Wearing a helmet when cycling should be a law.
Debate Rounds (3)
But no more that 17% of fatal cycling accidents were wearing a helmet proves that wearing helmets have saved lives.
The BMA's board of education and science, which has examined the evidence, has just concluded that helmet use should not be compulsory in the UK. This is probably because in Victoria, Austrailia, although deaths and serious head injuries fell by around 45% in the year following legislation in 1990 so did the number of people riding bikes - by 40% in adults and 60% in children explaining the drop in injuries due to helmets being made compulsary 
Cycling can geatly enhance health, however if bicylcle hemets must be worn by law less people will cycle as evidence shows. Also, the wearing of bicycle helmets does not reduce the risk of injury, see below:
"In the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction. However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down." 
There are various reasons why wearing a bicycle helmet increases the risk of injury e.g. motorists will give less room while overtaking, helmeted cyclists may take greater risks especially when they have cameras attatched, and helmets are seen as a way to limit the consequence of the risks they want to take. In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory
If people are required to wear a helmet by law they are much more likely to continue wearing one that has been damaged and which won't prevent serious brain injury. Since it is common for helmets to break without the polystyrene foam compressing at all it would also be impossible to enforce the use of "safe" helmets.
When it is voluntary to wear a helmet people will be much more likely to replace a damaged helmet sooner, and have the correct attitude towards safety i.e. not rely on the state of art design of the helmet to save them. Afterall no helmet design can save someone who is flung in the path of a lorry.
Xanziepan forfeited this round.
It would be better to wear a helmet than no helmet if you are involved in an accident, but making it a law to wear helmets does not save lives.
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind voters that "saving lives" is used to justify doing just about anything including war crimes such as the japan bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki where more lives were lost than saved in the end, and the bomb was used to save soldiers not civilian life.
Laws should be made to protect people from other people, not from theirselves.
Xanziepan forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.