3 ms·

Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-th

Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 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 road safety agenda, an increase in children being driven to school due to parental concerns of safety and an already existing pre-law decline in cycling rates."

aidos 12y ago
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 for being caught without a helmet. I've cycled daily in London for years now an it's a much safer place to cycle. My feeling is that's generally due to the awareness from having a lot of cyclists on the road. Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working.
- WildUtah 12y ago
  "Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working." Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring. I'd say that's working just fine.