I was reminded of the good old days of people being responsible for the welfare of their own skulls by an odd pro-helmet article in the The West Australian.
Figures obtained by The West Australian reveal the number of cyclists ending up dead or in hospital after not wearing a helmet has escalated in the past two years. [...] Two of the four cyclists killed on the State's roads in 2005 were not wearing helmets and in 2004 one of the three cyclists who died was not wearing a helmet.
Quite apart from the fact that their statistics do not support their pro-helmet stance is the startlingly small number of cycling fatalities. It turns out that 96% of cycling deaths occur on roads, so the Australian Government's Fatal Road Crash Database is a relevant source of information on the subject.
Given that the state has a population of 2 million, this means that cycling is approximately as dangerous as getting out of bed.
The West Australian is not alone. Pointless statistics are the order of the day in both pro and anti mandatory cycle helmet sites, where overwhelming their readers with numbers is seen as better than good reasoning. Instead of wading through their data I recommend the rant at Meditations on the Helmet Wars, which generally coincides with my views.
However, the best the internet has to offer is the ever-reliable Wikipedia. Below I've plucked out my favourite points from their article about the humble bike helmet, but the whole article is worth reading as the best summary I could find of the current situation.
The major source of serious injury to cyclists is impact with motor vehicles. Current helmet standards are inadequate to protect against such collisions, the energies involved are routinely in excess of the rated capacity of the best motorsport helmets.
Evidence for the efficacy of helmets in preventing serious injury is contradictory and inconclusive. In general, analyses of the relative merits of different bike safety interventions put helmets low down, because no helmet will reduce the probability of crashing (and there is some evidence that helmets may increase this likelihood). Proactive measures including bike maintenance and riding skills are far more important. Although the link is not causal it is observed that the countries with the best cycle safety records (Denmark and the Netherlands) have among the lowest levels of helmet use. Their bicycle safety record is generally attributed to public awareness and understanding of cyclists, education, and to some extent separation from motor traffic.
The most widely-quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet [...] Another analysis of the source data form this study showed a 70% reduction in lower limb injuries from helmet use.
Many believe that a helmet can save a cyclist's life, an idea which is repeatedly asserted in debate. There is no sound evidential basis for this claim and there are no known cases where mass helmet use has actually reduced the number of cyclists' deaths or serious head injuries. Association with increased risk of death has been reported.
The major documented effect of helmet laws is to reduce cycle use. [...] Cycle helmet use correlates inversely with the level of cycling in a given country.
Finally, the SMH has an easy-reading anti-helmet summary which gives some hope to those of us who wish once again to feel the wind in our hair.