Wrong audience.
- Cycling is a healthy activity and people who cycle regularly live longer, on average, than people who don’t cycle.
- Helmet laws present the message that cycling is dangerous and in turn, reduce the rate of people cycling.
- Evidence to show that cycling helmets reduce injury is inconclusive.
This argument is based on the findings from research presented in the British Medical Journal. You can read the full article here.
Helmet laws are a convenient smoke screen for government agencies. Rather than tackle the real issues of safety, the cyclist is required to take full responsibility. The outcome is obvious.
In the meanwhile, cycling in Auckland will remain the domain of the brave and fearless.
Cycling. It’s as easy as walking, but faster….
The three sentence arguement as to why your statement is a crock
• Cycling is a healthy activity and people who cycle regularly live longer, on average, than people who don’t cycle – If they don’t get hit by a car & smack their unprotected head into the hard, concrete sidewalk.
• .
• Helmet laws present the message that cycling is dangerous and in turn, reduces the rate of people cycling – Helmetless heads hitting hard, unyielding objects also reduces the number of people cycling.
• .
• Evidence to show that cycling helmets reduce injury is inconclusive – evidence to show that the lack of cycling helmets reduces injury is inconclusive & is in fact laughable…
Hurben, before you engage so, how shall I say it.. robustly? You could take in a bit more of the research and analysis that has informed the UK GPs' (and many other medical professional's around the world) concerns about the effects of the helmet law.
Your comment is based on common sense – the same common sense that led to the laws introduction, and and just a few other countries. Unfortunately this issue needs more sense than is actually common. We need to look at the big picture, as the UK GPs have.
Now other countries look at the reduction in cycling that accompanied the law's introduction, here and in Australia, and see a pattern; they realize the NZ law is a commendably motived but ultimately counter-effective measure.
Sorry If i'm boring others on the site, familiar with the issue, but some things that might provide a more informed consideration of the issues are:
> successful cycling societies with double digit cycling modal share of up to 40% have no helmets and the very best safety records. This should be evidence enough to validate law reform or repeal, but…
> UK research has shown that car drivers risk-compensiate and drive ~8cm closer to cycle riders with helmets.
> Public bike share has never worked in any country with an all ages helmet law, but flourished dramatically in countries without them.
> While you might pour scorn on non-cyclists reasons for for not wanting to wear helmets and therefore not cycling, the fact is that helmets are a barrier for them. Telling them they're vain or stupid isn't going to get them on a bike. Normalizing cycling and giving them the confidence to ride safely on short trips or footpaths will.
> Only by reducing the barriers to cycling – of which there are many, can we increase the numbers of people cycling, thereby, increasing the safety – principally through more separated cycle lanes and drivers being more aware of cyclists
The kneejerk reaction to suggestions of law reform is to talk about heads hitting concrete. A slightly more elevated discussion will look at how to avoid people getting hit in the first place – and isn't that preferable? More than preferable, this is normality in societies where cycling is normal, rather than the freak show it passes for in New Zealand.
So yeah – there really is a bit more think about huh?
Tim,
mate, thanks for that but frankly, my response is literally, WTF!!
Hurben. I’m with you on this one. It does not take a brain surgeon to understand that the faster you go the harder you fall, car or no car I have seen bike accidents where helmits have saved lives, mine included. I would not ride a bike in any situation without one.
What we need is driver and cyclist education and ride to school initiatives so young people have a thorough ubderstanding of the road before they get behind the wheel. You kow, the way we used to do, it before grand theft auto and other games taught us to drive and before the pc, protect us from ourselves, brigade took over thinking for us and banned everything that could cause a sratch.
Sometimes, somethings are just damn obvious and we don’t need a bunch of academics to prove it.
As a life-long motorcycle rider it's taken me some time to come around to the no-helmet-law stance. This, despite the fact my first 20 years of riding a push-bike were legally helmet-less and injury-free (with many childhood crashes).
I am now in full agreement with those three sentences.
New Zealand and Australian helmet-laws have had a negative effect on public health and made cycling more dangerous than it was. It's time for these nonsensical laws to be removed or by-passed by local by-laws in the interim.
It would be nice to see a rational debate on the compulsory helmet law issues based around the research. Please leave your emotions at the door when you enter the debate.
If Auckland Transport and NZTA really do support cycling, it would be nice to see these organisations initiate some local research. How about a survey of the NON cycling public to find out why they don't cycle?
