Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

Post by WildUtah » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:34 AM UTC

aidos wrote: post #22

thedragonaut wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/... "there was a 67% decline in serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing data for the years nearest the helmet law (1988–1991 vs. 1996–1999)." "Tin Tin et al6 list several reasons apart from the helmet law for declines in cycling rates and increases in cycling injuries. These include the lack of cycling focus in the New Zealand…

I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning and awareness at the time. And ultimately a net decrease in head injuries doesn't mean that much when there are many other injuries with cycling generally being more dangerous. I'm just a single data point but I stopped cycling in nz after they introduced the fines…

Post by shittyanalogy » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:48 AM UTC

matt_morgan wrote: post #32

I don't doubt the conclusions of the report, really, but it's missing the part where it explains how helmet laws suppressed cycling. You didn't ride your bike to school because you had to wear a helmet? Maybe. Or maybe you didn't ride your bike to school because nobody rides their bike to school anymore because their parents are scared to let them. (That also changed in the last 25 years or so). Obviously both are a…

Post by baddox » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:55 AM UTC

sxcurry wrote: post #23

nols wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is saying you shouldn't wear them, the debate is whether or not countries should make it mandatory. If you require bicycle helmets then fewer people ride their bikes, leading to fewer people pushing for safe bicycling laws, more cars on the road, and a less active (and thus less healthy) population.

But this isn't shown by the article. Cycling dropped, but there is no indication that this was caused by helmet laws. A much more detailed study would be required to determine the cause of reduced cycling.

Post by pitay » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 1:58 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #30

shoegumfoot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are completely unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life. At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it correctly. The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it? Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than…

Post by jewbacca » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 2:07 AM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #30

shoegumfoot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are completely unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life. At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it correctly. The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it? Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than…