Les Humphreys (K) wrote: > What accident statistics are there to justify this initiative - > other than reducing the numbers of cyclists on the road, I wonder > if there has been any reduction in the numbers of serious head > injuries since helmet use has become mandatory.
First of all, this is a private member's bill, so it doesn't need justification unless you count getting cheap publicity. The sponsor is offering no justification. Second there are no reliable data showing reductions in serious head injuries and fatalities following MHL (except by reducing cycling) or during any other period when helmet use among cyclists increased. The most widely quoted study (a clinical study not a population study) claimed an 85% reduction in head injuries but that figure has never been replicated among real populations. The study has been roundly criticized for poor design methodology demonstrated by the non-representative hospital sampling when compared to street surveys. Such weakness is an inherent problem with all clinical studies. Despite that the 85% is still widely used by those pushing MHL. An analysis of Transport Canada fatality data for cyclists and pedestrians over a 25 year period <http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html> shows virtually identical trends between the two groups. Both are vulnerable road users and both were exposed to the same environmental factors on the road such as drunk and wreckless driving reduction campaigns, and were subject to the same accident reporting procedures. There has been one principal difference between the two. Over the period, cyclist helmet use went from zero to over 50%. Pedestrian helmet rate of course stayed at zero. Having said that about fatalities and serious injuries, there is reason to conclude that helmets will help in reducing minor injuries such as lacerations and abrasions, but that would be true if pedestrians wore them too. I don't expect any of the above explanations will stop folks believing in the tooth fairy though. The reduction in cycling that has occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, and it apppears also BC, following helmet legislation is a serious public health issue in those jurisdictions. Regular exercise, for example from cycling, reduces the risk of colon cancer and breast cancer by 30%, and heart disease by 50%. Add to those the benefits of cycling combined with diet modification to reduce obesity, and you attack the greatest cost by far of health care. Reduce cycling and you increase the burden on public health care systems. Regardless of the argument about the helmet effectiveness, this should be reason enough to close the book on this foolish bill. ------------------------------------------------- For list help, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (613) 230-1064 Website: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------- ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
