The whole issue of cycling, safety, and helmet use is pretty vast–too vast to go into all the various dimensions here and now. But, a pretty thorough report on bicycle helmet research recently came across my desk. It covers a lot of ground, albeit with a Queensland Australia focus, and is pretty detailed in the later chapters. It was commissioned by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads to review the national and international
literature regarding the health outcomes of cycling and bicycle helmets and examine crash and hospital data. It is the closest one-stop shopping for helmet research that is of high quality I have come across.
>Is this some kind of subtle joke? This report is done by people with an interest in proving that helmets are effective, and not surprisingly, comes to the conclusion that helmets are fantastically effective. All independent, scientifically robust research shows either no benefit or an increase in risk with helmet wearing.
High quality? it isn't worth the electrons I've saved it with.
An example from the Executive Summary:
"Bicycle helmets
A review of the most scientifically rigorous research concluded that bicycle helmets that meet national standards protect against head, brain, and facial injuries. Helmet wearing was associated with a 69% reduction in the likelihood of head or brain injury and a 74% reduction in the likelihood of severe brain injury. The benefit was the same whether a motor vehicle was involved in the crash or
not. Helmet wearing reduced the likelihood of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%."
These figures are complete fiction and are completely counter to all reliable research.
Pretty thorough? It's selective and biased.
Try cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than QDoT fairy tales.