Helmet laws....

may be reducing head injuries by reducing the number of people riding bikes….

"Cycling is popular among children, but results in thousands of injuries annually. In recent years, many states and localities have enacted bicycle helmet laws. We examine direct and indirect effects of these laws on injuries. Using hospital-level panel data and triple difference models, we find helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among children. However, laws also are associated with decreases in non-head cycling injuries, as well as increases in head injuries from other wheeled sports. Thus, the observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws."

the whole thing, if you dare, is here

^ that is KenN and enduramil fap material

interesting that there's new research on this, i'm keen to read it (for real!)

the fact that helmet laws decrease the number of kids cycling is nothing new - there's research doccumenting this from the introduction of australia's bike helmet laws in the early 90s - and is pretty intuitive, too: making safety equipment mandatory for participating in an activity frames that activity as inherently dangerous, and parents don't want their kids doing something that is dangerous

afaik helmets reduce incidents of head injury among cyclists in crashes and collisions. that's pretty well established; i'd be surprised if this new study has convincing evidence to the contrary

This argument made the rounds in Vancouver last year. A European guy is promoting it. Although you can't compare riding in Europe with riding in dumbass-driver Vancouver. That being said - I'll bet riding with a helmet has gone up millions of percent in the last 20-30 years. Have head injuries been reduced by just a percentage of that? I don't think so.

I don't feel safe riding without a helmet because society tells me so - not because it will protect me when I crash at 30km/hour (I don't think it will)

And I'm talking road riding - not DH/Full face riding.

I believe the argument is that helmet laws are costing society as a whole.

By saying you need a helmet to ride your bike, you are also implying that you are about to do something dangerous. This message in turn leads to less people being willing to ride their bike (some because they don't want to wear a helmet, others because they don't like the "risk" implied) and society pays for it through higher healthcare costs.

In short, it's cheaper to treat the occasional head injury, than the massive health problems due to lack of exercise.

I believe the argument is that helmet laws are costing society as a whole.

By saying you need a helmet to ride your bike, you are also implying that you are about to do something dangerous. This message in turn leads to less people being willing to ride their bike (some because they don't want to wear a helmet, others because they don't like the "risk" implied) and society pays for it through higher healthcare costs.

In short, it's cheaper to treat the occasional head injury, than the massive health problems due to lack of exercise.

bingo, and while I fully endorse the use of helmets for the most part, I also don't think it's the end of the world if someone wants to go for a mellow cruise or down to the grocery store without one, rather they were on a bike than driving single occupancy vehicles clogging up the town with exhaust and whatnot. Oh shit, that's not a black or white position though, is that allowed??

Putting on my seatbelt doesn't make me not want to drive my car$ or having to use headlights. Turn signals. Airbags.

Having to wear a helmet, and not riding is an excuse lazy people use to stay lazy.

yawn…..don't like it move. OR gamble and not wear one….your choice. i hate the preaching,

awww, ends up being pretty useless

they don't look at rates of cycling by the groups they are studying. so, their numbers are all numerator (how many injuries, etc.) and no denominator (how many kids riding). probably because no one has these numbers in the US. but the little non-statement they throw in at the end of the abstract jdans quoted isn't supported by their findings:

Unfortunately, it is difficult to identify the mechanisms at work with our data, since we cannot distinguish between a decrease in riding versus a change in safe riding behaviors. Our results fit both stories.

the studies done to evaluate the impact of the helmet laws in australia looked at both cycling and injury (head and non) rates, and therefor provide actual insight into the impacts of helmet laws on ridership and injury rates. check it out:

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc032.html

This…

Putting on my seatbelt doesn't make me not want to drive my car$ or having to use headlights. Turn signals. Airbags.

Having to wear a helmet, and not riding is an excuse lazy people use to stay lazy.

This…

or this:

Putting on my seatbelt doesn't make me not want to drive my car$ or having to use headlights. Turn signals. Airbags.

Having to wear a helmet, and not riding is an excuse lazy people use to stay lazy.

agree 100%

well i wear one cuz i have to , but i'd rather not cuz when i take it off my hair is totally messed which kinda totally ruins my look .

helmet laws are a fucking joke.

that being said, i always wear a helmet