HERE’S a highly inflamed fact for you: Australia and New Zealand are the only countries with all-age enforced mandatory helmet laws.

I’ve ridden most of my life. I ride daily for transport and have ­travelled the globe on my bike.

And, since the ‘90s, I’ve worn a helmet. Because it became the law. And putting some buffered foam ­between my noggin and the bitumen seemed to make intuitive, rational sense. I presumed there was science to back it up.

While riding in New York, ­London and Paris over recent years — without a helmet, surrounded by growing numbers of pedallers — I began to question why other ­countries don’t embrace it and whether there might be science to back this phenomenon too.

I’m not anti-helmet; I just don’t think it’s rational, safe or scientific to force Australians to wear them.

The thing is, there’s no conclusive science to prove what we intuitively think they do: save lives.

The most extensive study on ­injury rates by the University of New England and another ­Canadian study found there’s no causal link between helmet wearing and head injuries or fatalities.

Some studies suggest they may cause more “angular” rotation head injuries (the most common kind) than if you didn’t wear a helmet.

Studies conducted in other ­countries have led to the abolition of mandatory laws there.

Then there is a hoarier question: are mandatory helmet laws actually harmful? The science-backed, ­rational answer is, strangely, yes.

Studies show the best way to ­ensure cyclist safety is to have more bikes on the road; mandatory ­helmet laws (MHLs) are the biggest factor in keeping people off bikes. When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips ­declined by up to 80 per cent in some demographics.

MHLs also create riding and ­driving behaviours that lead to more ­accidents and more injury.

Ensconced in a stack hat, we’re more reckless, land differently when hit and motorists treat us with less care. So goes the science.

Plus there’s this: Health issues and mortality associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries. According to the Heart Foundation, it ­causes 16,000 premature deaths each year. Compare that with the 40 from cycle injuries.

These kind of issues are never straightforward and require digging to find what is the best, most rational, safe and proven outcome. And yet stirring waters like this can lock some more concretely into myopic thinking (and much social media abusing). As I say, I’m not anti-­helmet. I wear them for long-­distance trips and off-road rides.

But in the main I’ve weighed up the evidence for everyday riding — the kind that helps fight obesity and heart disease and cuts down on traffic congestion — and concluded it’s far more rational to not wear one.

Forcing a culture to do otherwise is irrational and, yes, dangerous.