This article seems to take no effort to distinguish whether increases in injuries, in the numerous places it states it, are also relative increases.

Do I care whether statistics show that I'm almost three times as likely to sustain a head injury from walking than biking if I don't know the percentage of time people spent doing those activities to generate those statistics? No, I don't.

Smoke and mirrors.

I get the sense that most of the article was to highlight the point you just made. That is, while cyclists with helmets may be safer, so are drivers with helmets, etc., so if the argument for cycling helmets is only "you'll be safer", without relative risk information, then it isn't that strong an argument.

That said, you are correct. A counter-argument based on that logic must include relative risk information, which wasn't given. I followed several of the links under "How bike helmets may be harmful". The author did not characterize some of them correctly.

For example, "Three separate studies have shown that bike helmets may increase the probability of certain types of neck injuries." links to a meta-data study that attempts to draw a conclusion using both positive and negative studies. It's wrong to pull out only the negative studies as any sort of evidence, especially when the abstract concludes "...but this result may not be applicable to the lighter helmets currently in use. In conclusion, the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Despite this, the use of helmets is sub-optimal. Helmet use for all riders should be further encouraged to the extent that it is uniformly accepted and analogous to the use of seat belts by motor vehicle occupants."

I also dislike the number of citations to news sources, rather than the primary literature. The University of Bath study links to a press release, and others links to the New York Times.

I conclude that this is not an essay I would point people to in order to convince them that the necessity of bicycle helmet use is exaggerated.

I've dug into the literature myself before. It's murky. That is, while there's clear evidence that helmet use can reduce some types of injuries, the incidence of those injuries are low, and one proposed solution - mandatory helmet use - has its own negative effects. I think an anti-mandatory bicycle helmet essay could leave it at that.

What a stupid argument. This is a great example of how statistics can appear to support any random premise, no matter how obviously wrong it is.

So why don't we take basic protective measures to mitigate safety risks? Um, we do. Drivers wear seat belts, pedestrians cross at crosswalks, and cyclists wear helmets.

Of course if OP had phrased the question this way, it would be clear that he has no point. Instead, just to be pedantic he phrases it: "why don't we wear helmets all the time"? Such bullshit is what you're taught to look out for in your freshman rhetoric class.

Please, please wear a helmet when you ride a bike. OP himself admits that if you're in a serious accident a helmet will save your life. That's where the argument should have ended.