Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing

OldRidgeback wrote:

ermine wrote:

I've timed it; on average it takes me 4 seconds to put my helmet on and take it back off again. Can't see that being too off-putting.

If parents wear helmets, their children will see it as first-nature to wear them and will not be troubled by the vanity concerns that afflict some unfortunate folk.

Boris bikes are the anomaly.

Have you timed how long it takes to put on body armour, leg and arm protection? I'm just curious. It seems to me that if you're keen on wearing a cycle helmet when riding on the roads because you see a perceived risk that can be partially averted, then you have to agree that additional protection to those bits of the body shown by extensive reasearch to be subject to a much higher risk of injury in the event of a cycle accident should also be protected.

ANyone who is keen to wear a bicycle helmet for road riding should surely be keen for arm and leg protection, perhaps even more so as the risks of injury are signficantly higher.

Please see my post at 14:42.

ermine wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

ermine wrote:

I've timed it; on average it takes me 4 seconds to put my helmet on and take it back off again. Can't see that being too off-putting.

If parents wear helmets, their children will see it as first-nature to wear them and will not be troubled by the vanity concerns that afflict some unfortunate folk.

Boris bikes are the anomaly.

Have you timed how long it takes to put on body armour, leg and arm protection? I'm just curious. It seems to me that if you're keen on wearing a cycle helmet when riding on the roads because you see a perceived risk that can be partially averted, then you have to agree that additional protection to those bits of the body shown by extensive reasearch to be subject to a much higher risk of injury in the event of a cycle accident should also be protected.

ANyone who is keen to wear a bicycle helmet for road riding should surely be keen for arm and leg protection, perhaps even more so as the risks of injury are signficantly higher.

Please see my post at 14:42.

I did look at your earlier post. You say people don't perceive a need for arm and leg protection for cycling, while they understand the arguments regarding helmets.

But DfT data says that cyclists suffer most from arm and leg injuries. So if you believe helmets make good sense, surely you have to agree arm and leg protection is even more important? If you say otherwise, you're contradicting your own logic.

northstar wrote:

The only people/organisations who want compulsory helmets want to reduce cycling numbers

Don't try to speak for me, or for people who share my view. I do not want to reduce cycling numbers. I am active in encouraging non-cyclists to cycle.

northstar wrote:

Pro choice - yes. Compulsion will cause more problems for the NHS, these well meaning "bodies" never think before they speak.

Compulsion WILL CAUSE more PROBLEMS for the NHS? What utter baloney! Define 'problems'. Demonstrate 'will'. Link 'cause' to supposed effect. Drivel.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abst... may help.

nuclear coffee wrote:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abst... may help.

yup, we ran a piece on that bit of research back in 2009:

http://road.cc/content/news/3865-helmet-laws-fail-maths-test

ermine wrote:

Don't try to speak for me, or for people who share my view. I do not want to reduce cycling numbers. I am active in encouraging non-cyclists to cycle.

I'm not trying to speak for you - why would you want compulsion when helmets are next to useless over 12mph and would discourage cycling overnight - people want to cycle without a helmet as they should be able too.

ermine wrote:

Compulsion WILL CAUSE more PROBLEMS for the NHS? What utter baloney! Define 'problems'. Demonstrate 'will'. Link 'cause' to supposed effect. Drivel.

Yup, if you knew what happened to cycling in australia and new zealand when they introduced a helmet law, cycling went down, obesity went up. Not drivel at all.

Pro-choice is my stance but helmets should not be actively encouraged - people are old enough to make their minds up - they don't need to be treated like fools.

northstar wrote:

ermine wrote:

Don't try to speak for me, or for people who share my view. I do not want to reduce cycling numbers. I am active in encouraging non-cyclists to cycle.

I'm not trying to speak for you - why would you want compulsion when helmets are next to useless over 12mph

The speed comment is a red herring. Just because a cyclist is hit by a motorist, even at 40mph, does not mean that the helmet will suffer an impact at the same speed - speed will invariably be lost during breaking, falling, bodily absorption, etc. In any event, traffic speeds in cities such as London rarely exceed 12mph. People cycling on busy city roads without helmets are putting an unfair burden on motorists and, as stated by the judge in Smith v Finch "there can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury; such a failure would not be “a sensible thing to do” and so, subject to issues of causation, any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault and “he has only himself to thank for the consequences"".

northstar wrote:

and would discourage cycling overnight

Would you stop cycling? I wouldn't. People throw around the Aus/NZ stats willy nilly, but those stats have no controls and take no account of surrounding circumstances.

northstar wrote:

people want to cycle without a helmet as they should be able too.

