Definitely. The two accidents I&#x27;ve had where helmets have been helpful have been at low speeds. In one, somebody stopped suddenly in front of me while I was novice rider getting used to new brakes. The other, I hit a wet tram rail while making a turn. The problem wasn&#x27;t total velocity, it was me falling over while being conjoined with a bike. (I also had one accident at speed, but there the bike and I parted ways and I supermanned through the air and kept my head up on landing.)<p>The study persuades me not at all for a few reasons. 1) it&#x27;s Canada, 2) it&#x27;s all of Canada, and 3) it&#x27;s only in-patient hospital stays.<p>I&#x27;m biking in a US urban area. I know that Canada&#x27;s automotive death rates are lower, and I&#x27;m happy to believe that&#x27;s due both to Canada&#x27;s famed niceness and to a more European attitude toward infrastructure. I might also not bother with a helmet tootling along some leafy Canadian rural road, but when dealing with California&#x27;s drivers in an environment that&#x27;s mostly cement and metal, thanks, I&#x27;ll take the helmet.<p>I also get the theory that in-patient hospital stays might be a good index to help decide the public benefit of helmet laws. But I don&#x27;t think my helmet kept me from two hospital stays. I think it kept me from two concussions. Given the long-term cognitive effects of even nominally mild brain injury, I&#x27;m again sticking with the helmet. Those here who think themselves so smart that a) this study proves it for them, or b) they have smarts to burn are welcome to go without.