The 7PM Project discusses mandatory helmet laws for cyclists

With the recent quashing of a cyclist's conviction for not wearing a helmet, the question has been raised - does forcing the entire cycling population to wear a helmet actually reduce injury rates as much as it reduces cycling itself?

In cycling-friendly countries and cities, helmets are optional, and injury rates are far lower per km cycled. In Australia, there is no evidence to show that 20 years of mandatory helmet laws has had any benefit to cyclists, or society as a whole.

© 2010 Ten, provided for educational/debate purposes

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• mandatory
• compulsory
• bicycling
• cycling
• bike
• helmet
• laws
• regulations
• safetyhigh
• quality
• widescreen
• interviews

[bubble992]

what a load of crap. of course helmets protect you from severe head injuries when cycling. whether or not it should be the law is a different question, but not wearing a helmet is without a doubt dangerous.

aw, charlie pickering is so smart :) and very right.

[HeathenConcepts]

@bubble992 the distinction between "protection while cycling" and "protection in a crash" is important, because there is emerging research that indicates that *not* wearing a helmet may actually reduce your risk of having a crash in the first place.

It's not intuitive, but it's up for debate. In places where helmets are not mandatory, far fewer cyclists end up in hospital, for any reason.

So a helmet *may* protect your head in a crash, but may *also* make you more likely to have one.

[bobjork]

Why are helmets associated with reduce injury to the brain? Brain injury occurs when you own brain slams into your ow skull. A helmet on the outside of your head does not protect your brain.

[jpr12345678]

Nanny state. bloody cry baby ozzy pussy's need the government to tell them what to do

[maskofsan1ty]

Rotational injuries from a helmet are going to be a lot less then that caused by your god awful hair!!