehicle occupant – 0.46
Motorcyclist – 7.66

(and, yes, I would assume the ped figures are higher because more peds are elderly and the elderly are more prone to fall over, but still, your shovel experiment doesn't seem specific to cycling, so what is your point?)

I've come to realise my biggest gripe is not with helmet-wearing, not _even_ with helmet laws, it's with people turning up and making comments that they don't seem to realise have been made a million times already and which are only the very start of a very long argument, not the killer-point they seem to imagine it is.  Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to post on the topic till they've waded through existing enormo-threads and answered a quiz about them?

brooksby wrote:

I've found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I've only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones).  So, if there's ice/frost on the ground then I'll wear a helment​ helmet - the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door... 

Chapeau! My choice of head protection is a casquette in summer (another debate - peak up or down?), a Sealskinz waterproof belgian cap for winter.  Might consider a helmet in a hail-storm though, thise little buggers sting!

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

 

Did you read BTBS's comment? A more accurate experiment (if you trusted your friend) would be for them to take a really hard swing at your head with the shovel so that it comes within 1cm of your skull. While probably scary, with no helmet there would be no contact. With a helmet, there would be contact, albeit with the helmet itself. However, your skull would be in the helmet and so would also absorb some of the forces.

 

The part of BTBS argument I don't get is what is the mystery force field that stops the shovel/car door 1cm from my face? 

Normally if I am going head first towards the ground, my head keeps going until something stops it. If I use my super ninja skills, I can tuck and roll, but the usual outcome would be a faceplant. 

Similarly, if I am going to go under a vehicle, I might be spectacularly skilled, and perfectly find the gap, but more likely I am going to intersect it somewhere. The slightly larger helmet volume just means I intersect fractionally sooner.  

There is one near-miss video that oddly never made it onto roadcc though, which does contradict my argument. 

https://youtu.be/lFLpwRMS00g

CygnusX1 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I've found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I've only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones).  So, if there's ice/frost on the ground then I'll wear a helment​ helmet - the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door... 

Chapeau! My choice of head protection is a casquette in summer (another debate - peak up or down?), a Sealskinz waterproof belgian cap for winter.  Might consider a helmet in a hail-storm though, thise little buggers sting!

Oh, peak down, definitely 

brooksby wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I've found that my Bern Brentwood helmet is warmer than a cap during the winter (I've only got a Walz cotton cap and one of those water resistant Endura ones).  So, if there's ice/frost on the ground then I'll wear a helment​ helmet - the perceived extra warmth outweighs the inconvenience of banging my head on doorframes as I go out the door... 

Chapeau! My choice of head protection is a casquette in summer (another debate - peak up or down?), a Sealskinz waterproof belgian cap for winter.  Might consider a helmet in a hail-storm though, thise little buggers sting!

Oh, peak down, definitely 

I'd have thought that the peak'd blind ya.

don simon wrote:

I'd have thought that the peak'd blind ya.

F'ing biblical, mate.

Drinfinity wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

 

Did you read BTBS's comment? A more accurate experiment (if you trusted your friend) would be for them to take a really hard swing at your head with the shovel so that it comes within 1cm of your skull. While probably scary, with no helmet there would be no contact. With a helmet, there would be contact, albeit with the helmet itself. However, your skull would be in the helmet and so would also absorb some of the forces.

 

The part of BTBS argument I don't get is what is the mystery force field that stops the shovel/car door 1cm from my face? 

Normally if I am going head first towards the ground, my head keeps going until something stops it. If I use my super ninja skills, I can tuck and roll, but the usual outcome would be a faceplant. 

Similarly, if I am going to go under a vehicle, I might be spectacularly skilled, and perfectly find the gap, but more likely I am going to intersect it somewhere. The slightly larger helmet volume just means I intersect fractionally sooner.  

There is one near-miss video that oddly never made it onto roadcc though, which does contradict my argument. 

https://youtu.be/lFLpwRMS00g

The additional circumference of the helmet (over and above a human head) means instances where you weren't wearing there is no contact, when wearing there is contact and thus a non contact/non injury event turns into a contact/injury event, and so many helmet saved my life/saved me from serious injury stories are born which exceed the number of actual deaths/serious injuries pre helmet wearing by a massive factor.

Humans happen to be quite good at understanding how big their heads are and being able to duck and move them out the way or hold them up and away from objects when falling, nature/evolution being what it is we have neck muscles even from a relatively young age to be able to do this.

If you change that balance, increase weight and circumference you end up with a problem, in children this is even more relevant, for small/younger children you could be adding 15% in size and 10% of extra weight that neck muscles and awareness of the size cannot be accounted for. On older children and up it isn't as big a difference but increasing the mass/kinetic energy of the head being thrown back or forwards in a fall for instance because of the extra weight and having an increased size is not a positive.

Again though, of the 1.4million annual reported head injuries in the UK and 300,000+ hospitalisations cycle head injuries have always been a tiny fraction.

