What's my problem with the ads or cyclists riding without helmets? Or more generally what is my problem with the "free choice" argument? The free choice argument: 1) ignores common sense,

2) suggests that helmets are not necessary for safety,

3) transfers the long term liability of an accident from an irresponsible individual to generous society,

and 4) offers a horrible example for children.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

There is no direct evidence that the wearing of cycle helmets has led to fewer deaths amongst cyclists. Most research into cycle helmets has not included cyclist fatalities.

The premise that helmets save lives is by extrapolation from research that has suggested that helmets might reduce injuries to the head. As most fatalities involve head injury (this applies to all major external causes of violent death, not especially cycling), the reasoning is that by reducing injuries to the head, cycle helmets can lead to fewer cyclist deaths.

Whole population statistics for cycling fatalities do not support the above hypothesis.

Long-term analyses of fatalities in Canada [8], New Zealand [9] and USA [10] [11] show no helmet benefit; indeed, one study [11] suggests helmeted cyclists are more likely to be killed. Although fatality rates have generally declined, cyclists have fared no better than pedestrians. In Great Britain, too, there has been no discernible improvement in fatality trends relative to pedestrians as helmets have become more common [12] [13] .

In New South Wales, Australia in the three years following the introduction of its helmet law, 80% of cyclists killed and 80% of those seriously injured wore helmets at the time [3] [4]. These proportions are almost identical to wearing rates in street surveys (85% and 83% for adults in 1992 and 1993 respectively; 76% and 74% for children [3] [5]), suggesting that helmets had little effect on the likelihood of fatal or serious injury.

In Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [6]. Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [7]. Thus the increase in helmet wearing as a result of the law did not reduce fatalities relative to cycle use and may have led to an increase.

...Most fatalities involve multiple injuries and head injury is not the sole cause of death. The experience of a solicitor specialising in cyclist injuries [14] supports the view that deaths solely due to head injury are unusual. Furthermore, fatal head injuries typically involve rotational forces, which cycle helmets do not mitigate and may even make more likely [2].

Cyclist deaths were also investigated in Auckland, New Zealand [15]. 16 of 19 non-helmeted cyclists died from mulitple injuries, so helmets would not have changed the outcome. Only one cyclist died of head injuries in a bike-only crash, the most likely situation for a helmet to help. That cyclist died despite wearing a helmet and a fall at moderate speed. The researchers concluded: "This study indicates that the compulsory wearing of suitable safety helmets by cyclists is unlikely to lead to a great reduction in fatal injuries, despite their enthusiastic advocacy".

In my particular case, I strongly suspect substantial risk compensation. I'm probably a much safer cyclist when I don't wear a helmet. The magic plastic helps me overcome my reluctance to ride like a manic on public roads.

I do feel underprotected. I can't see a highly viable solution to this, at least for road cycling with high energy output and resulting need to dump excess heat. I'm on a motorcycle twice a day at least on my commute, always with all the gear, so I suspect that contours my expectation for abrasion and impact protection (armored clothes, protective boots, full face helmet).

In a related vein, bicyclists often look at my motorcycle and comment how dangerous motorcycling is. While I'm riding that in armor and they're riding two abreast around corners on narrow country roads. Funny world.

I don't need to wear a helmet in my car as I have full surround airbags. I am also well protected by the actual cage of the car.

If helmets were so useless why are they required in racing in Europe?

All collisions with cars are fatal?

I suspect that most collsions are not fatal just minor injuries. Exactly the sort of circumstance that a helmet will help prevent more serious injury.

If worn correctly, a cycle helmet may afford some protection against minor, largely superficial, injuries to the head.

A helmet is unlikely to offer protection against more serious or life-threatening injuries.

You are more likely to hit your head in a crash if you wear a helmet.

You may be more likely to crash in the first place, particularly if a helmet makes
you feel better protected.

A helmet may increase the very small risk of the most serious brain injuries that lead to death and chronic intellectual disability.

The likelihood of serious head injury when cycling is extremely small, and hugely outweighed by the health benefits of cycling.

If helmets were so useless why are they required in racing in Europe? Even amateur racing. Something to do with the clueless insurance companies no doubt?

That's called personal experience rather than statistics that can be argued either way. No doubt there are many experts who will claim that helmets make a huge difference.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf

in at least one case now, a
High Court has decided that the
balance of probability was, in
the matter before the Court, that
a cycle helmet would not have
prevented the injuries sustained
when the accident involved
simply falling from a cycle onto
a fl at surface, with barely any

forward momentum.
In this same case, the QC under
whose instruction I was privileged
to work tried repeatedly to
persuade the neurosurgeons
acting for either side, and the
technical expert opposing me,
to state that one must be more
safe wearing a helmet than would
be the case if one were not. All
three refused to do so, claiming
that they had seen severe brain
damage and fatal injury both with
and without cycle helmets being
worn. Cycle helmets, in their view,
were too complex a subject for
such a sweeping claim.

Being a mathematical physicist

trained at one the most prestigious universities in the world I expect that my reading age is better than average. And back when I got straight A's it was not quite as common as it is today in the UK.