While I'm a moderate on the helmet debate and willing to accept some of the arguments, I disagree that everything on that link is spot on.

Some of it is purely speculative. And some of it is downright misleading.

I'll just pick one example: the risk compensation argument. This is the argument that wearing helmets promotes greater risk-taking behavior and reduces overall safety.

The link says, "Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries."

It's not a lie. The first part - "more falls" - probably banks on the 2016 study, "Wearing a Bicycle Helmet Can Increase Risk Taking and Sensation Seeking in Adults." But that article was a bit suspect. As a metric it used scores from an eye tracking device mounted to either a helmet or baseball cap. It wasn't a direct measure of either risk nor risk-taking behavior from actual collisions. But a more recent literature survey of this topic from 2019, "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review", studied 23 papers on the topic. Of those 23 studies, 18 found no increased risk, 3 were mixed, 2 supported the notion of increased risk. And 10 suggested that cycling behavior actually *improved* with helmet use.

So the link picked one (or 2) of those 23 studies and doesn't even bother mentioning that the preponderance of evidence goes in the other direction.

But it's not a lie. Some evidence *does* suggest. Right?

That site is pretty dogmatic, as almost all helmet debates, unfortunately, are.