There seems to be contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets.
This site for example provides an overview of some of the research:
www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html and there have been numerous news items on this topic, such as
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/recreational-cycling/10213508/Should-cyclists-be-forced-to-wear-he... and
www.bbc.com/news/magazine-11110665 Within the research there are problems with clarity of meaning. For example the term 'head-injury' tends to encompass a broad range of wounds to the head including many that are not serious or life threatening. To the lay person a 'head injury' is probably considered to be a serious injury, yet the statistics may also include very minor head wounds. This makes making sense of the research findings more difficult.
While helmeted cyclists involved in accidents might have reduced head injuries they may have more serious injuries to other parts of their bodies, such as the neck, which may have been exacerbated by helmet use. There is a sense that drivers might be more cautious around cyclists who do not wear helmets and that cyclists themselves may act differently whether they are wearing a helmet or not.
Australia's Institute of Public Affairs states that NZ and Australia are the only countries that have a blanket requirement for both adults and children to wear a bicycle helmet. In most other countries, including the UK it is optional for adults:
ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia .
Given the range of research findings on helmet safety should NZ and Australia consider relaxing laws to enable helmet use to be optional or would that be a retrograde step?
Image:
www.wwf.org.au