Instead of making helmets compulsory, governments should concentrate on creating laws that make roads more cycling friendly and force drivers to think about cyclists more (like in the Netherlands, where the legal system is heavily biased towards cyclists and against drivers). This would make cycling more attractive AND safer - the best of both worlds.

The last thing we need is to reduce the number of people riding. Making helmets compulsory probably isn't going to help maters, however the onus must fall to the individual to protect themselves. Helmets have saved my life at least twice (once off-road the other by some titt in a car not looking where he was going!), I never go out without one on my head ! If somebody chooses not to wear a helmet and they are badly injured (an injury which a helmet would of at least reduced), then they must realise they are partly to blame for not at least trying to protect themselves.

No one liked seat-belts when they were made compulsory (am not old enough to have been there but have heard many stories regarding them!) but they save lives...end of !

Think Chris+W def has a valid point....motorist attitudes to cyclists on the whole suck big time ! Driver culture needs to be addressed !

Use your head* don't be dead.

*also for helmet wearing

Head injury is extremely danger, unpleasant and late complications are very common.

There are no more questions about cars seat belts, but still bicycle helmets about...

How many people must die more?

Any way, Darvin rule is compulsory for everybody, want or not. Thanks God.

I always use a helmet and a pair of glasses. The helmet saved serious injury in an off-road MTB accident that also broke a rib. I prefer wearing them as it also helps to shade the eyes from the sun and wind. I have to say, I don't want compulsion.

Maybe a helmet scheme should be brought in. Example (for discussion) each helmet would have a unique registration number and the buyer pay an extra £1 for insurance. This would pay compensation in case of an accident if the user is using that helmet. The helmet scheme would only be available for 3 years before a new helmet is required. Registration would be easy as it'll be web based or done by LBS.

Having previously had a serious head injury (motorsport) in which my helmet was toast, but it arguably saved my life, it isn't surprising that I am an ardent helmet wearer.

That said, I strongly believe that choice is crucial. The evidence that helmets make a significant impact on injuries sustained in the majority of accidents is questionable. But the evidence that helmet laws make a significant impact on the number of people cycling is very convincing.

Cyclists are safer in greater numbers. Anything that encourages more cyclists on the roads can only be a good thing.

I live in British Columbia, Canada where helmet use is mandatory for cyclists of all ages. We have the highest rate of cycling in Canada and my city, Victoria has the highest proportion of downtown trips by bicycle in Canada. So I disagree with the assertion that helmet laws reducing cycling.

There is no question that helmet use reduces fatalities. In NYC, they studied 229 cycling fatalities over a decade. In only 3 percent of the fatalities was the cyclist wearing a helmet. Think about it.

People had the same silly debates about seatbelts, cigarette smoking etc. in years past. We should just move on and mandate helmet use and it will be accepted in very short order.

diesel_dad "We have the highest rate of cycling in Canada and my city, "

The provision of some of the best facilities could also be a factor.

The first rule behind health and safety is to cure the problem not to wear protective gear to defend yourself from that problem.

The problem ?, a failure from governments to provide a safe environment for cyclists by giving us (and pedestrians) priority in the design of our road infrastructure, also a failure to police and control those millions that drive on our roads drugged, drunk, those that speed, act recklessly ,drive unlicensed etc,etc.

i have read the statistic that cycling popularity declined in Aus after the introduction of compulsory helmet wearing many times. i have never seen anyone mention for how long!

sure, there may have been a knee jerk reaction but people soon got over it. unfortunately, driver attitude is still the same!

cycling is more popular than ever in aus now and there is no resistance to wearing helmets.

In my opinion anyone who is put off by wearing a helmet, which could save his or her life, is not the least bit serious about cycling. We all know from the climate change deniers that anyone can throw up some "research" to suggest anything, but not wearing a helmet is simply foolish, in downtown London, on the Queen K Highway on the Big Island, or in rural Holland. Accidents happen everywhere, and a simple lightweight helmet is the most effective tool we've got to protect ourselves. As to the libertarian argument against such regulation: fine, so long as you post a $1 million bond so you can pay every dime of the ambulance, emergency room and subsequent medical bills.

