Just because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it not true. That's the flip side of confirmation bias.
The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.
The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.
Reason suggest that helmets work better than no helmets. _Evidence_ suggests that the benefits of wearing a helmet are actually surprisingly marginal for casual cyclists. Other factors, like biking infrastructure quality and vehicle operator education, have a much greater impact on safety. Which makes it a bit weird that people concerned with the safety of bicyclists talk so much about helmets.
I don't disagree with that, but that's not really the author's claim. He appears to be claiming that helmets aren't actually effective or cause other problems.
An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.
The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.
The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.