The article tries extensively to dance around the fact that all else being equal, if your head is hitting the ground you're better off wearing a helmet. In the worst cases, you aren't worse off. Acceleration is what kills, and because you can't change the starting speed nor the end speed (0 m/s), all you can change is time.
That doesn't mean they have to be enforced legally, of course. So rather than attacking the merits of helmets, the argument made in the article would be more compelling if it focused on the unalienable right of humans to get severely injured doing stupid stuff for fun or profit.
That doesn't mean they have to be enforced legally, of course. So rather than attacking the merits of helmets, the argument made in the article would be more compelling if it focused on the unalienable right of humans to get severely injured doing stupid stuff for fun or profit.