I wear a helmet out of necessity - I have a plate in my skul from an accident I had when i worked down pit (in a coal mine). I feel safer with the helmet on. I wonder, when car rally drivers drive they wear helmets, why not ordinary motorists - some of the things that ordinary car drivers in England get up to would suggest they wear a helmet - not just a seat belt! Our professional cyclists whether on the road, in a stadium or on Mountain bikes - all wear helmets, probably due to the rules of the race but they do give a sense of calm and assurance when you see a rider with a helmet on - it shows that that cycle rider is responsible enough to protect his own life - not just those pedestrians around him or her who might get in the way of a cyclist by design or by accident. I feel it is a responsible attitude to wear a cycle helmet, like pitmen wear helmets as do building workers with their hard hats on site.

Another law, if introduced, that'll hardly ever be enforced. How many people have you seen still using they're phone while driving!!.

Utterly pointless, making everyday cyclists/people pay fines or making them criminals because they don't see the need to wear a helmet. Maybe we should just ban cycling on roads all together as you should be liable for putting yourself in the proximity of motor vehicles.

Bollocks

Let the individual decide, it's their head

Chris+W is right. Use legislation to address the other side of the risk equation - drivers.

I find it incredible that some mountain bikers for example - happy to barrel down single track decents at 30mph only inches away from rocks and trees, and happy to launch themselves metres into the air and plunge down rocky steps - have the audacity to criticise those who might nip down to the shops on their bike without a helmet!

Anyway, I'm against compulsory helmet wearing simple because it puts forward the idea that cycling is a dangerous activity when it is nothing of the sort. Last thing we need right now is to do ANYTHING that discourages people from getting out on two wheels.

Helmets should alwaty remain a PERSONAL choice based on PERSONAL risk assessment. They'll be suggesting compulsory helmets for children climbing trees next.

HelmetSchmidt said, 'In my opinion anyone who is put off by wearing a helmet, which could save his or her life, is not the least bit serious about cycling.'

He's probably right, but we need non-serious cyclists to use their bikes for more and more trips if we are to be safer and reduce transport emissions. People want to be able to ride their bikes short distances in their ordinary clothes without putting a goofy looking helmet on their heads. I ride with a helmet when I'm mountain biking or when I commute 15 miles to work, but I don't when I go to the shops 2 miles away along an off road cycle path.

In truth I rarely see other 'keen' cyclists without helmets, so we already a strong helmet wearing culture in this country. We're starting to see casual cycling really take off in city centres, to come in with law about helmet wearing now could be really detrimental to that growth. It's not worth it without being a lot more certain about the impact. I personally don't think a law is worth the risk.

There is nothing more anoying than the helmet nazis. Its my head and if I want to protect it I shall, but on the other hand if I am feeling shall we say a little risque I give it a miss . But knowing that this bothers people strikes me as quite strange .

On the other hand the police have got enough to do without nicking people without helmet heads.

thank you please

So much empty rhetoric. So few facts or data. The rare reference to a study (1989 New England Journal of Medicine) forgets to mention that this study was seriously undermined -if not outright rejected- by the detailed review at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html.

The reason why we have science is that some things are not obvious to "common sense". So far the use of cycle helmets as a safety aid has not stood up to any scientific scrutiny. This new review substantially emphasises the hidden dangers of helmet use. The case for compulsion is weaker than ever.

Then there is the ethical problem of who says the majority has a right to dictate personal choices to a minority. That is not democracy, that is closer to mob-rule. Resist dogma. Think for yourselves. And ride more.

I find it sad to read a fellow cyclist's comments that he considers 'any cyclist involved in an accident is partly to blame for his own injuries if he was not wearing a helmet at the time'

Why stop at helmets then?

If this is a valid argument, then why not suggest that we all wear full body armour like the downhill mountain bikers. (I presume that he does?)

Sorry but in the opinion of any sane, sensible person, BLAME belongs with the party who caused the crash, or in a proportion dependant on the degree of carelesness shared between both parties.