[angst_ridden]

Personal anecdote, probably irrelevant. When we were kids in the 80s, we bicycled to school. My parents heard about bike helmets (which were pretty new at that time) and bought them for us. I kept mine on the back rack, because I thought they were utterly uncool.

Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way.

I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain.

I've always worn a helmet after that.

[bobthepanda]

I don't think anyone argues that in specific incidents helmets are safer.

The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely;

- helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.)

- drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents.

As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)

[denosawr]

I live in Australia, and I’ve always been taught to wear a helmet. It’s just a thing everybody knows now. Every bike you buy even has a sticker saying “use your head, wear a helmet.”

I think many of the side effects you mention arise from systemic biases when people aren’t used to helmet wear. Drivers wouldn’t overestimate safety when all cyclists wear helmets; this would take time to set in, but with compulsory helmet wear it would certainly occur.

As for inconvenience, and comfort, it’s hard to know the long-term effects of this. Once compulsory, future generations or cyclists may not mind as much because they don’t know an alternative. Anecdotally, nobody I know has ever complained about helmets being bulky or uncomfortable, because... it’s just how it is.

[bobthepanda]

Here's an article showing the literature covering Western Australia's helmet law, which pretty much universally shows a total decrease in cycling rates, and a general increase in hospital admissions rate for the cyclists left on the road.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html

People may not outwardly complain about it, but they may not even think of it as a viable trip alternative anymore.

[angst_ridden]

All very good points.