Doctors Argue Against Mandatory Bike Helmet Laws

But they also present a few compelling moral arguments against helmet laws for cyclists — and, also, for skiers, paddlers, and even pedestrians.

The authors, Carwyn Hooper and John Spicer of the University of London, do acknowledge that their thinking is unconventional (the British Medical Association backs passage of the law, for example) but they explain what they think is a flaw in the BMA’s logic: namely, that bike helmets protect people well when they fall off bikes and onto the pavement (all standard bike helmet tests are drops, where a helmet is dropped from about shoulder height onto a flat anvil). But helmets aren’t sturdy enough to protect against brain and skull injuries caused by impact with a car or flying off the bike forward or backward the way motorcycle helmets do. (They are in favor of compulsory helmet use for motorcycles because they say there’s clear evidence that it reduces fatalities and injury.)

Read more...