False claims

There are many claims which are routinely made by helmet promoters, these are of varying accuracy and honesty.  Some, such as the 85% claim, have been subject of successful complaints to the ASA.  Others are repeated despite their proponents having been given very detailed explanations of why they are wrong.  Many of the claims are repeated because they make for good soundbytes.  One problem long faced by cyclists and cycle safety advocates is the difficulty of communicating the complex and diverse world of cycling in terms which fit within the modern news agenda; these days the press has the attention span of a particularly skittish gnat and the public is following suit.

• Helmets prevent 85% of injuries is the canonical "BeHIT bullshit".  To find out why it is wrong to claim that helmets prevent 85% of injuries, see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html.
  I once asked helmet promoter Randy Swart why he was still using this figure when he knew that the authors had republished a much lower figure from the same data, and no population had ever shown an measurable benefit from increases in helmet wearing, let alone 85% casualty reductions.  His response was that the 85% figure is by now so ingrained in the "injury prevention" community that "a change would not be helpful". So there you have it: 85% is a nice big number, they know it's wrong, but they don't care because being "helpful" to the cause of promoting lids is more important than being honest.
• All the evidence agrees... or so claim BeHIT. But actually it turns out that the evidence is contradictory, and many studies disagree.
• Helmet laws work! Or do they?  It seems not, unless by working you mean they increase helmet wearing rates at the expense of numbers cycling.
• It's just a matter of time before everywhere has a law.  Or is it?  Increasingly, clueful cyclists are opposing helmet laws based on robust arguments which address the repeated failures of laws to achieve results.

Do not be deluded by claims stated categorically.  Many of them are false, but their promoters are so blinded by zeal that they cannot adapt their message to the developing evidence base.