You are reading a single comment by @Charlie_L and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
And if we're all honest- Helmet or no is not going to change inactivity levels in a wider spectrum of the population.
But that is precisely what happened in Australia when helmet laws came into force 25+ years ago. Child cycling participation dropped by about 40% or more in a couple of years. Most of the "resurgence" since then has been in adult sport cycling not children and everyday cycling except where there has been high levels of government intervention and promotion.
Charlie_L
Head injuries are not the rare event you want to think they are as % of cyclists who are hospitalised.d
Source 1:
https://www.aans.org/en/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Sports-related-Head-Injury
Source 2:
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674
(amongst others)
You continue to fail to respond to the points I've made, continuing to satisfy yourself with this endless cry of helmets put people off cycling.
So I'll argue against that- just this once- as evidenced by the follow-on resurgence of cycling in Australia, Canada and other places with compulsory helmet laws.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/he/HE11178
(amongst others).
The data supports helmets reduce head injuries. Again- I'm not arguing that long term inactivity is not more of a problem, just that helmets work. I have literally never suggested (and I cannot beleive I'm saying this again ) that helmets should be mandatory.
And if we're all honest- Helmet or no is not going to change inactivity levels in a wider spectrum of the population.
I anticipate waking up to you arguing a completely different point, yet again. Enjoy. xxx