In some cities in the US, which is just plain wrong. For example, in Portland OR you cannot lawfully ride a bicycle on the sidewalk unless you're avoiding some road hazard (cars do not count, unless it's on fire or something).
You are weighing the tentative results of one study equally against many others saying helmets reduce injury.
The study is also weird in that in the course of being passed by 2500 vehicles, he was struck twice. That is an astronomical accident rate that leads me to think his test was abnormal in some way.
This only relates to cyclist/vehicle strikes and not to solo accident due to handling, road conditions, weather etc.
Additionally (without having checked any statistics) i believe most vehicle strikes where i live are due to the driver not seeing the cyclist at all, because they do not orientate properly on right turns or the cyclist is riding too aggressively.
Depending on where you live, it might be illegal to ride without a helmet.
Personally, I would ignore both this study and the WaveCel marketing material, and look at results of actual outcomes in collisions. Boston and New York both, just for example (many cities & states do this, and so does the NTSB), publish data on how often helmets prevent brain injury, statistically speaking. [1][2][3] (Note that NYC is so sure helmets save lives, they’re spending millions to distribute them for free. There’s a decent chance it’s saving money overall.)
> Or don’t buy a helmet at all, and trust that you won’t get in an accident?
Well, do what makes you feel safer and obeys the laws. But trusting that you won’t get in an accident because of that study you cited would be a dramatic, and possibly dangerous mis-interpretation and mis-understanding of that study’s results.
While there’s some controversy over that study admitted by the author, even if you take it a face value, it’s saying that without a helmet cars pass 4.4 feet from him, and with a helmet, they pass 4.1 feet from him on average. That might be a bit more dangerous, but what’s the actual accident rate? You can’t conclude anything about that from his 2 accidents, and the U.S. standard for vehicles passing bikes is 3 feet, so he’s demonstrating that with or without helmets, drivers are on average passing safely.
If you want to take the studies at face value, then try to calculate the expected value, which is risk multiplied by cost. It’s wrong to suggest that it’s a toss up just because there exists evidence in both directions, when the magnitude of the evidence may be overwhelmingly unidirectional. Clearly many people here don’t believe the 98% improvement WaveCel claims, but suppose you take it at face value. To decide what do to about it, you need to know what the increase in concussion risk is due to vehicles passing you more closely. Don’t call it a conundrum, find out. How often does an average of 4.1 feet of room result in concussion over 4.4 feet of room?
(BTW, do note the 98% number that WaveCel is advertising is relative to other kinds of helmets, not relative to the unprotected skull. Statistics on outcomes seem to consistently show 80%-90% effectiveness for wearing any kind of helmet, but don’t take my word for it...)
What's to be done?
Buy the helmet that reduces concussions by 98%?
Or don't buy a helmet at all, and trust that you won't get in an accident?
That's quite the conundrum.
[0] http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906...