It seems I could ask you the same?

You can't both be dragging me for being an anti helmet weirdo and espousing conventional cycling wisdoms, they can't both be true.

They didn’t nail it, the design is continually being improved. There’ some really cool neck-mounted airbags you can get now Here you go. But wearing a helmet does massive wonders for mitigating risk and damage, a damage that is significant risk, as I’ve described.

Yeah but the significant risk only seems to pop up for cycling. I find it odd that car accidents rank among number one reasons for head injuries, but the idea of wearing a helmet there is preposterous, because you already wear a seatbelt. That evidently doesn't really stop people from getting head injuries a lot - a problem apparently solveable via a helmet or hövding - but hey at least they do some risk mitigation I guess? The endpoint here seems to be about that you gotta do some risk mitigation and then that's all well and good, regardless of outcome?

Cause you keep flip flopping here. You gotta wear a helmet, cause you might get hit by a car. That rings true for both pedestrians and car drivers, who get hit loads by cars, but the exact probability and risk of this starts just after a pedestrian and ends just before the car on the sliding scale of pedestrian - cycle - car. Also wearing a helmet both sucks a lot and is a teeny tiny thing, somehow.

The point I'm making isn't that you shouldn't wear a helmet, as noted I wear one, hell I wrote a guide on how to find one that you actually wear cause it's useless otherwise, my point is the very weird hyperfocus on helmets or PPE for cyclists and cyclists only and no one even on this here leftist forum seems to want to question that much. There's a reason the bulletproof backpacks for school children get shouted down here, but following that logic, hell, why not? As long as society doesn't change, there isn't anything wrong with recommending those, eh? Better be safe!