I don't believe it's completely ineffective; it can certainly save your scalp from some road rash, and I'm sure you can find a couple of cases where a helmet av

I don't believe it's completely ineffective; it can certainly save your scalp from some road rash, and I'm sure you can find a couple of cases where a helmet avoided genuine head trauma. But I'm not convince that the benefit of helmets for cyclists far exceeds the benefit of the same helmets on pedestrians, or on car passengers. Now, most people agree that there's a comfort/price/benefit compromise, which makes it inappropriate to enforce mandatory helmets onto pedestrians, although it would obviously save some lives. In order to accept that what applies to pedestrians doesn't apply to cyclists, I'd like to get some hard data, not some "gut feeling" from lawmakers who barely read what they vote for. Also, I could understand that serious head traumas avoided in significant numbers would justify a law: in most civilized countries, the corresponding hospital bills and disability grants are paid by public insurance, i.e. taxpayers; cyclist are therefore accountable in front of them. But if it mostly saves scalps from roadrashes, I don't think that a law is appropriate.