Should wearing cycle helmets be compulsory?

Your missing the point. It’s simply a matter of design and technical evolution of helmet forms because as of yet they might not provide adequate head protection (coupled with comfort, good ventilation etc) but evolve them and they will. If you look back at the origins of motorcycle helmets they started out as nothing more than pudding bowls (and often still do, check out Davida) offering way less protection than a contemporary cycle helmet does now yet back in the 70’s the powers that be deemed that wearing one of those ‘piss-pots’ would make it safer (and less costly for the NHS) if all motorcyclists wore one. They had to draw a line in the sand. Yet it took another 15-20 years before we started wearing something that could be deemed adequate head protection (mainly through advancement of materials/composites technology). You may think that a current cycle helmet is nothing more than a ‘cloth cap’ compared to a motorcycle helmet but it’s going to provide at least some protection in a crash and way more than not wearing one, that much is indisputable – but quick, hoik out your stats, go on, hurry up already. Seriously though, I brought motorcycle helmets to the table not to suggest we wear them whilst riding (very mature suggestion that) but because my overriding point is that wearing any decent well designed helmet makes riding anything with two wheels safer. Although you do accidentally made a very good point. There is no doubt that if we wore a BSI (EU) approved motorcycle helmet whilst on a our bikes our heads would be significantly safer than they are without one. But whilst this is, of course, a ridiculous suggestion it highlights that there is a way to make cyclists heads safer and that with the evolution of bicycle helmets they could provide similar levels of safety and protection to motorcycle helmets.

Your differentiation between riding a bicycle and a motorcycle on the road is most odd because whichever way you slice you’re still travelling at speed on a tarmac surface, both at ~30mph when considered against 50cc bike or a superbike in a 30mph limit. So on this basis they’re almost identical scenarios save for the engine. So what then are the major differences? Same speed, same environment, same road conditions, same weather conditions. But wait, a cyclist is actually in more danger because his tyres have less grip, his brakes are way weaker, his lights are weaker and therefore less visible, he’s a narrower silhouette to notice and he also rides in the gutter yet it’s only compulsory to wear a helmet on the much safer 50cc motorcycle; strange that. And the same arguments hold true when comparing the dangers of motocross against and off road MTB’ing but I guess you boys are not for turning.

I am truly amazed that there are still people out there who think riding without a helmet is a clever thing to do. The arguments for not wearing a helmet are purely bogus and completely selfish.
I’m a motorcyclist as well as a cyclist and I’d never ride a motorbike (or am allowed to by law) without wearing a BS (EU) approved helmet. There’s a reason for this; it’s because it saves lives, end of. Over the years numerous (Google them) studies have shown this to now be beyond question but more importantly the anecdotal evidence of health professionals such as Specialist Surgeons, GP’s and Nurses who deal day in, day out with head injury cases wholly bears this out.
The compulsory motorcycle helmet law doesn’t just relate to Superbike riders such as myself, it also applies to sixteen year old kids who ride 50’s. These tiny bikes and scooters max out at a restricted 33-ish mph, a speed easily beaten on a road cycle. So this begs the question why are helmets compulsory safety equipment for scooter riders doing 33mph but not for cyclists doing up to 40mph+? The answer is obvious…..they should be.
Perhaps the argument is made clearer when considered like this; the wearing of a helmet does not in any way increase the risk of head injury, it only decreases the risk. It gives you a better chance than when you’re not wearing one. So why would you not give yourself the best possible chance of surviving a crash or reducing the severity of an injury? If you were unfortunate enough to fall off a bike and your head hit hard ground do you think your unprotected skull would do a better job on its own than if you had some protective shield over it? Common (and any other) sense suggests the latter. Thinking “I don’t need a helmet, I’ll never fall off” is also childish and extremely selfish. Think of the devastation and trauma your loved ones would have to endure if you suffered a severe head injury or worse? This being something which could be have prevented or reduced in severity by wearing a helmet?
So what if a compulsory cycle helmet law would reduce the number of people actively cycling by an estimated ~20%? Great, this would mean that 20% less (ex)cyclists are running the risk of being be involved in a cycling related accident. If they’re of the mind to cycle in the first place (to get fit/lose weight/get a buzz) and decide not to participate because the powers that be want them to be safer they’ll pickup something else to fill that void which doesn’t require protective head gear. Besides, the enormous saving created for the NHS could then be ploughed into better treatment for Cancer patients, for example, these being people who don’t have a choice if they end up receiving hospital treatment, something a cyclist might be able to avoid if they chose to wear a helmet. Whatever their reasoning though the participating numbers would always recover and pickup over time as it did for motorcycling when the compulsory helmet law was intruded in 1973. The initial (angry) reaction to such a law would fade and be followed by a reluctant acceptance of it leading to it becoming part of everyday life and something which finally doesn’t hit your conscious radar, like most laws. No one likes change, but sometimes we need it to progress and mature as a nation……Look at the smoking law and the impact it’s had on massively reducing the number of smokers.
Who also cares if helmets manufacturers profit from the sales of helmets? This is a good thing. The nature of our capitalist society is that if a product is popular (because it’s well made, safe, looks cool, fulfils all safety requirements etc) then it will sell and thus create profits and then these profits will be shared out amongst share holders (and why not, they own part of the company) and the rest is reinvested to create even better products for us to buy in the future; it’s natural progression. If they don’t make a profit they’re doing something wrong and they’ll disappear. Personally, I never buy any other motorcycle helmet than a top of the range Arai at around £500 because they’re renowned for being one of, if not the, best around in all areas. Yep, they’re expensive, and Arai must make stacks of profit on them, but tbh I don’t care because research from these profits now ensures that it protects my head better than any other lid out there, it’s ultra stable at speed, it’s beautifully quiet, gives great winter ventilation and also looks awesome because I don’t want to wear something resembling a cereal bowl on my head. It was created like this using profits.
So then why not wear a cycle helmet?…..because it’ll mess up your hair? Because it makes your head hot on sunny days? Because you don’t want to be told what to do because you know what’s best for you? Because you value your personal freedom over everything?…..OK, they’re all valid arguments to some people but from a common sense point of view they’re all flawed, they’re selfish and they’re extremely short sighted……Get it into (or onto) your heads; wearing a helmet HELPS to prevent head injury, it NEVER makes them worse, so why would you not give yourself the best possible chance?