The mandatory helmet law isn't a first-order issue for cycling; the evidence that repeal would boost cycling significantly isn't convincing. The main game is infrastructure
The bicycle helmet law in Australia is contentious, but it's time to call bullshit on those who reckon helmets are useless or, worse, supposedly increase the risk of injury
Media Watch characterised Radio National's questioning of the mandatory bicycle helmet law as "all about being contrary". 'Contrary' is a heavily loaded term and should be used with care
Australia is well known for its compulsory all-age bicycle helmet law. However there's public pressure in other countries, like the UK, to follow our example and make helmets mandatory
Repeal of Australia's bicycle helmet law is a key demand of many cycling advocates. But the likely gains are dwarfed by those from better cycling infrastructure and regulation of drivers
A common argument is that if cyclists are compelled by law to wear helmets, motorists should be too because they also suffer head injuries. But does that line of reasoning make sense?
A little more on the question of whether the helmet law deterred significant numbers of workers from commuting by bicycle. This time, some historical charts on cycling to work in capital cities
Critics of the mandatory bicycle helmet law introduced in Australia in the early 1990s claim it significantly reduced cycling to work at the time. But did it? And if it did, was it such a big deal?
A new US study compares cycling by children in States with helmet laws against those without. It concludes the laws reduce children's head injuries but do it by reducing cycling. But is it convincing?
New research indicates bicycle helmets are very good for your head even if you collide with a motor vehicle. However helmet-wearing rates by teenagers and children involved in accidents are very low