legalskier
New member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,052
- Points
- 0
Here's an interesting take: the reduction in injuries doesn't reflect positively on helmets as much as it betrays a reduction in ridership, which in turn results in an overall reduction in life-years that would have been gained if those riders had continued to cycle (if I understand correctly). If that sounds confusing, here's the link to the article, which cites lots of stats:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Wearing+bike+helmet+might+make+safer/3239860/story.html
For example,
....a surge in bicycle helmets from 1991 to 2001 -- to the extent that 69 per cent of child cyclists and 43 per cent of adult cyclists wore helmets by the end of the period -- was accompanied by a decline in ridership and an increase in cyclist accidents, resulting in 51 per cent more head injuries per cyclist....Clarke cites research showing that life-years gained by cycling outweigh years lost to accidents by a factor of 20 to 1. If five per cent of cyclists stopped cycling because of helmet laws, he said, any benefit from helmets would be lost.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Wearing+bike+helmet+might+make+safer/3239860/story.html
For example,
....a surge in bicycle helmets from 1991 to 2001 -- to the extent that 69 per cent of child cyclists and 43 per cent of adult cyclists wore helmets by the end of the period -- was accompanied by a decline in ridership and an increase in cyclist accidents, resulting in 51 per cent more head injuries per cyclist....Clarke cites research showing that life-years gained by cycling outweigh years lost to accidents by a factor of 20 to 1. If five per cent of cyclists stopped cycling because of helmet laws, he said, any benefit from helmets would be lost.