In which case, they must accept the mitigation defence supported by Smith v Finch, the consequence of which must be that they will require insurance cover in the event of a catastrophic accident. Sadly, I fear that any such policy would be predicated upon the insured taking adequate precautions, eg wearing a helmet.

ermine wrote:

Compulsion WILL CAUSE more PROBLEMS for the NHS? What utter baloney! Define 'problems'. Demonstrate 'will'. Link 'cause' to supposed effect. Drivel.

northstar wrote:

Yup, if you knew what happened to cycling in australia and new zealand when they introduced a helmet law, cycling went down, obesity went up.

Yes, I have read extensively on the topic. At the same time, the price of fish rose sharply, but I am not convinced that that was a direct result of helmet compulsion either.

northstar wrote:

Not drivel at all.

Well, at least you've had a go at supporting your statements.

northstar wrote:

Pro-choice is my stance but helmets should not be actively encouraged - people are old enough to make their minds up - they don't need to be treated like fools.

Hate to be so obvious but some people aren't old enough and would benefit from a good example being set. But it's a much bigger issue than that; the whole balance of duty and responsibility must be changed for the benefit of the cyclist. No-one is suggesting anyone else should be treated like fools.

mrpuncture wrote:

I still don't understand why people are so passionate about not wearing a helmet. Came off yesterday over the top on the mountain bike(I should stick to road!) and helmet took a fair old wallop...I was fine, but would i have been without a helmet?? Obviously anecdotal evidence is no good, and I'm sure that "evidence" can be found to support any view...but to me I can't see any reason not to wear a helmet other than your hair gets a bit messy and you get a sweaty line. A small price to pay surely??

Well riding on a challenging MTB track does somewhat increase your risk of going over the bars. You don't have to wear a helmet in that sort of riding, but it makes sense. The same goes for skate park riding on a BMX or competition BMX riding. I wear a helmet for all of those. But I rarely do for road riding, because the risks of going over the bars are lower. And in road riding, the greatest risk to cyclists come from high speed impacts or crush injuries. Neither of which scenario would mean helmet use would make a blind bit of difference. The CTC's analysis of cycle accidents say that in about 3% of them would helmet wearing make a difference as I remember. We might as well require all cyclists to wear body armour, leg and elbow and upper arm protection, as I wear for BMX competition. Arms and legs are the parts of the body most likely to be injured in a cycle accident on the road after all.

I'd be curious to see the statistics the chairman of this brain injury group has to back up his claims.

As many people have commented on this site recently, those campaigning for compulsory use of cycle helmets are looking in the wrong direction with regard to safety. The real issue here is bad driving.

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

ermine wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

I've never met a Anti-helmet lobbyist, Anti-compulsion maybe, but never someone who wants to actively prevent people wearing helmets.
If I was riding without a helmet and suffered a broken leg as a result of a collision with a car would my compensation be reduced? Why?

alun wrote:

ermine wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

I've never met a Anti-helmet lobbyist, Anti-compulsion maybe, but never someone who wants to actively prevent people wearing helmets.
If I was riding without a helmet and suffered a broken leg as a result of a collision with a car would my compensation be reduced? Why?

Read up on mitigation in civil damages claims. Perhaps have a read of Smith v Finch. For starters, see my post at 14:22.

ermine wrote:

alun wrote:

ermine wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

I've never met a Anti-helmet lobbyist, Anti-compulsion maybe, but never someone who wants to actively prevent people wearing helmets.
If I was riding without a helmet and suffered a broken leg as a result of a collision with a car would my compensation be reduced? Why?

Read up on mitigation in civil damages claims. Perhaps have a read of Smith v Finch. For starters, see my post at 14:22.

Does it explain how compensation for a broken leg would be reduced due to not wearing a helmet?

alun wrote:

ermine wrote:

alun wrote:

ermine wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The real issue here is bad driving.

