JT> Beg to differ.  Non-neurological face and neck injuries are
 JT> seldom as serious as neurological ones.  The bone you claim will
Yep. But they're thrown into the "head injuries" statistics used by lobby 
groups to get governments to enact legislation controlling the populace into 
spending their hard-earned money on useless hunks of plastic.
 JT> enclosed area of your cranium, however, swelling is very
 JT> dangerous.  The tissue becomes edematous, but has little room to
 JT> expand. 
Basic extreme concussions. No problem with that.
 JT> As the pressure builds, brain tissue is forced through this
 JT> opening and blood circulation is cut off to the brain stem.  The
 JT> brain stem is what controls your basic life-support systems; ie,
Yes - but here's the thing, though. Any injury sufficient to cause that level 
of wound in a victim is likely to be severe enough to cause a sufficient 
degree of serious injury _anyhow_. In short, the helmet will make little 
difference in protection. It is only useful in reducing minor bruises and 
abrasions suffered at velocities and impact speeds which do not pose a 
serious degree of permanent or serious harm.
 JT> A helmet helps prevent this from happening by absorbing some of
 JT> the energy of impact, lessening the trauma to the brain tissue
A helmet is effectively rigid. It absorbs minimal amounts of impact energy. 
It merely re-distributes it. This is useful in situations where there's no 
severe force involved. In serious cases - ones likely to risk death or 
serious permanent injury, you're still screwed. 
And stats _show_ this. The problem is, getting stats that take into acount 
skull injuries versus facial injuries. And the majority of injuries resulting 
from cycling are facial - but included in the irrelevant helmet statistics. 
In short, bafflegab. Shorter, bald-faced lies.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------