"Brains, brains." says a bike zombie in San Francisco.
Mandatory bicycle helmet laws could do more harm than good, a new study claims.
Helmet laws like those in effect in Australia levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling, a mathematical model concludes.
Piet de Jong, a mathematician at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, estimates that bicycle helmet laws would cost the US $4.8 billion per year, Netherlands $1.9 billion, and the U.K $0.4 billion.
New Scientist 17:50 27 April 2009 by Ewen Callaway
See complete article in the
New Scientist.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1368064
5 comments:
But if people who cycle frequently live longer, that results in higher health care costs in the long run. The best thing you can do for the world is die as soon as possible.
stu42j's comment has support from other sources. take a look at:
http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/~ulrich/
documents/ulrich-cycling-enviro-jul06.pdf
Bottom line - cycling is bad for the planet so helmet laws are good since they reduce the number of people that cycle!
Blogger Steve A said...
"Bottom line - cycling is bad for the planet so helmet laws are good since they reduce the number of people that cycle!"The then Chief Epidemiologist of Dallas County, and leader of the Safe Kids campaign in Dallas County at the time, told me that he wanted a mandatory helmet law because it would reduce the number of cyclists, telling me that cycling is "inherently dangerous".
Then, as now, the local cycling "advocates" went along with it... like sheep to the shearers.
Don't get me wrong... I believe helmets are good for cyclists, but an over reliance on them for safety, or believing the patently false story that they reduce head injuries by 88%, is very bad for cycling.
If it ever comes up, remind that former Chief Epidemiologist of Dallas that getting out of bed in the morning is inherently dangerous, so he ought to avoid that danger as well.
If he DOES feel the need to get out of bed, he can borrow one of my spare helmets to take his morning shower. I have a choice of white, blue or red for him. The blue one is even rated Snell 95 & has never been damaged in any bicycle ride (none of the others have been damaged by anything other than sweat, either)...
It seems clear that the Dallas helmet laws did not come to pass on the basis of cyclist safety.
Motor-driven cyclists find their use optional, and pedal-driven cyclists find them mandatory.
The logic is indefensibly flawed, is it not?
Post a Comment