If you're a cyclist in Spokane, you have to wear a helmet. By law.

But more and more  and more and more and more arguments are being made against helmets. Here's a new one, from one of the oldest peer-reviewed medical journals, the BMJ.

The study looked at hospitalization rates for Canadian bike riders and if there was any correlation to helmet legislation and bicycling mode share. It found that helmet laws did not affect the rate of hospitalization, but increasing the number of people who cycle, as well as building more bikeways that are separated from traffic, was associated with a reducing injuries.

The study's conclusion:

In our study comparing exposure-based injury rates in 11 Canadian jurisdictions, we found that females had lower hospitalisation rates than males. This difference in injury rates is consistent with other bicycling studies and studies of other transportation modes. We found that lower rates of traffic-related injuries were associated with higher cycling mode shares, a finding also reported elsewhere. We did not find a relationship between injury rates and helmet legislation. These results suggest that policymakers interested in reducing bicycling injuries would be wise to focus on factors related to higher cycling mode shares and female cycling preferences. Bicycling infrastructure physically separated from traffic or routed along quiet streets is a promising fit for both and is associated with a lower relative risk of injury.

In Washington alone, large jurisdictions such as King County, Vancouver, Tacoma and all military installations require the use of bicycle helmets for people of all ages.

So why do so many laws exist requiring the use of helmets? Do you support laws requiring helmets?