Unfortunately that argument doesn't hold water. You could argue the same for seat belts in cars. If things go wrong on a bicycle then it is usually someone else responsibility to deal with your actions. The child like response of the government can't tell me what to do is rather irresponsible.

The difference in countries that don't have mandatory helmet laws is that there is already a culture of people sharing the footpath/sidewalk with bicycles. So it is alright for people to ride around at medium speed. If you live in a country that doesn't have this sort of culture then you are screwed! You have to share the road with cars. This makes wearing a helmet mandatory.

Of course if you live in a country were the local bird life like to dive bomb passing cyclists in spring time, this is another good reason to wear a helmet.

That's exactly the kind of injury that cycle helmets aren't much use at preventing -- the speeds are too high.

Also, some research showed that drivers overtook helmeted cyclists with less room compared to unhelmeted cyclists, i.e. the drivers take a higher risk because they assume the helmet is protecting the cyclist.

That's the kind of injury the helmet might help with, and people cycling for sport should probably wear helmets. (Just like people driving for sport wear helmets.)

Oh, how I wish academia was like that. It's 8 pm and I'm still at work. When I go home in half an hour, I will keep on working until I can't work anymore. If I'm lucky, I might get to see my family on the weekend. If I don't work this hard, I won't get tenure and I won't have a job. Academia is no wonderland of privilage and it hasn't been since the 18th century, when the only people who had time to think about things were the idle nobility. Anybody in academia today has worked hard to get there and continues to work hard to stay there. Why do we want to stay there? Because it's the only way we can study things we're really passionate about, rather than what people force us to. But at 8 pm after a long day of teaching, I wonder if I really do want to be here afterall...

No, you cannot make that comparison. The class of injuries prevented by seatbelts is wider and more common than the extremely rare head injuries suffered by bicyclists.

Mart

You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, there isn't such a thing as a European standard speed limit. In France it's 130 km/h, in Belgium it's 120 km/h, in the UK it's 70 m/h (about 113 km/h). Every country sets their own rules, as I believe do the States of the US.

Now about the German Autobahn: nationwide there is no mandatory speed limit. There is a "recommended" speed limit of 130 km/h, but you are free to go over that if you like. Now as the population has been increasing and the roads were getting busier and cities larger, some parts of some roads did get a speed limit. That's mainly near large cities, on roads with heavy traffic or on roads with poor far-field vision (lots of bends and hills). Also limits may apply in certain conditions, such as when it rains and the roads are wet. But in general, all Autobahns are still completely speed unlimited.

Yes, that is a common misunderstanding (in the Netherlands). It's not true, obviously. What _is_ true, is this: with every car-bike accident police involvement is obligatory (police have to make a "proces verbaal" or a "written account"). This is because car drivers would get involved in an accident with an cyclist, and would try to make amends by offering apologies and/or a small amount of money. Especially youngsters would accept money in these cases.

[Citation Needed]

There's no evidence to suggest that a helmet offers protection in a collision with a car.

AFAIK, the only credible research implicates that there may be some benefit in a low speed (aprox ~15mph) impact.

There's a good write-up of all the issues surronding bicycle helmets here:

http://chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet_debate [chapmancentral.co.uk]

Good meta-studies (i.e. a study which systematically searches the literature for primary research on a topic, and then aggregates the results - in order to cancel out biases) suggest there is no significant overall injury/death mitigation benefit to cyclists from wearing helmets. There is a benefit in terms of head trauma, however it appears to be cancelled out by increases in other trauma. See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751100008X [sciencedirect.com] (and unfortunately, you need to pay to read the full text or have access to a university subscription, but you can see the blob-charts for free).

It's article 185 of the "Wegenverkeerswet" which is the Dutch traffic law.

The exact text (in Dutch of course) can be found here: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006622/HoofdstukXII/Artikel185/geldigheidsdatum_02-10-2012 [overheid.nl]
An explanation of the law is on Wikipedia (also in Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_185_Wegenverkeerswet [wikipedia.org]

The law states that when a motorist and a non-motorist collide on the road, it is always the fault of the motorist, unless "overmacht" can be proven, which is a Dutch legal term meaning the motorist could not in any conceivable way have prevented the incident. So if you drive a car and hit a cyclist and it was absolutely impossible for you at any point to either brake or steer around the cyclist, then you go free. Otherwise, it's your fault.

