to listen to the full item. But, seems to be saying that wearing a helmet does not make it any safer to ride a bike and the benefits of a helmet are outweighed by the number of people who won't cycle if helmet usage is mandatory.

In other words, on a total population study, the health benefits of getting more people to ride (because they don't have to wear helmets) is greater than the health benefits of forced helmet usage.

I suspect we'll continue to have this debate. I for one believe that high sticking in hockey went up dramatically when everyone started wearing helmets and face shields (because I've played with and without). But the result of that was fewer concussions and fewer cuts overall although I've had my share of cuts with and without helmets and face gear.

There is a reason that they have been mandated in the tours and other races and I've personally seen my share of busted up helmets along with people who are still walking around who wouldn't be.

It's like seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering columns, collapsible car components, safety glasses etc. etc. etc. Heck, the average car today could be priced at half of what it is if we didn't have all that "sissy" protective gear in it.

And in my view helmets aren't the issue about cycling, infrastructure and safe pathways and education are much larger issues.

Stolen from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html Go there for references.

"Many people who wear helmets can relate their experience of a crash which leads them to believe that a helmet 'saved their life'. This is a very common experience - very much more common, in fact, than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. Yet there is no evidence that helmets save lives or prevent serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole [1].

"For example, in the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [2]. However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [3]. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.

"Why this contradiction?
These facts appear contradictory and counter-intuitive, but there are several possible explanations.

"There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.

"Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

"Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash.

"The movement of a helmet or the irritation to the head that many people experience might also affect balance or concentration at a crucial moment.

"But my helmet broke - isn't that proof?
A helmet is a fragile piece of equipment. On seeing a damaged one, it is easy to assume that a serious injury has been prevented. Cycle helmets split very readily, and often at forces much lower than those that would lead to serious head injury. Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all.

"If a helmet splits after fully compressing, it will have reduced initial forces to the head, but thereafter it will afford no further protection and any residual energy will be transmitted to the brain. Cycle helmets fail catastrophically, not gradually, so it is a mistake to believe that they provide useful, if reduced, protection at higher velocities. In high impact crashes, such as most that involve motor vehicles or fixed vertical objects like concrete barriers and lamp posts, the forces are so great that a helmet will compress and break in around 1/1000th of a second. The absorption of the initial forces during this very short period of time is unlikely to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious injury or death.

"Helmets provide some protection when there is only partial compression of the liner and they may work better if in addition there is no split or breakage. This is most likely to be the case in crashes that result from low-speed falls without any third party involvement and where, without a helmet, injury would be relatively minor. If the liner suffered no compression, the helmet almost certainly played no role in preventing injury and without the helmet there would have been no injury of consequence anyway."

First off, ALL helmets "fail", that is their job. The material crushes which lessens the impact. Now the question is whether in doing its job the helmet will help you and that is depenedent upon your head speed, what you hit, how you hit, position of your body, position of your neck, whether you get run over after etc.

There are just too many variables involved in an accident to state that a helmet will "prevent" an injury. But, you can be assured that it will decrease the decelerative forces that your brain undergoes and that is its role. At higher speeds it probably won't decrease the force enough to keep you alive but at lower speeds it likely will.

Riding a bicycle or any other activity is all about risk management. When you engage in the activity you increase your risk. Then, you can do things that will decrease your risk. For the most part it is up to each person to decide where they want to be on the risk continuum.

I like my helmet cuz it holds my hair back out of my face.....:)

The $400 road helmet has the same safety rating as the $40 helmet. You are paying for design costs, better retension system, size runs, lighter weight. Personally, if it fits and is comfortable you'll wear and that is the important thing. IF you are worried about price, wait until the Bow Cycle Blue Light sale in spring and get it 40 to 50% off.