Originally Posted by
UberGeek
.. What we do see, is that certain incidents, a helmet will in fact, reduce the seriousness of an injury, to the point of not even requiring a hospital visit, whereas not wearing one would have required one. Even if it did not result in death.
I have no problem agreeing that helmets can mitigate or reduce injuries in certain situations, but the evidence provided in the court here shows no difference in head injuries to cyclists after people were forced to wear them.
Now that can be for a number of reasons, but the facts show, no reduction in injuries to cyclists in BC.
The support for the law seems to be based on the perception helmets save lives and reduce serious injury, but the facts don't bear this out. Our cycling advocate lawyer who won't fight the law even admits this:
there is no clear evidence of a benefit related to mandatory helmet use. If anything, the studies appear to indicate a number of negative effects....Against this background, it is important to remember that the voice that speaks against mandatory helmet use is still very much a dissenting voice. There is a widespread perception that helmets save lives. I share that perception.
What is perhaps even worse is the express purpose of the law was to reduce death to cyclists in BC and guess what happened? After the law passed and police enforced the law with vigor, resulting in a doubling of helmet use overnight and a 30% drop in people riding bikes, deaths to cyclists
increased.