• UK drivers passed a bicyclist closer on average when the bicyclist wore a helmet. [1]
• despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. [2] und zwar während Radfahrer nicht riskanter gefahren sind [3]
• The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). (…) Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. [2]
• We found that the dehumanization measures were internally consistent, showed good discriminant validity (compared to general attitudes to cyclists) and were associated with self-reported aggression toward cyclists. [4]
• auch qualitative Studien kommen zu dem Schluss, dass Helmnutzung mit einer erhöhten Gefährlichkeit einhergeht und zwar dahingehend, dass sie zu Opportunitätskosten durch nicht-implementierte echte Sicherheits-Policies führt: I first provide evidence that the helmet does in fact take a central place in the US urban bike safety discourse, and I characterize four rhetorical strategies used to encourage helmet use. I then argue that this helmet fixation is ultimately tied to the (re)production of unfettered automobility, and that it arguably hampers efforts to actually improve bicycle safety [5]

[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457518309928 [2]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0001457596000164 [3]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818305941 [4]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1369847818308593 [5]https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23800127.2018.1432088