Child head injury deaths are not very high, when they did a study a few years ago (it's not done often because of the amount of work involved and is very costly and some hospitals won't/can't provide data) they found that deaths/serious injuries to children were a hell of a lot more away from cycling, take away that a lot of serious head injuries are the fault of an adult and there is a very very obvious solution and it isn't forcing kids to wear helmets or ban children from cycling. Aus and NZ and parts of Canada/US did the former and effectively did the latter through doing so then found no change in incident rates in children, quelle surprise!

alansmurphy wrote:

BTBS, I think you're giving people's cycling skills way too much credit. Last time I flew through the air I didn't know which way was up, absolute jack shit chance of me being able to control my noggin!

I tend to agree, I have a background of over 30 years judo so I know how to fall in a controlled manner. When I had a big off last year I instinctively knew to relax and roll, and hence only had a scuff the size of a 50p and little else, however it was so fast that I did not have the time to think what to do. This is where regular training can develop intuitive actions. 

On the flip side, no pun intended, when I had an enormous off a few years ago, thanks to a friend misreading a route and turning in front of me when I was flat out; I had enough air time to assess everything and roll without even a 50p scuff.

Have not any other offs of note to compare further, but feel that learning to fall is a valuable skill and it is this that has saved me rather than my unscathed helmet.

alansmurphy wrote:

BTBS, I think you're giving people's cycling skills way too much credit. Last time I flew through the air I didn't know which way was up, absolute jack shit chance of me being able to control my noggin!

As I explained, with a helmet you significantly increase the chance of hitting your head in pretty much every scenario no matter how much or little you are in control and the extra weight on the head especially children has an adverse effect. 

Personally I came off at high speed due to a very big and significantly deep hole on a downhill that was pretty much hidden blended by shadow and I'd swerved to avoid a critter running out from the side of the road. As the front wheel impacted the far side inside edge I was flipped forward at an angle, I tucked my head and the impact was directly on the back of my shoulder, with a helmet I'd have been fucked, not just head wise but neck wise also.

Yes you are out of control on occasion but no more than many other activities, I played plenty of rugby in my time, seen some absolutely shocking head clashes not to mention illegal head shots, soccer is not great either.

I'm not over exaggerating the skills of people on bikes simply saying that adding extra girth and weight to your head is a bad thing and that looking at helmet wearing as a defence system for certain outcomes in one activity but ignoring the risk of similar in other aspects in life makes no sense whatsoever. That time you might get pushed from behind whilst on a night out and you crack your head, there's no call for drinking helmets, same with lots of other stuff. As I pointed out, the numbers of head injuries of people on bikes in the study period (long before helmets were a big deal) is a small % compared to all hospital admissions for head injuries.

That helmets for cycling actually have many other negative impacts as well as not having any noticeable safety impact is why I am absolutely anti helmet, it makes my life less safe, it makes my community less safe and it makes the nation and every other country less safe and also helps with victim blaming, freedom removal, bias, unjust outcomes and bias/discrimination shown in the legal/justice system not to mention governments failing to address the real issues with road safety for people on bikes.

There simply is no upside for cycle helmets and never has been.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

As I explained, with a helmet you significantly increase the chance of hitting your head in pretty much every scenario no matter how much or little you are in control and the extra weight on the head especially children has an adverse effect. 

Personally I came off at high speed due to a very big and significantly deep hole on a downhill that was pretty much hidden blended by shadow and I'd swerved to avoid a critter running out from the side of the road. As the front wheel impacted the far side inside edge I was flipped forward at an angle, I tucked my head and the impact was directly on the back of my shoulder, with a helmet I'd have been fucked, not just head wise but neck wise also.

Yes you are out of control on occasion but no more than many other activities, I played plenty of rugby in my time, seen some absolutely shocking head clashes not to mention illegal head shots, soccer is not great either.

I'm not over exaggerating the skills of people on bikes simply saying that adding extra girth and weight to your head is a bad thing and that looking at helmet wearing as a defence system for certain outcomes in one activity but ignoring the risk of similar in other aspects in life makes no sense whatsoever. That time you might get pushed from behind whilst on a night out and you crack your head, there's no call for drinking helmets, same with lots of other stuff. As I pointed out, the numbers of head injuries of people on bikes in the study period (long before helmets were a big deal) is a small % compared to all hospital admissions for head injuries.

That helmets for cycling actually have many other negative impacts as well as not having any noticeable safety impact is why I am absolutely anti helmet, it makes my life less safe, it makes my community less safe and it makes the nation and every other country less safe and also helps with victim blaming, freedom removal, bias, unjust outcomes and bias/discrimination shown in the legal/justice system not to mention governments failing to address the real issues with road safety for people on bikes.

There simply is no upside for cycle helmets and never has been.

There is definitely merit to the argument that the extra size and weight of a helmet could lead to contact that otherwise would not have occurred. However showing this on a case by case basis isn't easy and is why your anecdote should carry the same weight (no pun intended) as the stories claiming a helmet saved someone's life. The truth is, without recreating the same accident exactly, but changing only the wearing of a helmet, we would never know whether the outcome would have been different.