|
|
|
|
|
by atcole
3066 days ago
|
|
The statistics shown on how helmet laws actually lead to an increase in cycling accidents is very interesting. I wonder what the correlation is on this? Is it because cyclists not wearing helmets generally bike in a safer manner? Or maybe if there are no helmet laws, then streets designed for bikes are designed with more safety in mind? An interesting note about bike shares usage. I have seen some very effective bike sharing programs but also some very ineffective ones. In San Jose, there is a bike share program, but the bikes themselves cost $9 to ride, while in London the bike share cost 2p (~3-4$). The price point made all the difference to me. |
|
(edit: inserted 0'th reason)
0) It could be true but irrelevant: We mainly want to reduce severe injuries, accident rate only peripherally interesting in relation to this.
1) Is the direction of causality estabilished? Is it possible that a trend of increasing accident rates results in lawmakers passing helmet laws?
2) But generally it stands to reason that cycling helmets can't actually reduce accidents, just reduce their impact. And it also sounds reasonable that helmets would give bikers a small amount of additional risk appetite.
3) Maybe helmet laws encourage casual or impaired cyclists (uncoordinated people, children, people with bad awareness, etc) to get on bikes, and/or repel the confident types who choose to do other exercise rather than wear sweaty and dorky looking helmets. So the bicycling acuity of the bicycler population is reduced.
4) Is there data picking at play? This cites only 2 studies reporting increased accident rates, and both of them were in USA, so the data is not very good for drawing general conclusions. Is there something in the local circumstances or bicyclist demography? How many studies can you find where this increased accident rate doesn't show?