A reader of this blog recently commented that bicycle helmet laws may inhibit bicycling by making it seem more dangerous than it really is. It was the first time I’d heard the argument and I was slow to respond. Which was a good thing because all of a sudden a pair of articles appeared that made the same argument.
Elisabeth
Rosenthal, writing in the Sunday New York Times, compares Europe where
helmets are required only for children, few adults don helmets, and bicycling
is common to North American where helmets are often required for all and
bicycling is far less common.
Her key
observation is “… many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear
helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease, and
diabetes. And – Catch 22 – a result is
fewer ordinary cyclists on the road, which makes is harder to develop a safe
bicycling network.” Rosenthal goes on to
quote an Australian researcher who estimates that the benefits of not requiring
helmets may outweigh the costs by 20-to-1.
Chris
Bruntlett, writing in Hush, makes the same argument and provides further
data, including the estimate that annual medical expenses in Australia are
increased by $301 million because helmet laws inhibit the health benefits that
would result from bike riding. He
contends that helmet laws have been shown to be failures pretty much
everywhere.
I’m not a
bicyclist and haven’t been one for years.
(Let’s put it this way. I’ve
never worn a bike helmet.) But I’d like
to hear from bicyclists with thoughts on this issue.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment