I was floored after recently reading an article about the call to make bike helmets no longer compulsory.

Admittedly, the research into the effectiveness of helmets remains inconclusive, partly because of the difficulty of producing watertight data, which had resulted in some complicated politics around the issue. A study in Seattle in 1989 estimated that helmets prevented 85 per cent of head injuries, a statistic that became taken as gospel and informed public health decisions. Yet it was later questioned as valid scientific research, partly because the results were subsequently hard to replicate, and for its lack of a true control group.

The "airbag for cyclists", designed by the Swedish company Hövding. Credit:Jonas Ingerstedt

Some argued that the research could be seen as saying helmets were more effective than they actually were, creating a false sense of security among riders and discouraging research into safer helmets. Then there's the recent British study that showed motorists gave cyclists less room on the road if they were wearing a helmet; though bear in mind that in Britain helmets aren't compulsory, which may have a bearing on the findings.

A common anti-helmet argument is that they discourage participation, which has an impact on overall public health: one figure commonly cited says since mandatory laws came into effect in Australia in 1991, cycling participation plummeted 40 per cent. There's also a related argument that cycling is about safety in numbers and I agree the more cyclists on the road the more likely motorists are aware of them, and possibly even empathetic for their safety, as the motorist may also be a cyclist.