Mis-use of the phrase 'the real issue' here. This should read, 'another relevant issue'.

Anti-helmet lobbyists traditionally deflect the attention away from helmet use to driver actions. These two are not mutually exclusive. It is, contrary to all the arguments, possible for a bad driver to be responsible for a collision and for a cyclist to fail to mitigate the damage resulting from that collision by failing to wear a helmet. In such circumstances, it is clear that liability may rest with the driver but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

I've never met a Anti-helmet lobbyist, Anti-compulsion maybe, but never someone who wants to actively prevent people wearing helmets.
If I was riding without a helmet and suffered a broken leg as a result of a collision with a car would my compensation be reduced? Why?

Read up on mitigation in civil damages claims. Perhaps have a read of Smith v Finch. For starters, see my post at 14:22.

Does it explain how compensation for a broken leg would be reduced due to not wearing a helmet?

Yes and no. A basic grasp of anatomy is also required.

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

In that case, is there not a financial benefit to wearing a helment then, even if you don't believe it will help you?

If you suffer serious injury whilst not wearing a helmet your family may have to foot the bill for your care because you didn't take all reasonable measures to protect yourself. If you wear a helmet (even if it doesn't help) your loved ones may receive enough compensation to look after you or be provided for if you are no longer capable.

Seems to be yet another sensible reason to wear a helmet. Why anyone wouldn't whilst cycling on the road is beyond me but I guess that's personal choice.

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

dave_atkinson wrote:

ermine wrote:

drheaton wrote:

Have to say that I wouldn't be astonished if courts started to take a lack of a helmet into account as mitigating factors should damages be sought for head injuries in collisions. It makes sense, if you could have reasonably done something to prevent some or all of your injuries and haven't then you're partly to blame for them.

I'm not saying helmet's should be compulsory, just that if you don't wear one and suffer a head injury which a helmet would have prevented (or where a helmet may have lessened the damage) surely you have to take some responsibility for it?

This is (pardon the pun) a no-brainer. Claimants in civil damages claims are always required to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable measures to mitigate the damage sustained and claimed. A court that fails to take such matters into account would be negligent and its decision would surely be subject to appeal.

If I'm walking past a building site and somebody drops a scaffold pole on my head, causing me a brain injury, am i then required to explain why i wasn't wearing head protection in order to receive full damages?

the only differences between that scenario and one where a motorist hits a cyclist and is entirely at fault, so far as i can see, are:

1) people (judges) think cycling is inherently dangerous
2) cycling helmets are commonly available and walking helmets aren't.

The truth is that cycling isn't really any more dangerous than being a pedestrian, or a bunch of other things where wearing a helmet wouldn't even be considered. Also, where does that argument stop? You can already buy body armour for downhilling - if i suffer a back injury in an accident that wasn't my fauly, am i negligent for not having bought armour that might have lessened the injuries? or knee and shin pads? if i am wearing a helmet and still suffer a brain injury, am i negligent because i wasn't wearing a full face helmet? or an MX helmet? where does my burden of responsibility end?

I don't have any statistics (and let's face it, stats will tell you anything you like) but I'd bet that accidents per journey made by bike are considerably higher than accidents per journey made on foot.

Likewise the rate of head injuries per cycling accident is probably considerably higher than head injuries per pedestrian accident (assuming you include trips and falls, and other self caused accidents as you would include coming off the bike unaided or crashing into a wall etc...)

Finally, I would expect the seriousness of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents to be more serious, on average, than head injuries received in pedestrian accidents.

Would you say all of those are sensible guesses? Obviously without looking into the actual statistics I couldn't be certain but common sense would say all of the above would probably be true.

In that case cycling is more dangerous than walking (just saying that there are X accidents for cyclists and a similar number for pedestrians doesn't take into account the vastly higher volume of pedestrian journeys, likewise injury per distance isn't a fair representation as walking journeys tend to be shorter but slower, injuries per hour of walking/cycling could be a better stat to use).

By that extremely fuzzy logic based on wildly unverified foundations I'd say that wearing a walking helmet would not be deemed to be a reasonable precaution to take whereas a helmet when cycling may be.

drheaton wrote:

I don't have any statistics (and let's face it, stats will tell you anything you like) but I'd bet that accidents per journey made by bike are considerably higher than accidents per journey made on foot.