If it's about trying to increase the number of people cycling in Auckland, helmet laws must be a key part of the debate.
I don’t care about all the ‘research’, most of it is biased towards supporting a point of view.
Speaking from 50 years worth of cycling experience, (certainly at least half of it being helmetless, I was lucky), factor in that in those days there were fewer cars & more cycles, then cars became a symbol that you’d made it.
Speaking from 40 years worth of motorcycling experience I can categorically state that the only reason that I’m sitting here writing this to piss you off is due to the fact that on 3 bad occasions I was wearing a helmet, (& God probably felt that he didn’t need anymore idiots up there)..
Bear in mind that your skull is little more than an eggshell.
I’d say that its common sense but I know that that’s an oxymoron.
Why should my ACC levies & taxes have to support you with 24 hour care because you made a selfish choice?
Except that helmets aren't designed to protect you if you're hit by a car. They're designed to protect your head if you fall off your bike. If you're hit by a car there's a good chance your internal injuries will kill you.
The (fairly gruesome) analogy I've seen is if you're fed feet first into a wood chipper, yes you'll have head injuries but they won't be all that relevant.
Hurben – you mention the days of fewer cars and more bicycles. Cyclist numbers are the biggest factor in cyclist safety. Compulsory helmet laws demonstrably lower the number of cyclists in each area they are introduced, which – obviously – makes cycling more dangerous.
I'm quite astonished – and sad – to see people discounting research in favour of their own views. There's a good reason we rely on research to prove and disprove hypotheses.
Nobody would be stopping you wearing your helmet. But I don't see why I should be made less safe.
Hi Lisa,
Good to meet you.
Frankly NOTHING is designed to protect you if hit by a car, except being inside another car.
And I speak from personal experience & several feet of shredded skin & broken bones…
I'm unsure why I'm making you less safe, if it's because I'm seem as preventing Auckland being Copenhagen, well get over it.
Denmark has a population of around 5,529270 & an area of 43,940 sq miles, NZ has a population of around 4,408946 & an area of 103,737 sq miles (yes I Googled it, I have no shame).
Auckland will never be Copenhagen, the Danes have had centuries learning how to live together in high density as opposed to NZ which has been here for how long?
Take care
The no helmet law quite possibly makes sense in cities where they have a continuous network of separated paths. But here in NZ, it's dangerous, silly, and only worsens the image of cyclists.
-Hurben I hope you are happy for your taxes to pay for the clinically obese.
Consider the bigger picture.
-No helmet law=More people cycling which is absolutely, categorically the number one way to increase cyclist safety and decrease 'your' tax bill in caring for others.
-Also consider that Denmark was a car dominated culture until recently also.
-repealing the law does not mean that everyone will throw away their helmets.
Stop, think, be rational, not emotive.
-Far be it that you know better than every other country in the world (other than Australia). Do you ever stop and wonder why all these other countries stay far away from Mandatory helmets?
Did you even read the British Medical Journals reasoning? In what way are you more qualified than them?
Please, we have heard the arguments you are making time and time again, at least do some research and tone down the emotions.
@Hubren
My life has also (most probably) been saved by a motorcycle helmet but they are a more substantial, well-tested design that is not at all suitable for cycling. The best cycle helmet in the world didn't save Wouter Weylandt in this years Giro d'Italia – still had his skull smashed-in. Cycle helmets are only designed (and tested) for low-speed impacts. Most of us have anecdotes like that and I'm not suggesting you stop wearing your helmet. If the law changed back I'd still wear mine a lot of the time because as you say, we're not Copenhagen.
Mandatory "safety" equipment is not the answer. If passenger cars were built to the same standards as F1 cars and occupants wore the same helmets, restraints and clothing the road-toll would drop by 99% but that's just not practical. People would still drive like fools and crash, they'd just survive the impacts.
I would love separated cycleways and argue strongly for them but they are only part of the answer. There is no helmet-law in the UK and few separated paths in London but there has been no increase in accidents since their cycling numbers increased with the introduction of the Boris bikes. I would expect similar results in Auckland.
I never care for how this arguement is portrayed, as someone said there is no conclusive research showing that helmets are ineffective either.
You guys are obviously much smarter than the average bear, so why don't you get the research done and then get the law changed?
I support choice for people who ride, and I'm on record saying that somewhere. But yeah, this is just one such small piece of the puzzle that gets dragged out and kicked around so people can vent so often.
