If compulsion was introduced it would be unenforcable, much the same as seat belt/mobile phone use in cars, which patently does not seem to be enforced due to a lack of Police.
Almost all laws are "unenforceable" [ cant think of one that banning something stops t ever happening again tbh] like speeding, parking,drugs etc - if we used that as a basis for making law we would have none
If they made helmets compulsory in Britain would we save more people from head injuries, than we would lose from people quitting cycling and dying of cardiovascular disease?
If nobody quit cycling as a result of changing the helmet laws then there would be no trade off and it would be enforced.
Nobody is arguing that helmets don't offer protective benefit.
this is pretty much the debate do the perceived reduction in numbers from compulsion mean t would be overall worse [more deaths from health related disease v more deaths from injury] for society if it was introduced
It is fairly obvious that a helmet offers some protection in the event of a crash - though it has an impact force at which it is useless much like seatbelts airbags and a 2 ton box of steel called a car.
I am not a huge fan of compulsion but the only people I generally see without helmets are kids, those who own a bike but are not cyclists and older riders.
Maybe once a year I see someone off road without a lid
Pretty sure most riders on here have had a crash where a helmet reduced the injury , I know I have but I was still knocked out and split the helmet. Would i have died probably not but I would rather not find out