> Having been in a high speed accident, a helmet saved my life.
I'm glad you're alive. If you're in a serious accident a helmet is a very good thing to have. No one argues that. The point is that serious accidents are very rare. People seem a lot less likely to ride a bike if they need to wear a helmet—I wear a helmet 95% of the time and I do not understand why—and the health benefits from cycling far outweigh the risks. The article even says: "Helmet proponents are right about one thing: If you're in a serious accident, then wearing a helmet makes the odds of a head injury significantly lower — by somewhere between 15 and 40 percent."
> The article also states that walking is no more dangerous than riding a bike, though physics disagrees.
I believe that is because stats are by "per kilometre travelled" (at least the 2012 British study). People usually bike longer distances than they walk.
Another alternative is a https://hovding.se/. A lot of people in Stockholm wear one, but they are quite expensive.
> Many people also suggest that wearing a helmet makes cyclists themselves less cautious in their riding, increasing the chance of an accident.
So if you are willing to believe a data point like that, then clearly helmets make people less safe.
Having been in a high speed accident, a helmet saved my life.
The article also states that walking is no more dangerous than riding a bike, though physics disagrees.