After adjusting for the decline in cycling, the data strongly suggest that post-law fatality rates increased for cyclists, relative to pedestrian fatalities. The above anomalies in accident data, suggesting an increase in accidents and even head injuries imply that a full investigation of accident rates following helmet laws is warranted. These data again suggest that the helmet law has had a very minor impact on the percentage of cyclists suffering head injuries. Other factors are clearly more important, such as enforcement of speed limits and drink-driving laws, and encouraging motorists to look out for cyclists especially at intersections. The best way to reduce cyclist head injuries is to make the roads safer and to help cyclists avoid accidents by teaching them the skills of roadcraft and defensive cycling.
Helmets have only a very minor part to play.
In his report 'Cycle Helmets - the Case For and Against' , Mayer Hillman commented that the fatality rate per kilometre travelled in Britain, was respectively, two and a half and three and a half times higher than in the Netherlands and Denmark, countries where few people wear helmets and the subject is low on the political agenda. As shown in Graph 2, the benefits of helmet laws are too small to be detectable, and pale into insignificance compared the previously mentioned difference in injury and fatality rates. Other factors such as those responsible for the difference in fatality rates per kilometre between the UK and Denmark or Holland are considerably more important. Those responsible for cyclist safety should concentrate on these major factors, rather than helmets. Moreover, by discouraging cycling, the helmet law has had a considerable detrimental effect on health and fitness.