I also think it is not some part of a big conspiracy by government to put the burden o us riders, I would never consider the gubbermint to be so intelligent as to put that all together to hold down the common cyclist. I think it came in around public opinion on the promotion at the time.
So if you don't like it, get a convincing arguement from more than one study, and take it to the people, to get a mandate to take it to the gubbermint.
I would say that given that ACC covers injury here, if the government were to support abolition of the helmet law, I bet they would want to mitigate any loss from future head injury received while not wearing a helmet.
Also, if ACC got privatised, private insurers would not cover head injury while riding without a helmet, I can almost guarantee it.
I will never support a campaign that says helmets are ineffective, or treats helmet users as second class citizens, or treats helmet users as if they are less intelligent than those that campaign against them.
But I will support a campaign that emphasises choice.
How about for starters survey a good number of people, not just family and friends, and ask an open question "What would make you ride a bike more often". Negatively phrased that would be "What stops you from riding a bike".
If the answer at the top of the list is "not having to wear a helmet would make me ride" or "wearing a helmet stops me from riding", bingo, you're in the money.
What about asking 1000 people, then you are bound to get all ages races etc.
My bet is they'll say they're scared of cars.
Our friends in Europe are well down the cycle path on the helmet law debate.
Here's one of my favourites…If people who cycle are legally required to wear helmets, then it would be appropriate for motorists to be made to wear them too. Because…
"Car crashes remain a significant source of head injury in the community".
It's logical.
Australian Helmet Science – For Motorists
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html
I'm against the helmet law, not against helmets. On a motorbike you go fast enough to do real damage to yourself if you come off, same goes for my road bicycle – I don't think I'd go on either not wearing a helmet (though it was kinda fun zipping around Hawaii on a motorbike with no helmet, I was nervous a bit). On a slow bike-share type bike (or anything really non-roadie) – I'd love to be able to make my own call as to whether I wear a helmet or not – not be told that I must by some person who undoubtedly never had *all* the facts and made some kneejerk reaction to create a law to win a few votes when something horrible happened to an unfortunate kid.
It's like the stupid Westgate Bridge – one poor child is flung over the railing to her death and a big fence goes up due to the public outcry…I don't see a fence going up on the Bolte Bridge. Maybe they will pass a law instead making it illegal to throw kids off bridges instead…that's surely more effective.
Very mature Mr Hurben, you truly are a pillar of reasoned debate.
@ Herban – If you have any research or robust data you would like to add to this debate, please do so. However, if you continue in your current aggressive and unsupported 'I believe it so it must be true' argument, as the editor of this site, I will be forced to block you from this conversation.
@Jim
All good points you make. I think the results of your survey would be Cars, Hills & Rain in that order but doesn't the "image" of a helmeted-rider make it look like a dangerous activity when it's actually pretty safe?
Alright, I'll bite. Can anyone show a study done in an environment which is comparable to Auckland? Of course not wearing helmets is fine in places with miles of separated paths, a healthy relationship between motorists and cyclists, a decent percentage of modal share, and low speed limits/heavy congestion. But show a study done in a place w/o all of these, and then you might have a point…
@Alan Number 2 – we're working on compiling a sort of matrix of the studies we're aware of, with commentary about methodologies and their relationship to each other, that sort of thing. In the meantime, you could look at the drop in cyclist numbers following introduction of the helmet regulation here (study not to hand, sorry, but you can google).
I'll note as well that we didn't have miles of separated paths before the helmet regs, and cycle deaths were proportionately fewer then than now.
@Jim – we are
@ Antoine, I genuinelly don't think wearing a helmet makes it look dangerous. for example, riding a bike while wearing a helmet on Great North road compared to riding a bike with a helmet on the cycleway or Tamaki Drive footpath lane for example. I really think it is the context the rider is in that matters, and that helmets are made to be more of an issue (to some it seems to be THE ONE issue) than all of the other things combined.
@Lisa, good, I'm glad you are working on unbiased research on this issue. That is the thing, it needs to be local research because our environment isn't the same as anywhere else in the world. Similar, but not the same, so our own research would be the best.
I'm wary of directional questioning, lots of polls and research really seems to be skewed to show a bias, but we'll see. I anticipate the results with interest.
I am no expert, but I think this debate would have been great 20 years ago but we are too far down the helmet road now.
I am a mountain biker who has just noticed how inviting getting out on the road is becoming and now seriously considering it (inviting might be a bit overstated).
