Those who risk cycling without helmets need their head read, so to speak. Heads are vulnerable, and asphalt and concrete are hard. When the two collide, even at slow speed, the results can be awful and long-lasting.
Every now and again calls are made to ditch New Zealand's compulsory bike-helmet law, and that is occurring again. Last Saturday Jeremy Teague organised a Ride for Choice from Civic Square in Wellington to Parliament on the issue. Fortunately, a mere 25 cyclists took part. Unfortunately, there is at least a hard core who agree with him and many, while still a minority, who do not wear helmets.
The police issued 29,399 fines ($55 a time) to cyclists during the past four years. The number each year has fallen sharply, but it is thought this is more to do with less emphasis on enforcement than more compliance.
Although Australia, New Zealand and the United Arab Emirates are the only countries to mandate and enforce helmet wearing for adults as well as children, the idea of change should be knocked on the head. Just as wearing car seat belts saves lives, so do cycle helmets. Significantly, they prevent or lessen among the potentially debilitating and hard-to-treat injuries, those to the head.
Mr Teague argues compulsory helmets, brought in 24 years ago, were putting people off biking. They were an encroachment on individual liberties and the lost health benefits from fewer cyclists more than compensated for any additional injuries.
That is highly questionable. The drop in numbers of children riding bikes to school, in particular, is for many reasons, including, ironically, safety. We live in a much more safety conscious world and cycling is accompanied by hazards. This provides all the more reason to insist on helmets. The largest fall in numbers of pupils riding to school also took place before compulsory helmets.
Although society should hesitate before restricting individual choice, action is required when social and economic costs are high and when there are clear ways to mitigate dangers. That means compulsory use of car seat belts and bike helmets.
Of course, lines have to be drawn. The chance of injury and its severity are part of the calculations. For example, one would not expect those travelling in cars to wear helmets, except motorsport racers.
The explosion in interest in mountain biking - and participants are almost always keen to wear helmets - shows bike exercise, and therefore the supposed health benefits, is increasing. Meanwhile, every bike shop employee has horror stories about cracked, smashed helmets - better then smashed heads.
Once mandatory, helmets soon - and they should fit properly and be adjusted correctly - became just part of cycling. A habit is created and most cyclists feel vulnerable without them. This custom has extended, voluntarily, to the use of high-visibility vests by many. It is also worth noting the increase in skier numbers using helmets.
Many a regular cyclist can recount incidents where helmets came to the rescue. Such anecdotal evidence of their efficacy abounds. Additionally, a review of bike helmet use of 64,000 injured cyclists, published two years ago, found helmets reduced the chances of a serious head injury by nearly 70%. Another study rejected claims bike helmets damaged the neck and actually caused brain injury.
Countries like the Netherlands might have no compulsory helmet laws. But New Zealand drivers, cyclists and this country's roads are a different mix. Dutch drivers, themselves much more likely to be cyclists, are far more aware of, and respectful to, cyclists.
Modern helmets are lightweight and comfortable. Their use is a no-brainer. As has been suggested, although it is impracticable, perhaps those who flout the law and have a crash sans helmet should pay for their wheelchair and feeding tube.
