Helmets mini-FAQ

According to the two opposing camps. bicycle helmets are either (a) the cycling equivalent of a portable forcefield, preventing all possible deaths and injuries, or (b) guaranteed to kill you stone dead within fifteen seconds of putting them on.

It is believed that back in 1996 someone had their mind changed about the helmet issue during a discussion on Usenet, but this is probably an urban myth. Most cyclists, of course, don't give a toss whether anyone else wears a lid or not, but that won't deter the warring factions from posting.

Only three things are certain about bicycle helmets:

First, making them compulsory deters cycling. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in several places, notably Australia. This deterrent factor has several undesirable knock-on effects, notably that a reduction in total cyclist numbers tends to increase the danger of cycling (as drivers are less likely to be on the lookout for cycling); also a reduction in the fitness levels of the population. Cycling is good exercise.

Second, anecdotal evidence is worthless. Yes, plenty of us have come off head first and our helmets may have prevented serious injury (if we were wearing one). But these are not controlled experiments, and few of us are particularly anxious to go back and repeat the exercise with and without a helmet for comparison. People who died despite wearing a helmet rarely post about it, and there are no objective standards for assessing whether those who have crashed - with or without a helmet - have actually had their brains addled or not.

Third, making them compulsory has never resulted in any measurable change in head injury rates. Any reductions in numbers of injuries are simply due to fewer people riding bikes, deterred by the helmet law and the "dangerfying" of cycling which accompanies such laws.