Originally Posted by
closetbiker
The best way to show as many similarities as possible between two groups, is to use the same groups in the same situations, with the only difference being being an addition of helmets.
Mandatory helmet laws passed in Australia, New Zealand, and BC did this and much was learned by what happened when overnight, helmet- less cyclists virtually disappeared.
I understand from those studies that there was either no correlation or negative correlation between mandatory helmet use and cyclist injuries/fatalities. However, I was wondering if this could be isolated somehow from the
safety in numbers effect, as I understand that ridership
also significantly dropped when the MHLs were instituted.
I would be a bit surprised if helmets weren't found to offer at least a bit of extra protection/safety for those who
choose to wear them. This is why I voluntarily strap one on before a ride. Even if MHLs have zero or negative effect on safety due to decreasing ridership, having accurate information about what helmets
can and can't do for you would be useful and informative for all. If found to be beneficial, incentives such as low-cost or free helmets could be provided by municipalities and/or states, rather than trying to force MHLs down our throats.