Australian researchers claim to have proved that compulsory helmet laws work

I don't think this study shows what the headline here claims. If anything, I think it shows the reverse. When I look at the data in the report, other than a short-term reduction around the time of the passing of the law (which may itself be influenced by things like media exposure of the law change), in the longer run the trend in injury rates *increases*. By the end of the study period, the benefits are nearly gone. We can extrapolate that, longer term, past the study period, the head injury rates likely became *greater* than before the law.

I've a longer response on my blog at http://bit.ly/mLX6FX

Having just had quite a serious accident, I have no doubt my helmet saved me from even worse. I don't really understand the anti-helmet argument. I would certainly advocate compulsory helmet wearing for young people.

It will be sadness that when I move back to Australia I have to put a helmet on to ride around the block to pick up a loaf of bread. Since living in London I have liked that I can choose when to wear a helmet.

Evski

This kind of research is typicaly narrow in its scope and yet again its the same old same old.
All in England should try to understand the damage that helmet law brought about here in Australia while purportedly saving lives. In some schools the drop-off of students riding to school was of the order of 93% and adolescents are the accident prone ones that comprise most of the statistics, then as now. Of course you are going to get a result if this happens.
None of the studies ever differentiate between the risk-proneness of the different age groups.
Helmet law made all of us who continued to ride have to wear helmets simply because of the few and most people simply gave up.
The roads then became more dangerous for those that were left.

You only have to look at the press photo, carried in the Evening Standard and - I think - on this site of the recent serious injury incident in Hackney (tipper truck again) to see how useful a helmet is in urban traffic.

The helmet is lying a few feet from the bike, on its own. The bike is fairly comprehensively bent, and anything that can bend a steel frame would have med light work of a polystyrene helmet.

So, when the Oz researchers say that helmet compulsion "works", what do they mean by "work"? They might just as well say that "wearing a helmet will reduce your risk of serious head injury from meteorite strikes by 75%" but would you classify meteorite strikes as the greatest risk you face?

Interesting point about seatbelts, perhaps we should make a law where all occupants except the driver must where a seat belt, then they might drive with a bit more sense.

What really grinds my gear is the 4x4 mum, with 'Baby on Board' sticker driving like an A*hole, so your babies life is worthy but anyone else's is not.

I will stick with the dutch model, no helmets, no lights, beers, never saw the roads paved with graves.

No doubt helmets help, but yet again it really misses the point. The majority of serious head injuries excluding mtb jumpers are caused by vehicles, as are other road accidents (a few million a year globally, but hey that is acceptable in the name of convenience). Road vehicles are the actual problem not riding without a helmet, solve the actual problem not curtail peoples freedom.

Check out Casey in New York:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ

no helmet yet manages to crash okay, thing about the body it is pretty good at protecting itself, though it has its limits when ploughed into by a car.

And is it just me but NSW has become and is a nanny state, where did Australia go so wrong, it used be a nation based on common sense and self reliance.

From an Antipodean perspective, helmets have been compulsary here for many years. I have the (unfortunate) experience of being hit by a car in pre-helmet days and, with helmet, having another cyclist fall off in front of me while at speed. In the latter case, I had a crack in my helmet (& a very surprised look on my face), compared with concussion and considerable pain in the first case.

How scientific is this? Not very, but my medical specialist wife has seen a lot of head injuries and certainly believed my helmet saved me from a hematoma in my skull.

Can cycling be dangerous? Yes; both self-inflicted & by those with cars. Should that stop people from cycling? Well, do you stop driving because of the requirement to wear a seat belt?

Use the protection available and be sensible as you ride, is the best approach.

Arguing philosophically requires beer, and virtual beer just doesn't satisfy.

A personal account here. As a teenager cycling in rural Queensland I was struck by a truck. I ended up with a broken collarbone, a few holes in my body and gravel rash up one side of my body, including the face. The helmet I was wearing ended up with cracked foam and the shell (a lot harder and thicker than by today's standards) was scraped raw. I've no doubt that that helmet prevented me from receiving massive head injuries. The ambulance took 2 hours to reach me so I'd go as far as to suggest that it probably saved my life. And in the subsequent years other helmets have also been useful when car doors have been opened on me.

something that might be helpful is to publish this alongside the change in cycle usage, has it increased despite the law or reduced.

Is that a 29 percent reduction in head injuries in total, or a 29 percent reduction in head injuries per miles cycled. If the latter then OK, but it should still be the rider's choice. If the former then I'd like to also see figures for the percentage change in heart disease and obesity levels a few decades after the legislation was introduced.

I may have read it wrongly, but it sounds like (and apparently in common with the other studies that I've heard about) they have not distinguished between head injuries suffered by mountainbikers and other cyclists.

This seems to me to be a critical point. The likelihood of suffering a head injury (and the type/seriousness of that injury) whilst mountainbiking and, say, commuting to work is surely very different?

Without information to show which type of cyclists are suffering what types of injury, I can't see how any study like this could possibly be used to justify compulsory helmet wearing on the road.

Helmet Panto Time!

It misses the point, although I'm judging only by the press release.

Of course a helmet will protect you from bumps, scrapes and needing some stitches. That's what they are designed for, so it is hardly surprising that they do their job.

But many people seem to be under the impression that helmets protect from serious head injury or death or mitigate the effects of such events. How many times are they referred to as potentially 'life-saving'.

Do they save lives or prevent serious injury that's the question, not do they prevent any injuries at all.

If all they do is protect from minor injury then it is unlikely to be outweighed by the negative effects of reducing cycling numbers.

I wonder if reserach into the health-damaging consequences of people not cycling becase they were put off by having to wear a helmet, which made them think that cycling is dangerous, will be funded too?

I shouldn't think anyone'll have anything to say about that though.