I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries
in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it?
How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking
on the street.

None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate.

Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet,
because
the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve
are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted
riders
had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries.


Granted. However, the debate here is on mandatory helmet laws. The important
question to be answered is "Will mandatory helmet laws make the streets
safer for cyclists?".

I'm not going to re-hash all my reasons (i've given them in other posts),
but I firmly believe that they will NOT improve the situation.

Paul