> Mandatory helmet laws make the number of injuries associated with biking go down. That is their purpose, and they are effective.
There's significant problems with most of the studies showing the effectiveness of bike helmets (especially the Thompson and Rivara study) and there's also the issue that they can conceivably cause greater brain damage die to rotational forces (by increasing the diameter of the head). Some issues are discussed here https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-resu...
Also, there's the Dr Ian Walker study (although very small) that shows a greater number of close passes from drivers when the cyclist wears a helmet. Risk compensation may also be at play, so that cyclists take more chances when wearing a helmet (I recall a study showing that effect was particularly pronounced in kids).
Unfortunately, most helmet studies use hospital admissions which is going to bias the results unless hospital admissions are a close match with the cyclist population.
It's of note that cycle helmets are safety tested by typically a 2m drop onto a flat surface - this equates to providing a level of protection at slow speeds up to approx 12mph, but they are most certainly not tested to withstand the forces involved when there's a RTC. The question then is why are they being prescribed for situations far beyond their designs?
There's significant problems with most of the studies showing the effectiveness of bike helmets (especially the Thompson and Rivara study) and there's also the issue that they can conceivably cause greater brain damage die to rotational forces (by increasing the diameter of the head). Some issues are discussed here https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-resu...
Also, there's the Dr Ian Walker study (although very small) that shows a greater number of close passes from drivers when the cyclist wears a helmet. Risk compensation may also be at play, so that cyclists take more chances when wearing a helmet (I recall a study showing that effect was particularly pronounced in kids).
Unfortunately, most helmet studies use hospital admissions which is going to bias the results unless hospital admissions are a close match with the cyclist population.
It's of note that cycle helmets are safety tested by typically a 2m drop onto a flat surface - this equates to providing a level of protection at slow speeds up to approx 12mph, but they are most certainly not tested to withstand the forces involved when there's a RTC. The question then is why are they being prescribed for situations far beyond their designs?