I think the helmet argument is confusing the issue. If we want more people on bike we need to continue with one battle. No one incuding myself is going to get on my bike because I dont have to wear a helmet and the unsafe peception was created 20 years ago when the law changed. You aren't going to change the helmet laws the ways things currently are. This is a battle that needs to be battled another day. Lets get peaple back on bikes first.
As much as I agree with you Tim and the stats and facts stand for themselves you missed the boat to fight this one and are now muddying the waters with this argument. The UK is a different time and place and good luck to them as they have chossen the right time for the battle.
Its a bit like all the anti-fluo comments, the fact is if you are on a NZ road it is just logical to be seen and put a helmet on your head. You wont change that peception until you improve safety first not the other way around. You can have all the facts and stats in the world that prove peoples peception is wrong but it doesn't mean you will change it.
The virulence of some of the comments in this thread shows why I personally consider it a waste of our time to have this debate right now. Of course I am not forbidding anyone to voice it (and I know that some, like Tim, consider the "let's not discuss it" route as a real cop out – oh well).
Fact is that even in countries like Germany, where cycling helmets are not mandatory, helmet use is something like 60% nowadays. So removing the helmet law is not a silver bullet, and successfully repealing it (if one succeeded in doing so) would create a high-profile fight, which would concentrate the public wonderfully on how UNSAFE cycling is (portrayed as). That would get us a DIP in users, not a gain.
Do we want that? I say no. I'd prefer a voluntary helmet law (and would probably still wear one, except when riding the Northwestern), but I'm not going to waste my time fighting on this front.
"Cycling is a healthy activity and people who cycle regularly live longer, on average, than people who don’t cycle."
Correct – with or without a helmet, actually. BUT talking about safety doesn't get cyclists on the road. Talk about how cool cycling is AND making sure the road IS and FEELS safer, THAT will do it.
@BG
But you can't just give up if you think a law is unjust!
Maybe a solution would be to "decriminalize" the act of not wearing a helmet?
I wear one 95% of the time but don't feel it's of any safety-benefit when I'm scooting down to the dairy for a loaf of bread.
I can skate down the Bombay Hills perfectly legally without a helmet but would be breaking the law on a bike. That is not fair.
"I am not a criminal!"
Perhaps I just don't care enough about my hair but I have to be honest – I really don't care very much about the helmet law.
I suspect it is not one of the top reasons why people don't ride a bike (although I'd love to see a good, unbiased survey of a large sample to support this hypothesis).
I am suspicious of studies which show that helmet laws were brought in and there was a big drop in cycling ridership because, in my experience, in most countries around the same time as they changed helmet laws there was also a massive increase in a) car ownership and b) investment in roading and c) cuts to PT subsidies and/or sales of PT services to companies which didn't necessarily manage them very well and d) in some cases changes to planning laws that encouraged sprawling development with low density housing and many carparks.
So what you are probably seeing is an effect of all these changes which made driving more attractive and thus made using every other mode less attractive (because, as we all know, sharing a road with lots of cars kind of sucks if you are a pedestrian or cyclist). Rather than a specific effect of changing helmet laws alone.
I don't know how rigorous the study was, or if it is correctly displayed here, but it seems that there was little correlation between head injuries and helmet use. Which at least IMPLIES (not proves) that what little reduction in head injuries was created by the helmet law may have been eaten up by the increasingly unsafe road environment.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_cyclist_head_injuries_versus_helmet_use_in_New_Zealand.svg
There is probably as much chance of repealing the helmet law as …. getting continuous cycle lanes along Dominion Rd, perhaps? ("You will remove my right to park on Dom. Rd over my dead body.")
There is probably as much value in pursuing helmet law reform as … telling packs of cyclists on Tamaki Dr to stop hogging the lane and slowing motorists, perhaps?
Yes/No/Maybe.
I would have thought that all ways of tempting the non cycling public to take up cycling should be considered.
It has been pointed out that Auckland is not Amsterdam in terms of its urban design. It has definitely been built with cars in mind. Fair comment. (Although I can find plenty of quiet places to cycle around Auckland where I would feel comfortable to ride without a helmet).
But Mayor Brown has willingly started the conversation of 'livable cities'. It's early days but it's a start. Just because cars dominate our city now doesn't mean it's right or that it will continue in years to come. Our current predicament has not come about by accident but by deliberate policy making.
