Decide for yourself about the quality of the works published
The results of independent research by diverse sources
How poor methods and analyses result in misrepresentation of the Canadian experience
Putting the risk when cycling into perspective
Read what this has to do with cycle helmets
A detailed analysis of brain injuries, helmets and legislation
Analyses and peer responses in the British Medical Journal about whether helmet laws lead to improved public health
A comprehensive look at how cycle use has changed since the helmet laws
How helmet laws could de-rail the City Bike revolution
Our commentary on one of the principal pro-helmet documents
A look at other medical research that has proved unreliable
A comprehensive assessment of the first helmet laws
Robinson DL Velo City 2007
How individual laws have affected cycle use and casualties
Evidence of long lives for those who cycle regularly counters the notion that cyclists face exceptional risk of head injury
Reviews of 3 papers that are fundamentally flawed and in which the data sometimes provides good evidence for an opposite conclusion to that advanced by the authors.
The influential Cochrane Review finds it cannot show that helmet laws lead to a lower risk of head injury
The authors are not convinced about risk compensation. We look at their analysis.
Evidence that cycling is a low-risk activity that gets safer when more people do it
BHRF looks at a one-sided review of helmets for the BMA's Board of Science that relies heavily on the use of discredited and anecdotal evidence
Why the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risk
How they work and their limitations
Our review analyses the findings and takes a wider look at rotational injuries
Few Dutch cyclists wear helmets, but 13% of hospitalised cyclists do. Why?