Bicycle helmet laws = bad?

[garote]

"The Dangers of Helmets", a British Medical Journal article arguing against bicycle helmet laws:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582#SEC4

The basic arguments are:

1. Requiring helmets gives an impression that cycling is more dangerous than walking or driving, this scares off people who would be healthier if they cycled.
2. If a helmet is a legal requirement, people will think that simply having one is adequate, instead of learning how to bike cautiously.
3. Helmets don't actually protect riders (justification provided via a cartload of what is, to my eyes, rather questionable statistical analysis.)

Thoughts?

Comments

[macramedildo.livejournal.com]

There's no helmet law here in NY, unlike WA where they are required. Since I'm doing A LOT of pedaling lately (sans helmet, because I don't have one), here's my $0.02:

-It might give an impression that biking is less safe (which, let's face it, it is) but they protect you anyway.

-People are too image-conscious still to do biking. They think helmets make you look dorky, so even if they DO bike, it's hard to get them to wear a helmet. Interesting that people would rather risk serious injury or death than look uncool. It's like getting people to eat healthy: it ain't gonna happen unless it tastes good.

-Finally, you could argue Darwinism, that people dumb enough to not wear helmets "deserve" serious injury... but you can be totally safe and obey all laws and it still, some idiot could knock you down or hit you. Even with a helmet, you could end up seriously injured.

When I get my own bike I'll get a helmet for it (force of habit if not skiddishness because the drivers here have NO respect for bicycles... or even basic traffic laws), but I'm not down with forcing them on anyone.

[garote]

I generally agree with your sentiment. But on the Darwinism point, the problem is that people do not always immediately die from their injury. So we end up paying for their stupidity.

From http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html:

In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

...

"After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period."

10-15 million bucks in savings a year (depending on how many riders are insured) ain't bad. Spread all out it probably only costs me, personally, as much as a couple squares of chocolate off a chocolate bar -- but that's chocolate I'm going to ENJOY. >:)

chill

[(Anonymous)]

i am wondering what the point of this is but like u said some people are really selfconsouse about the helmet they wear especially if you are already not really attractive. what they need to do is improve how the helmet looks so be will not feel insecure wearing it.

chill

[(Anonymous)]

God bless the world and may all of you be safe.