Hence the old question, if serious head injury in cyclists is a problem which warrants mandatory helmet use, is serious head injuries for car drivers and passengers also a problem which warrants mandatory helmet use?
See also http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/%22motoring%20helm... .
The paper is paywalled. I can't tell if it addresses the population shift which occurs when helmet use is mandatory, that is, some people won't use a bicycle if required to wear a helmet. (As a simple example, someone who spent a hour on hairdo for a party is not going to crush it with a helmet.) The Guardian writes "16.5% of people say they would ride more often if they were not required to wear a helmet at all times".
I ask because the usual observation is that high-speed cyclists wear a helmet, while low-speed cyclists (like me) are less likely to do so. I bike slower than a fast marathon runner, much less a sprinter, and figure there's a good evolutionary reason for the brain to be protected from falling at that low speed.
If helmet laws shift the population to those who tend to cycle faster, which is also where helmet protection is more effective, then this metaanalysis may only mean that those who cycle quickly should wear a helmet.
I'm not entirely convinced by the wearing of the typical bike helmet leading to increased risk-taking; I could see that with a full face one (as it gives you a real feeling of being protected), but with the normal ones I don't think it gives the same feeling at all. FTR I can't find a full-face helmet for cycling that fits - I have an enormous head - at anything other than insane prices - £300+!
