Originally Posted by
Maelochs
Absolutely no scientific way to prove that wearing a helmet would prevent any specific fatality, or even serious injury.
From the report: "Immediately following bicycle helmet legislation, the rate of bicycle fatalities per 1 000 000 population reduced by 46% relative to the pre-legislation trend [95% confidence interval (CI): 31, 58]. For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities (95% CI: 1201, 1463) or an average of 49.4 per year (95% CI: 44.5, 54.2). Reductions were also observed for pedestrian fatalities; however, bicycle fatalities declined by 36% relative to pedestrian fatalities (95% CI: 12, 54)."
So ... what was the cause for the reduction in pedestrian fatalities? Helmets?
Maybe the big push to enforce helmet laws made drivers more aware? Maybe law enforcement started getting serious about driver ****ting cyclists and pedestrians?
In the US we have seen drastic reductions in drunk driving because of ad campaigns, changed public opinion, and much stricter enforcement. No helmet mandates so far.
These people looked at bicycle fatalities from 1971 through 1990, which means from about the time people first started riding a lot on the road and no one knew how to cope with bikes .... until 1990, when the government got serious about bicycle safety. How much of the reduction was due to awareness, how much do to infrastructure changes?
Also, the paper claims immediate reduction of 46% ... so show the totals for 1989 which are 46 % higher than 1990. otherwise ... "projections." Not facts. Interpretations of facts, not facts. Spin, we call it in the U.S.
Based on their "model," which is they way they chose to imagine what might have happened, not what actually happened, "For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities ... " So they admit there is no data showing that helmets alone saved lives.
And what about other factors? How many of the riders who died were wearing helmets? Maybe there have been more low-speed crashes because there are more cyclists on residential roads, and thus fewer fatalities? Have other factors like cyclists using lights, bike lanes, bike and traffic laws and their enforcement, been factored in? Has drunk cycling been reduced?
I know Orlando, Florida, used to be the cycling fatality capital of the nation year after year. Then Mayor Glenda Hood started a program to make the city more bike friendly---bike lanes, law enforcement, ad campaigns ... and Orlando lost the title. No helmet Laws.
To me this is more junk science. Correlation noted, causation assumed.
I'm amazed so many fail to understand what the laws of another country are meant to do, which is to uphold the values that a particular society holds dear.So you have no helmet laws in Orlando. You'll still have a pile of injuries, if not deaths. Do you not understand what bike laws are intended to help?
Anyway, taking it from the top, do you not understand cyclists use the road, as do cars, and pedestrians the pavements? In other words, your suggestion helmets might reduce pedestrian injuries is entirely specious. I do hope your point about drivers becoming more aware of cyclists because they wear helmets is correct. Cyclists and vehicles share the same space, but one is far more likely to cause harm to the other in the event of an accident.
Your point about the link between drunk driving and ad campaigns is spot on, though I don't think it's remotely relevant for motorists vis a vis cylists, unless you are saying you think a cyclist is like a drunk driver, so remove the drink and you'll save lives? The cyclist, the pedestrian or your beloved driver?
You also seem to be totally unaware of conditions in countries other that your own, not to mention the history of cycling. I do not know why you think no-one knew anything about bikes on the road in the 1970s and had to get used to them, they've been around since Victorian times.
Your other comments are irrelevant; If you cycle yourself, you know the most important thing is to remember for any road user you share the road with other road users, who should be respected, and whose lives are just as important as yours. I assume you cycle or have cycled, so you are well aware that, if you have an accident with a motorised vehicle, it is unlikely they will come off worse.
I find your other points not worth bothering to refute, I mean, drunk cycling, for example. Yes, there may be cases, but a drunk cyclist speeding through a red light into a bunch of cars? Really!!
However, here's a final one, which made me chuckle :"For the period 1990–2016, we estimate 1332 fewer cycling fatalities ... " So they admit there is no data showing that helmets alone saved lives.
Do you understand what the word "estimate" means ?