https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIr5V31y1Emay be of limited interest. slight error in Jonathan's figures for Victoria.
Vorpal wrote
My conclusion, as someone whose profession is analysing risk:
The benefits imparted by wearing a helmet in an incident are mostly offset by the increased risk of having an incident
Trying to provide a very brief analysis.
Helmet incur more impacts than a bare head,
Robinson 1996 refers to the Wasserman data that detailed the incidence of cyclists hitting their head/helmet during an 18-month period was “significantly higher for helmet wearers (8/40 vs 13/476 - i.e. 20% vs 2.7%, p 0.00001)."
i.e. 8 from 40 =20%, v 13 from 476, 2.7%, 7 higher risk of impact from these figures.
Helmet wearing can increase the accident rate, as examples, The Porter 2016 report in the US detailed that cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets. Erke and Elvik 2007 examined research from Australia and New Zealand and stated that "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent." Clarke and Gillham 2019 concluded
Nevertheless, this study presents evidence that helmet use tends to increase the accident/injury rate per cyclist, potentially outweighing any head protection benefits.
From the above, assuming 1000 cyclist not wearing helmets, assume 100 accidents and 10 head injuries to the part that may be protected by a helmet. Assuming 1000 cyclists wearing helmets, assume between 114 and 200 accidents and between 80 and 140 impacts to helmets, many of these impacts may be minor. How many head injuries would result and what sort of head injuries?
From the above estimates, it could be expected for helmet wearers to claim their helmet had an impact and potentially saved them from injury and they could easily assume a major benefit.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates