Question:
I am somewhat confused by the frequent references to Australian experiences, claimed to show that cycling decreased after the MHL, whereas head injury did not.

The only paper known to me, (Mandatory bicycle helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia - an evaluation, Cameron MH, P Vulcan, CF Finch and SV Newstead, Accid. Anal. and Prev., vol 26 no 3, pp 325-337, 1994) claims that head injury dropped by 48% and 70% during the first and second year of the MHL, figures that only partly can be explained by decreased bicycle use in some age groups (36% lower by children, 44% higher by adults in the first year).

Are there any other scientific reports disproving this?

Answer: The reduction in number of bicyclists with head injuries following implementation of the law in Victoria may reflect a combination of several factors, including the decline in bicycle use by children; the possibility that, by wearing helmets, cyclists are more likely to be noticed by motorists; the effect of educational efforts and publicity in improving the safety practices of cyclists; and the impact of major initiatives in 1989 and 1990 to reduce motorists' speeding and drinking and driving. The findings in this report suggest a substantial and positive effect of the law on helmet use

for the third post-law year, the observed proportion of head injured cases to be no different from the downward trend predicted by the model using the pre-law wearing rate trends. In other words, there was no statistical evidence that higher helmet wearing rates had any effect on head injury rates." This conclusion was from people who are desperately trying to find justification for Oz's MHL! For example, in their zeal they claimed an increase in adult bicycle usage of 44% the first year of the law (1991) when adult cycling was down by 29% in counts taken a year apart pre and post law!