This blog site is surely a place for the beginnings of the conversation. Your grandchildren will be proud of you for your contribution to making the world a better place to grow up in.
Contribute, knowing that you make a difference-positive or negative.
@Jim – the big difficulty is that we don't have good data for New Zealand. The government hasn't been counting. So in that regard we have to extrapolate from other countries.
As far as doing our own research – yes, totally agree. We need to ask the right questions.
One area I think the compulsory helmet regulation likely has an direct negative effect is on women who care about how they look at work. Helmets mess up your hair (if it's not long).
Everyone is judged on their appearance, and for women in a professional occupation this is particularly so.
I'm basing this on 'anecdata', which I know is not reliable. Nevertheless, it's a common reaction from women who ask me about riding. I'll be interested to see if it bears out in research.
@ Lucy, very interesting list of possible reasons of cycling decline. You could also add the increasing speed and power of the vehicles, as well as the nature of driving them faster. Also we really could argue the same reasons for a drop in public transport patronage at the same time. Now PT use and cycle use are on the way up!
@ Lisa, yeah I know that's how research works, overseas have the funds/time to do the research, which is a bummer. But yeah, I just think it all needs to come from here to be the most relevant, as all those countries have their own idiosyncracities (sp?) that may not apply here.
That is an interesting observation regarding hair. I guess it conflicts with the short trips in normal clothes rational, as you would be wanting to get to your destination all spiffy like.
But I guess it's just an inconvinience that's not that hard to overcome, like having to tidy yourself up with no shower as some of us do every day we ride. The ride itself makes up for it. But people make it another barrier to riding.
Jim, with a shorter ride, you can forego a shower at work, I figured that a 10-15 (depending on the route) ride from Northcote to Takapuna really didn't require the hassle of showering at work, baby wipes and fresh deodorant did the job
and I did ask my colleagues to tell me if those measures weren't enough
I would like to think that the people who come to this site are keen to see cycling regain its rightful place in the transport mix in Auckland. I would also hope that the existence of this site allows for a range of views. Opinions will obviously vary but it would be nice to see a maturity of discussions. Developments and improvements in society result from 'big ideas' and rigourous conversations. The helmet law debate may be 'out there' for some people but I think it is valuable and important to have. If we all just took our lead from government and the official line, changes will take a lot longer. It may be useful to break some eggs at times even if it is a little uncomfortable. There is more than one way to build a cycling city, surely?
@Steve, I was mentioning that other people use it as a barrier. I ride for almost an hour, and washup in a basin, so you're preaching to the converted there
I find it no problem.
@ Jim – it takes me about half an hour to do my hair (from wet) to a professional-environment standard, so unfortunately having a helmet mess it up is a bit more than an inconvenience. This is true of many women.
@ Reizar – yes, exactly.
Is it vain of me to suggest that I would also like to arrive at my destination with some style and poise?
http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/front/2011/07/how-would-you-wear-it/
Data on cycle helmet usage from this article: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0802/1224301712973.html
Irish cyclists are top of the league of helmet wearers in the EU, according to European Transport Safety Council research, with 40 per cent of our cyclists risking “helmet hair” and sweaty heads in the interests of safety, followed by Switzerland (38 per cent) and Austria (35 per cent).
Despite its reputation for safety and correctness, Germany came last, with only 11 per cent of cyclists bothering to wear a helmet. The Netherlands, considered the safest cycling country in the world, does not even merit a rating. Hardly any recreational cyclists (and that includes children) wear a helmet. Young schoolchildren are required to know the rules of the road and show competence when cycling along the country’s many thousands of kilometres of separated bike paths.
@ Lisa – for sure. However, NZ has greatly changed in that time too. There are more cars, and the cars are much more powerful. Can someone show a study saying the removal of the helmet law in an environment like modern NZ has no impact on cyclist safety?
Additionally, what image do you think this gives of cyclists? "We think motorists should make way for us, but we refuse to wear basic safety gear"?
@ Mark
"Young schoolchildren are required to know the rules of the road and show competence when cycling along the country’s many thousands of kilometres of separated bike paths."
What a wonderful idea. If only we could get NZ adults riding like that….
@ Mark, nup, it's not vain, you do what you want to do.
I'm not shoeboxing anyone, there's too much of that carry on already, was just saying it's not as bad as people make it out to be, but you know, totally fine if you find things a barrier for you, as we are all individiuals after all! So what Lisa is saying is totally understandable, as it is her own reasons.
