Oh I read it, but you clearly didn't understand the question, so I'll repeat:
Surely you understand focusing only on children does not give you a comprehensive overview of the impact on the population as a whole. Also, where does the Robinson report cover the effects on overall population health or other societal impacts?
Leo now you have lost me, I haven't answered your question because I am not advocating for mandatory helmet use. I simply don't understand why people are so vehemently against the wearing of helmets in urban areas and I don't think a mandatory law would actually have an impact on participation. You are making claims that mandatory helmet use has a negative societal/health impact on cycling based on a random article "Australia's Helmet Law Disaster" which is based on the Robinson paper. The Robinson paper is supposed to support your argument (not mine) but it doesn't, it's a very poor paper in my opinion. I've pointed out that in other countries, similar studies showed no impact on cycling participation so I don't believe it is possible to say that mandating helmets will result in a reduction in cyclist followed by an unhealthy population from lack of exercise.
I'd be strongly against compulsory helmet wearing as it's proven to reduce cycling, particularly in children, when we need to encourage the opposite from both traffic congestion and health perspectives. With the move towards 30km/h speed limits in most urban areas, these should be safe environments to cycle in without the need for a helmet.
As I said, this has never been proven. Cycling participation has increased/decreased in various countries that have no helmet laws so it is impossible to draw a sweeping conclusion on it.
The data says that overall helmets make little or no difference to injury numbers or outcomes. Look at the studies referenced in the Beaumont paper and look at the results where helmet use was made mandatory. You'll see little change in cycling injuries but a significant increase in morbidity due to the health implications of fewer people cycling. A neurologist will always tell you everyone should wear helmets all the time and if they did, X% of injuries would be mitigated, but they are the wrong people to assess the overall societal impact of mandating helmet use.
Again this is simply not true, helmets will not change the number of injuries but they will reduce the severity of head/facial injuries.
More risk-taking by cyclists* and less precautions among motorists overtaking them (studies show drivers pass on average 8.5cm closer to cyclists wearing helmets) increasing the risk of injury to remaining cyclists
That study, by Dr Ian Walker has a number of major flaws, most importantly the fact that he cycled the bike for all of the collected data points so there is an inherent bias in what he was doing. If he dons a wig and changes his cycling behaviour then it not really a reliable study. This
study re-analysed the same data and debunked Walkers conclusions. They acknowledged there was a difference in overtaking distance (5.8cm rather than 8.5cm) but that it occurred when the overtaking distance was sufficiently safe, well above 1m so it is not really significant. Other factors such as distance to the kerb are more important to cyclist safety.
* Multiple studies show that wearing helmets increases risk-taking. Indeed, it has been show that the wearing of a helmet https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797615620784 (increased the risk appetite) of study participants in activities where the helmet could have no possible effect on the outcome.
The best one yet...Dr Ian Walker (again) tested 80 participants, 39 with 41 without helmets all from the comfort of an office chair while inflating an imaginary balloon on a computer screen. If you genuinely believe that helmet/no helmet while completing a computerized questionnaire and inflating a computerized balloon has any relevance to risk taking while actually cycling then I don't know where to go from here. It is a shockingly poor test procedure. Of course people will behave differently when you put a helmet on their head while sitting at a computer, it is an illogical thing to do. It is akin to putting socks on a cat and expecting them to walk normally
Anyway, my last thoughts on it:
- Improving infrastructure, motorist and cyclist behaviour will reduce frequency of injuries
- Promoting the wearing of helmets will reduce severity of head injuries at all speeds but significantly at lower speeds. A RTA above 70/80kph will more than likely result in a serious head injury or fatality so the benefit of a helmet irrelevant. The impact forces are far too great for the helmet to make a difference.