Likewise the rate of head injuries per cycling accident is probably considerably higher than head injuries per pedestrian accident (assuming you include trips and falls, and other self caused accidents as you would include coming off the bike unaided or crashing into a wall etc...)

Finally, I would expect the seriousness of head injuries sustained in cycling accidents to be more serious, on average, than head injuries received in pedestrian accidents.

Would you say all of those are sensible guesses? Obviously without looking into the actual statistics I couldn't be certain but common sense would say all of the above would probably be true.

In that case cycling is more dangerous than walking (just saying that there are X accidents for cyclists and a similar number for pedestrians doesn't take into account the vastly higher volume of pedestrian journeys, likewise injury per distance isn't a fair representation as walking journeys tend to be shorter but slower, injuries per hour of walking/cycling could be a better stat to use).

By that extremely fuzzy logic based on wildly unverified foundations I'd say that wearing a walking helmet would not be deemed to be a reasonable precaution to take whereas a helmet when cycling may be.

most of the analysis i've read comes to the conclusions that:

1) the risk is broadly the same in terms of KSI per billion km for walking and cycling. so risk per hour would be higher for walking, risk per journey higher for cycling.
2) the head injury percentage among admissions is broadly the same too, i've never seen data on the severity or otherwise of those injuries but pedestrian accident data doesn't include things like tripping over a paving stone and bumping your head.
3) the way accidents are reported (especially for pedestrians) means that the figures aren't particularly accurate

the basic gist of all of it, however, is that neither walking nor cycling is particularly dangerous.

i'm not particularly pro or anti helmet use, it's interesting to me that it's always such a hot topic though which is why i read around it a little. and it really is a little. sadly much of the stuff available to read is on websites with a really, *really* obvious axe to grind, one way or the other, so i don't really consider it trustworthy.

I wear a helmet when i'm riding to work or going for a longer ride, or heading off road. I don't wear one when i'm riding to the shops or pootling along the cycle path with my kids. my main bugbear with helmet compulsion is that it'll put people off riding to the shops on their bike, or pootling along the cycle path with their kids.

@dave_atkinson:

It's a hot topic cause well-meaning people come along with "head injuries bad, helmets must help" (often with a good dose of "think of the children!"). They typically have no evidence for this, because, hey, "helmets must help" is just common-sense - and why should that ever be questioned? That then is enough for them to brand those who don't share their common sense (e.g. because they prefer a more empirical, evidence based approach - having learned how wrong common-sense sometimes can be) as reckless and irresponsible, even idiots. They may even wish for their deaths (a recent road.cc comment, how nice).

It'd be great if that argument could be just ignored - life would be much quieter. Unfortunately, that runs the risk their unfounded "common-sense" will prevail, and that one of the bills that MPs, MLPs and AMs keep introducing every few years (most recent one: just the other day) will be enacted. So, sadly, we have to keep engaging with these people, again and again and again, and keep pointing out the actual facts to them. The more sensible of them will rethink, and at least stop supporting compulsion. Some, sadly, will never accept facts over their preconceived common-sense.

Interestingly, many of these people rarely cycle, if ever. Indeed, a good portion actively dislike, if not despise, cyclists. Some though are also cyclists. Some of these people hold positions of authority that allow them to impose their "common-sense" and force people to wear helmets in certain situations.

It's really annoying when it's cyclists doing that, which is very sadly often the case in the UK. E.g. many sportive organisers, who often hide behind the lame excuse that their insurance forces them to when challenged - they never seem willing to show you the policy terms though. These are cyclists who actively will try to prevent other cyclists from cycling, on public roads - which is just deeply sad.

dave_atkinson wrote:

most of the analysis i've read comes to the conclusions that:

1) the risk is broadly the same in terms of KSI per billion km for walking and cycling. so risk per hour would be higher for walking, risk per journey higher for cycling.

