Zeco2 said:Research carried out by the CTC. From their website:
'Helmet promotion campaigns claim great benefits from helmet use, but these predictions are based on small non-randomised studies, that have never been matched by real-life evidence from whole population data, such as traffic casualty and hospital treatment records.
Across several countries where helmet use has become significant, large population sources show no discernible reduction at all in fatal or serious injuries relative to cycle use. Moreover, where injury trends have changed, the number or severity of injuries has increased. In London, for example, where some 50% of cyclists now wear helmets, injury severity was higher in 2001 than in 1981 and fatalities were at their highest since 1989. This cannot be attributed simply to traffic conditions; the severity of pedestrian casualties, which historically tracks those of cyclists, declined.
In the USA, an increase in helmet wearing from 18% to 50% of cyclists between 1991 and 2001 was associated with a 40% increase in risk of head injury. Safety experts admit to being mystified that they can’t find a benefit from rising helmet use. In Australia, there have been competing claims about the effect of the country’s helmet laws, but it is now clear that whilst the absolute number of head injuries fell, this was proportionately less than the decline in cycle use'.
The popularity of the present 'hardshell helmet' over that of the 'softshell' helmet is just one example of viral marketing concept, prevalent in the sport of cycling. 🙄
.
If a helmet protects you in any small way I'm still going to wear one.
I can't see the link between the severity of cycling related injuries and wearing a helmet, unless the more aerodynamic helmet design (longer rear extension) breaks your neck as it snags on the ground during a crash.