is there any proof that the helmet prevented any injury?

http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen

Is there any proof that the helmet didn’t prevent injury?  The link given by Alvaro is an opinion piece with a few facts scattered throughout and some facts that aren’t so factual.  An example of this is his use of the “cyclists with helmets are more likely to be in accidents” claim.  Such a claim ignores at least one important tenet of objective analysis (of which he does not appear well equipped):  correlation is not causation.  You can have two sets of data(f0r example) that might correlate but have no actual dependence on each other.  It’s possible that for a significant number of full moons, I might have gas. A mathematical correlation might be found. Factually, there is no dependence on lunar phase for flatus. In the studies that make these claims about helmet use leading to higher accident rates, a causal relationship has never been established. Never.

His assertion that testing for bicycle helmets is inappropriate and not reflective of actual crash dynamics means that helmets don’t protect heads in a crash is not  an objectively sound assertion.  Granted, testing of any helmets (testing of motorcycle helmets is also controversial) is difficult and can likely be better; however that does not invalidate the fact that the energy needed to crack or otherwise destroy a helmet is energy that wasn’t imparted to the skull and brain.  That is simple physics.  The conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum demands and verifies that fact.Further, to exemplify even more how he failed to objectively analyze the “helmet issue”, he presented no data that supported the use of helmets.  He went further afield and further from objectivity with his opinions about  fear driven societies, and auto manufacturers being a prime motivator for helmet use on bikes.  These are opinions that do not stand up to objective analysis.

His quips and allegedly funny quips regarding the toddler helmet and car helmets that were supposed  to support his opinion did nothing of the sort.  Those were completely unrelated to bicycle helmet use.

The thing, however, that most damages the performer in the video is his implicit assertion that fear and/or propaganda must be what drives a cyclist to wear a helmet.  This is propaganda itself and displays a lack of critical thinking.  There are no doubt people choose to wear helmet not because of fear but out of reasonable precaution.  When I go climbing, I most often use a rope, not because I’m afraid of falling but rather because the simple fact is that a climbing fall can result in significant injury or worse.  Likewise, when I ride my bike, I wear my helmet not because I am afraid of an accident but rather because should something untoward happen, the helmet may make the difference between injurious/fatal energy being delivered to my head and walking away with normal brain function.  

Precaution is not synonymous with fear, and that fact was conspicuously absent from this opinion/pop ed piece.

That guy seems like a bit of douche, but he makes some good points, although I still believe a helmet is worth it.  I haven’t gotten into any road accidents yet (although, a helmet saved my life on a MTB trail) but the most dangerous spots I’ve been in have been almost getting cut off by cars.  Most of the time the car isn’t going very fast so I think in those cases, my helmet would be enough to save me from at least minor head injury.  I do like what he says about promoting cycling; if the promotions are out to scare people, that’s not going to get more people riding.