S
Steven M. Scharf
Guest
Riley Geary wrote:
>
> I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
> at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
> a crash, but the real question of course is:
Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
few.
> a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
> as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
> absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
> more importantly
It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
as a justification for repressive laws.
> b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
> helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
> safety record of the cyclists involved?
I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a
double-blind test, for obvious reasons.
> A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring
> all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to
> either cyclists or society in general.
Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.
We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently
enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to
encourage helmet use.
I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
that sort of lunacy.
>
> I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
> at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
> a crash, but the real question of course is:
Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
few.
> a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
> as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
> absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
> more importantly
It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
as a justification for repressive laws.
> b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
> helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
> safety record of the cyclists involved?
I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a
double-blind test, for obvious reasons.
> A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring
> all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to
> either cyclists or society in general.
Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.
We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently
enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to
encourage helmet use.
I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
that sort of lunacy.