It's like seatbelts - I don't know what the legislation is where you are, but over here (Australia), they are very much mandatory. The fine for not wearing your seatbelt is quite hefty.
Sure, you can argue that it's a bit nanny-state (and I know in certain countries, that's not a very popular stance), but it's also a bit of public health/safety.
Yes, sure, it's not as convenient wearing a seatbelt all the time, or wearing a helmet all the time, but over here, where we have government healthcare, it would probably cost them additional money if they had to cover potentially preventable accidents.
Also, I don't disagree that head accidents aren't the most common bike injury.
However, think about it - you graze your knees, or you break your arm - they're painful but not usually life threatening.
You hit your head, get a concussion, suffer some kind of brain damage - you are very much screwed.
Guy at my church, his brother in law is a cyclist. He got attacked by magpies, fell off and suffered a head injury. He can't work at the moment, and is in rehab at home.
Sure, the chance may be low, but do you really want to take it?
I would glad take a grazed knee over a head injury any day of the year. Hence why helmets are mandatory here, and not say, knee guards.
And if the government if funding your healthcare, you can bet it costs them a pretty dime to care for you for the rest of your life, if you were to suffer a disability from a head injury.
The common argument is that forcing people to wear helmets reduces bicycle use, which contributes to poorer health through reduced activity levels and poorer air quality, which creates an overall higher health cost than the injuries that would be sustained if helmets were not mandatory. This also ignores the impact having more bicyclists on the road have on driver awareness.
I'm all for wearing helmets and encouraging their use, but it's more complicated than "Helmets are safe, they should be mandatory".
Sure, you can argue that it's a bit nanny-state (and I know in certain countries, that's not a very popular stance), but it's also a bit of public health/safety.
Yes, sure, it's not as convenient wearing a seatbelt all the time, or wearing a helmet all the time, but over here, where we have government healthcare, it would probably cost them additional money if they had to cover potentially preventable accidents.
Also, I don't disagree that head accidents aren't the most common bike injury.
However, think about it - you graze your knees, or you break your arm - they're painful but not usually life threatening.
You hit your head, get a concussion, suffer some kind of brain damage - you are very much screwed.
Guy at my church, his brother in law is a cyclist. He got attacked by magpies, fell off and suffered a head injury. He can't work at the moment, and is in rehab at home.
Sure, the chance may be low, but do you really want to take it?
I would glad take a grazed knee over a head injury any day of the year. Hence why helmets are mandatory here, and not say, knee guards.
And if the government if funding your healthcare, you can bet it costs them a pretty dime to care for you for the rest of your life, if you were to suffer a disability from a head injury.