4 ms·
> I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Serio
by PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Seriously Injured) rates.
And in doing so, it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes, all other things being equal. (Mainly because all other things aren't equal, and it's very difficult to devise a methodology that makes them so.)
- snowwrestler 7y ago> it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes Right. A friend who's an ER doctor once put it this way: "I'm going to hit you in the head with a hammer; you can wear a bike helmet or not, your choice." Statistics are all well and good, but it would take a rare allegiance to epidemiology to skip the helmet. I've also heard it said that statistics look different when you are the statistic...
- shkkmo 7y agoNobody is saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. The point is that Helmets are at best only a marginally effective public policy to make cyclists safer. > an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour.