4 ms·
> The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it
by justin66 7y ago
> The chance of a healthy adult cycling in the Netherlands getting a head injury that would have been prevent by a helmet are so incredibly low, that making it a requirement would have a detrimental effect on the collective health of Dutch society due to slightly lower uptake in cycling.
That's an easy thing to assert and a difficult thing to prove. I just assume the rules are the way they are because the Netherlands is a democracy and they want things that way, not because they're especially great at risk assessment (what population of people really is?).
I gather this is still a rather active topic of discussion and research in the Netherlands?
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/03/top-hat-bike-helmets-would-save-85-cycling-fatalities-a-year-says-report/ https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/03/top-hat-bike-helmets-w...
- Kim_Bruning 7y agoNot a particularly active topic. Combining your two sources suggests that making helmets mandatory would have a large negative effect on public health. (the downtick in injuries would be overshadowed by the reduction in biking)
- justin66 7y agoI only offered one source, and the research it quotes suggests no such thing, so your comment seems a bit odd. The closest it comes to saying what you suggest, is not very close at all: But a spokesman for the SWOV acknowledged that the protective head wear might be a hard sell in the Netherlands. ‘Helmets aren’t often worn in the Netherlands and we are aware of the arguments [that cycling could decrease if they were obligatory],’ he said. I'm not invested in what happens in the Netherlands at all, but I wonder if a lot of people are just taking "the downtick in injuries would be overshadowed by the reduction in biking" for granted.