<p>Bike helmets represent perhaps the highest volume of religious cycling discussion, enough so that <a target="_blank" href="http://www.bikehelmetsnow.org/">parody sites have been erected in their honor</a>. Helmet debate spans the globe as is evidenced by the fact that the Danish Socialist People's Party introduced compulsory helmet legislation which was then defeated in parliament.</p>
Bike helmets represent perhaps the highest volume of religious cycling discussion, enough so that parody sites have been erected in their honor. Helmet debate spans the globe as is evidenced by the fact that the Danish Socialist People’s Party introduced compulsory helmet legislation which was then defeated in parliament.
The Copenhagenize blog provided commentary on this measure along with what they contend is the flawed logic behind the helmet crusade.
It still boggles the mind how The Socialist People’s Party didn’t bother to do their research. It’s rare to see laws proposed on such a fantastically thin background. The backbone of their proposal was rhetoric and fearmongering. And this from a party that claims to work for increased cycling in Denmark.
Copenhagenize also calls into contention the idea that helmet use promotes cycling, instead showing evidence that the opposite is true.
The Danish Minister of Transport, together with the Ministers of Transport for all the EU countries [The European Council of Ministers of Transport], published a report in 2004 [National Policies to Encourage Cycling] wherein it says, among other things, that:
“…from the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use, and that to prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion of helmet wear to manufacturers and shopkeepers.
The report entitled ‘Head Injuries and Helmet Law for Cyclists’ by Dorothy L. Robinson, Bicycle Research report No. 81 (March 1997) shows that the main effect of the introduction of the general helmet law for cyclists in Australia was a drop in bicycle use.”
The balance presented here is one of perceived or actual safety versus the number of active cyclists. If forcing helmet use decreases the number of cyclists, is that requirement actually beneficial? Just a short while ago, we posted a press release stating that helmet use by children could prevent 90,000 head, face, and scalp injuries, but fails to detail the severity of the injuries that typically occur. Would it be worth it to reduce ridership while also reducing injuries or is it better to increase the number of riders while letting people determine their own level of risk aversion?