I would have thought that a broadly equal KSI per billion km would mean a higher risk for cycling per hour as in an hour you're covering greater distance?

dave_atkinson wrote:

2) the head injury percentage among admissions is broadly the same too, i've never seen data on the severity or otherwise of those injuries but pedestrian accident data doesn't include things like tripping over a paving stone and bumping your head.
3) the way accidents are reported (especially for pedestrians) means that the figures aren't particularly accurate

the basic gist of all of it, however, is that neither walking nor cycling is particularly dangerous.

i'm not particularly pro or anti helmet use, it's interesting to me that it's always such a hot topic though which is why i read around it a little. and it really is a little. sadly much of the stuff available to read is on websites with a really, *really* obvious axe to grind, one way or the other, so i don't really consider it trustworthy.

I wear a helmet when i'm riding to work or going for a longer ride, or heading off road. I don't wear one when i'm riding to the shops or pootling along the cycle path with my kids. my main bugbear with helmet compulsion is that it'll put people off riding to the shops on their bike, or pootling along the cycle path with their kids.

I'm not pre-compulsion or anti-compulsion, I just dislike the general arguments used, the poor logic applied and dodgy stats used to back up both sides really.

The only real argument I can see for no laws is that it could reduce cycling numbers but there's also no evidence for that which you can reliably apply to the UK and say that definitely fewer people will cycle. I agree that common sense says that will happen but common sense says that helmets save lives so you can't have it both ways

As far as I'm concerned any other argument is guff. The thought that forcing helmet use is going to make cycling more dangerous or that it'll stop the government from spending money on infrastructure (because they're doing soooo much at the minute...) don't hold water for me and whilst enacting a law enforcing helmet use does seem a waste of time without further evidence I'd say that the stance taken by the 'anti' camp that everything is the fault of the driver is doing their cause more damage than good.

Most drivers are good drivers, most give cyclist room and drive, if not within the Highway code, then pretty safely most of the time. Tarring them all with the same brush and blaming their lack of awareness for every single problem on the roads is really misguided. The cyclists who do this though are also the ones who kick up a fuss when Daily Mail drivers tar all cyclists with the 'red-light-jumping hooligans' brush. That's just hypocrisy.

There needs to be movement on both sides, from drivers and cyclists, to improve the conditions for everyone. It's not all about infrastructure and not all about driver awareness or cycling safety gear. Each one of these things contributes in some way and dumping all the blame on one group of road-users isn't going to help.

Paul J wrote:

(e.g. because they prefer a more empirical, evidence based approach - having learned how wrong common-sense sometimes can be) as reckless and irresponsible, even idiots. They may even wish for their deaths (a recent road.cc comment, how nice).

Lack of proof that helmets save lives is not the same as evidence that they don't. As far as I know there is zero reliable evidence to prove either side, so your evidence based approach is actually based on no evidence.

Lack of proof that helmets save lives is not the same as evidence that they don't. As far as I know there is zero reliable evidence to prove either side, so your evidence based approach is actually based on no evidence.

Not so:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751100008X

That's a good quality, systematic meta-study. You probably can't access the full text (and right at this moment, neither can I - so I'll go by memory), but across a range of primary studies it finds helmets reduce head injuries, but much less than stated in other studies (~23% IIRC), while also being associated with *increased* rates of other injuries (neck, facial). The conclusion being that, overall, helmets have a negligible
effect on injuries overall.

Further, there is clear and incontrovertible proof that helmets are not a pre-requisite for safe cycling: Just look across the water at the Netherlands. Lots of cyclists, almost no helmets, *much* better road safety statistics than in the UK - for both cyclists *and* pedestrians. So it's pretty clear what is and what is not required for safe cycling.

Indeed (and now we're into my subjective opinion, and not hard fact) helmets likely are a massive red-herring to road safety. Indeed, helmet may even be actively dangerous, at leat to the extent that people here in the UK - cyclists included - seem to invest their faith in helmets and accepting that conditions must so dangerous as to require safety equipment, rather than working for safe road conditions (e.g. sane speed limits in dense urban areas, well engineered & maintained segregation between fast motor vehicles & cyclists/peds every where else, aka the dutch model).

Paul J wrote:

rather than

Those two words are the grenade at the heart of every argument against helmet use. Helmets and improved road conditions are not mutually exclusive. The key to mitigation is to do ALL that is reasonable, not to do one thing to the exclusion of all others.