Well, let's say there are three possibilities:

A: Helmets make cycling safer
B: Helmets have no effect on cycling safety
C: Helmets make cycling more dangerous

There appears to be evidence and good arguments for all three of these positions. Irrespective of whether A or B are right, until you prove that C is wrong, it would be irresponsible to legislate for mandatory wearing of helmets.

The problem with populist politics is that legislation occurs as a result of what people assume to be correct rather than what is correct.

I have to say, A or B seem far more likely than C. But that is my assumption

I think we can agree to disagree on this. From my point of view, being seen in the first place has the highest priority for my safety.

Helmets don't improve safety; but from personal experience I can say they reduce injury.

How about option D. Helmets have no effect on safety but they do reduce injuries.

From a logical standpoint a helmet has no effect on injuries if you aren't knocked off your bike. If helmets increase the chance of you being knocked off your bike either through you being less risk averse because you feel safer or from drivers thinking that they can come closer to you because you are wearing protective equipment, does the reduction in injury make up for the increasing chance of being knocked off.

These are question that need to be examined much more carefully before legislation is passed. Just making the specious assumption that because you are wearing a helmet you are safer is dangerous in itself.

I'm editing a manuscript on risk management at the moment, and the helmet debate in cycling would make an excellent test case. Not addressed by this writer though.

As for the lights. I think we can agree that the safest thing you can do is carry both a constant light and a flashing light.

Or stay in the house, cowering behind the sofa in case your helmet kills you or a drunk driver homes in on your flashing light......

Which is why we should all make decisions for ourselves rather than have governments force us to choose one way or the other. I am all for people taking their own chances. I am totally opposed to governments saying what is best for me for two reasons.

Helmets reduce injury my oh has had a couple of occasions when he has come off and due to the helmet been ok, also my son who also is a cyclist went over the handlebars on his mountain bike and the helmet saved his head and face really. Gloves are also good if one falls off save the hands a bit.

As they say we are one knock on he head away from being mentally disabled so for me helmets are a must.

My family do not take risks as cyclists because they have a helmet.

There are a lot of hoons though that shout and throw stuff at cyclists, one lot did it in Frankston a full can and the cyclist was an off duty policeofficer and they got them fortunately.

We are fortunate in Melbourne that they are painting bike lanes on the roads these days and thinking bike and we have to thank Bicycle Victoria for that. They have family memberships.

And I've had a number of pretty severe crashes on my bicycle that I survived perfectly well without a helmet, although I'm sure had I been wearing one then everyone would have assumed that it saved my life. The trouble with experiential data is that you don't have the alternative situation for a comparison. In effect wearing a helmet in any of those crashes could easily have produced a different result. If my strap had caught in a branch, for example, as I hurtled through a hedge, my neck could have been broken.

The bottom line is that this matter has not been properly investigated, and yet a law has been implemented anyway.

I used to wear a helmet cycling in London. I stopped a couple of years ago and I find that drivers give me noticeably more space when I don't wear a helmet!! As a previous poster has said there is a perception that wearing a helmet makes the cyclist safer, this perception actually means the cyclist and drivers around them take more risks.

A cycling helmet can actually mean you are more likely to break your neck too if you come off. The compulsion of helmet wearing for cycling in Australia is just the usual nanny state intervention based on flawed logic.

I've landed on my head 3 times after coming off a bike (one knock off) and logically the only time this resulted in concussion (or any head injury) was when I didn't have a helmet. (I think I was about 13.)

Wearing the helmet doesn't make me feel safer, doesn't make me feel like I'm less likely to be knocked off, doesn't make me more (or less) reckless.

I agree that your assumption that a person wearing a helmet feels safer is rather specious. As I said previously, helmets don't improve safety, but I think it would be stretching reality to say that they don't (on the whole) reduce injuries.

It's okay I haven't got the flashing Christmas Tree lights. I can sit at home safely knowing that a drunk won't suddenly come through the wall.

The automatic assumption that a person wearing a helmet is safer is specious, not that they think they are safer. Most people wearing a helmet will feel safer, this is not specious.

There is not enough evidence either way as to whether it is safer to wear a helmet or not. That is the problem. Therefore a law should not be put in place and people should be free to choose their own preference. If it is proved that helmets cause more injuries rather than fewer, then the Aus law will look pretty stupid.

You can also catch crabs if you wear your helmet whilst on the toilet.