Of course this isn't "fair" per se, but the law is there to protect the cyclists, who are perceived "weak users of the road" from motor vehicles, which are "strong users of the road". And I can tell you it works very well in practice.

In Australia, the first country to federally mandate compulsory bicycle helmets, cycling has seen a dramatic per capita decline since the introduction of MHL. You did't bother quoting figures, so neither will I.

Protective gear in any sport or recreational activity is the intelligent way to go. Whether or not laws force people to protect themselves from serious injury, I say this... Wear the damn helmets people! It's better to risk looking a little 'dorky' than to risk your health and future. In my humble opinion.

Seconded! I will never understand the anti-helmet crowd, there are more ways to get hurt while cycling than falling off your damn bike. I've been run over by a car twice while cycling (call me unlucky but the way I see it I'm actually quite lucky, I know of several cyclists and motor-bikers who did not survive being run over by a car just once). The first time it happened it was because a driver decided that a yield sign did not apply to him and the second time I was rammed by a guy who did not feel obligated to observe a red light at a pedestrian crossing. If anybody still has doubts about the value of bicycle helmets, trust me, when you are tumbling over the hood of a moving car with your head banging into glass and metal you appreciate the value of head protection. People have died from banging their head into the windshield wipers of a slow moving car or by smashing their scull on the asphalt on landing. If you are wearing a helmet both of those are survivable. Helmets are no magic bullet, they won't protect you from suffering spinal injury for example, but they sure do help.

Cyclists don't ride on the interstate because it's not allowed, but they would be plenty safe there. Interstates have wide lanes and decent shoulders, and there aren't distractions like driveways, side streets, and unnecessary signage. That other roads weren't designed to accomodate motor vehicles and cyclists is a failure of policy. Legally, cyclists have a right to be there, as does a guy with a horse and buggy or someone driving a backhoe or tractor. And if everyone involved exercises some responsibility and due care, the road can be shared just fine by everyone.

I agree with you, there are jerks on bikes, and I won't attempt to excuse their behavior. It's interesting to see, though, that cyclists are just doing the same thing that motorists do. I keep in my Blackberry a copy of an AT&T Worldnet poll from 10 years ago that asked "What motor vehicle violation do you commit most often without being caught?" Five percent of the people admitted to "rolling stop at stop signs", and 57% admitted to "speeding 1-10 mph over the limit". I'd say that both motorists and cyclists make no bones about what they regard as insignificant violations of the law; they figure they're not likely to hurt anyone. And one more thing from that poll was that only 11% of respondents selected "None".

One more thing that may be useful for you to know is that in some cases, it is safest for a bicyclist to ride in the center of the lane. If the lane isn't wide enough for motor vehicles to safely pass the bicycle, the cyclist should "take the lane" for his own safety. This maneuver is expressly allowed under Code of Virginia section 46.2-905 [state.va.us]. So please don't begrudge the cyclist his place on the road -- direct your complaints to the legislators who don't build the road wide enough for the traffic it's intended to support.

And originally they were made of cobblestone or mud and designed for horse drawn carriages. Things change. People adapt.

Roads were made for bicycles, in a very literal sense. In the 1890's, cyclists pushed for legislation to get the first prepared-surface roads put in place. That's how the League of American Cyclists got started: as a lobbying group for getting better roads for cycling.
Cars then came along and took over those roads.
And yeah, ever since gas prices went through the roof more people are riding bikes. That trend is going to increase.
For the record, when I'm on a bike I stop for every stopsign and stoplight, and I've been hit twice by cars that didn't do the same. (Which is a large part of why I stop for every stopsign and stoplight.) Cars regularly violate traffic laws. So do bikes. One difference is that cyclists very rarely kill people when they violate traffic laws. That doesn't make it right, but part of the underlying cyclist/motorist tension is that cyclists think they're not going to hurt anyone by running lights, while the same action by motorists is seen as being murderous behavior, and as such motorists resent the hell out of seeing cyclists do it. (and that's another reason I don't run lights: because it pisses people off.)