3 ms·

How ? From the wikipedia page regarding the "australian bicycle helmet law" I read this: For example, one recent French study analyzing over 13,000 cyclist cas

How ? From the wikipedia page regarding the "australian bicycle helmet law" I read this: For example, one recent French study analyzing over 13,000 cyclist casualties during a ten-year period "confirms the protective effect [of helmets] for head and facial injuries," and finds that "the reduction of risk is greater for serious head injuries. The study is inconclusive about the risk for neck injuries."[45] The most widely quoted case-control study, by Thompson, Rivara, and Thompson, reported an 85% reduction in the risk of head injury by using a helmet.[46] It has been suggested that these studies may be fundamentally flawed.[47][48][49][50] [51] [52] Thompson and Thompson have rejected these criticisms.[53] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Case-control_studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Case-control_stu... Are you suggesting something along: 1. Cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take risks because they are wearing helmets ? ; 2. people don't want to ride bikes because they don't want to wear a helmet because they don't like the look of it and as a result of that they might do less exercise activities than if they could have ride helmet free ? edit: I found this: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ http://www.cycle-helmets.com/ There are some frightening points being made (and contradictory to my position) but I have some tingling doubts about some. Have to read it with more attention later.

excuse-me 14y ago
Make helmets mandatory and people choose to take their cars instead of cycle. More cars on the road = more cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) deaths. Suppose for example that train passengers were required to wear motorbike helmets - would it save lives? Well there has probably been a very rare train accident where somebody died of a head injury. But if all those train passengers decided to drive instead there would be a huge rise in deaths.
- johnchristopher 14y ago
  Why do you assume they are going to take their cars instead of their bikes ? Public transportation can be as convenient on bike distances. I am not going to take off my silly hemlet and take more risks so fashionistas can ride their bike. Did car drivers stop driving cars because seatbelts were made mandatory at some point ? Anyway, from what I read, I am more at risk with my silly helmet because car drivers think I am safe and more prudent so they take more risks around people like me[1]. So it's a catch-21 or something to me. I'll get back to my car. Or maybe we should enforce mandatory helmets for car drivers too. Since they _have_ to wear in any case they might stick to bicycle :) [1] source: those australian articles all around the web
  - excuse-me 14y ago
    The idea is to persuade car drivers onto bikes - then if they have to wear a helmet they might switch to busses, but it's more likely they would stay in their cars. I'm not going to take my helmet off either - but if a change in the law converted 10% of the cars passing me to other cycles I would be happier and safer. >Did car drivers stop driving cars because seatbelts were made mandatory at some point Unless there was an alternative MORE deadly form of transport they could adopt it doesn't matter. If they said, "I'm not driving with a seatbelt - I will drive my jet fighter to work" it might have had a negative effect on accident rates. [1] The research was by an ex-collegue of mine at UCL. He also proved that drivers give blonde women more space. Although since he did the field work himself (in a wig) he couldn't discount the chance that car drivers gave more space to very unconvincing transvestites! ;-)
    - johnchristopher 14y ago
      I was just reading that article half an hour ago! http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking11090...
alexfoo 14y ago
> Are you suggesting something along: > > 1. Cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take risks because they are wearing helmets ? ; It's a known hypothesis:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis Also... "Likewise, it has been found that drivers behave less carefully around bicyclists wearing helmets than around unhelmeted riders."

excuse-me 14y ago

Make helmets mandatory and people choose to take their cars instead of cycle. More cars on the road = more cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) deaths. Suppose for example that train passengers were required to wear motorbike helmets - would it save lives? Well there has probably been a very rare train accident where somebody died of a head injury. But if all those train passengers decided to drive instead there would be a huge rise in deaths.

johnchristopher 14y ago
Why do you assume they are going to take their cars instead of their bikes ? Public transportation can be as convenient on bike distances. I am not going to take off my silly hemlet and take more risks so fashionistas can ride their bike. Did car drivers stop driving cars because seatbelts were made mandatory at some point ? Anyway, from what I read, I am more at risk with my silly helmet because car drivers think I am safe and more prudent so they take more risks around people like me[1]. So it's a catch-21 or something to me. I'll get back to my car. Or maybe we should enforce mandatory helmets for car drivers too. Since they _have_ to wear in any case they might stick to bicycle :) [1] source: those australian articles all around the web
- excuse-me 14y ago
  The idea is to persuade car drivers onto bikes - then if they have to wear a helmet they might switch to busses, but it's more likely they would stay in their cars. I'm not going to take my helmet off either - but if a change in the law converted 10% of the cars passing me to other cycles I would be happier and safer. >Did car drivers stop driving cars because seatbelts were made mandatory at some point Unless there was an alternative MORE deadly form of transport they could adopt it doesn't matter. If they said, "I'm not driving with a seatbelt - I will drive my jet fighter to work" it might have had a negative effect on accident rates. [1] The research was by an ex-collegue of mine at UCL. He also proved that drivers give blonde women more space. Although since he did the field work himself (in a wig) he couldn't discount the chance that car drivers gave more space to very unconvincing transvestites! ;-)
  - johnchristopher 14y ago
    I was just reading that article half an hour ago! http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking110906.html http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/releases/overtaking11090...

alexfoo 14y ago

> Are you suggesting something along: > > 1. Cyclists wearing helmets are prone to take risks because they are wearing helmets ? ; It's a known hypothesis:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis Also... "Likewise, it has been found that drivers behave less carefully around bicyclists wearing helmets than around unhelmeted riders."