I think I'm about done around here. My one-size-does-not-fit-all and broad based inclusionary and positive approach to ideas and discussing the sucky reality of riding on a 4 lane road with traffic going 60km seem to be often misunderstood as barbs at particular ideas or people.
I do what I do to feel safe, because the traffic is blimmin intimidating around here, I do not have a nice commute like some seem to have where time is less of a luxury to them than myself . It seems some would rather people like me gave up as it conflicts with the image they want portrayed.
It's got me a bit down actually, so I'm just going to go back to enjoying the ride.
Good luck everyone, see you out there
I spent most of my time in london riding my bikes around the streets without wearing a helmet, then one day a hit and run driver hit me. I have no memory of the event but I was told I had been hit from behind by someone not in control of their car, I was sent over the handlebars and hit a parked car (mouth first) where the roof meets the top of the windscreen. I lost most of my teeth and split from the centre of my lower lip down to my chin. When I rolled over the rest of the car and hit the ground head first I was knocked out to wake up in hospital later in the day. the doctors and police had various comments about my lack of a helmet, but in the end all it would have done for me is prevented the knock out when I hit the floor. I am actually quite happy I was knocked out as it meant I missed most of the pain. With or without a helmet I would have still mashed my face up.
Once I was back to riding a bike (with a much improved set of teeth) I started to wear a helmet. Now I have a fat head (abnormally fat) that is covered in bumps from where I bang my head on doors – I'm 2 metres tall – so I had to get a mahoosive helmet. at first I found it horrible to wear, restrictive when looking about, sweaty, and all round unpleasant so I considered going back to riding without one. Then not too long after that in a freak accident, on a narrow tree sheltered country lane, I cycled face first into cow who was hiding behind a tree and turned to look up the road at the exact moment I was riding past. Again I hit the ground head first (backwards this time) but I felt nothing, the helmet did its job so I decided to stick with it. this year when riding in The Dual over Rangitoto in terrible conditions I hit a hole and went head first into a rock, again the very same helmet did its job and I just got back on and finished a very wet but enjoyable ride.
I like to think of helmets in the same way I do my football (reall football aka soccer) shin pads, or a cricket cup etc – I may get hit in the face and these things will be useless to me in this situation, but I will still wear them. Once I was used to wearing it the helmet does not bother me atall and though it might not save my life if I were to ride off a cliff or get rolled down the road by some loon in a Hilux, it is a tiny price to pay for the times it has prevented damage.
As for the law, I think it is a case of criminalisation, you should not be a criminal for not wearing one but if you can't take a lecture about your own safety once in a while then you are probably best going and sitting on the naughty chair in the corner for a bit instead.
I would accept that if a car hits me when it is not my fault I should be able to claim some kind of compensation, however, if I am not wearing a helmet and my head gets mashed in then I must accept responsibility for not caring about myself and limit such a claim to other injuries sustained.
In my experience of the UK, NZ and holland (my partner's family is from there and we go there a lot), it isnt the helmets that put people off riding bikes – it is the lack of room to ride on busier roads.
I think those who dont want to wear a helmet shouldnt have to, they should come round my house – I will kick you square in the head and if you are ok after that then fair enough! you can clearly take it (or you just enjoy it….wierdo).
JCam, if your helmet's taken a couple of knocks it should be replaced, they lose strength with a blow, obviously the helmet industry has a vested interest in selling helmets, but it might not be as forgiving if you have another off
already done, the cow incident didn't seem to have much impact on the helmet after inspection but after the dual spill I replaced it with a new Bell one as I couldn't be sure if it had been structurally weakened or not. I actually tried smashing the old one (specialized) to see what it would take and it took a surprising amount of abuse before it cracked. Afterwards I wish I had actually driven over it to see what would happen (cant afford to go buying helmets just to smash them).
there is some enlightened helmet research and debate going on over in Oz at the moment.
http://theconversation.edu.au/make-helmets-optional-to-double-the-number-of-cyclists-in-australia-4578
My entire family would be dead, or at least serverly mentally impaired if it wasn't for helmets, having all been the victim of pretty serious crashes at some stage or another. Broken helmets are better than broken skulls!
Think of the positive externalities resulting from helmet use. We can only guess or infere that by removing the helmet law we will encourage more cyclists whereas it is obvious that without them more people are seriously injured or killed.
go figure