While many studies claim reductions in head injury rates after laws were introduced, many of these studies ignore long term trends and other reasons for the change. This applied to many of the Australian research studies , where the was a long term trend for decreases before the laws were introduced, for all head injury rates, including non-bike statistics to follow similar trends and for the compounding effects of the decline in numbers of bike users on the roads after the laws were introduced.
Bike helmets are designed to reduce the damage done by linear forces, by providing a soft yielding layer which reduces the maximum linear acceleration to the brain during impact. However, head impacts do not generally involve a direct square-on impact. Generally the impact is at an angle as the head hits the ground with forward momentum; or the head glances off the windshield of a motor vehicle.
Such an impact is likely to generate rotational force on the head and brain, but the effects of these forces is unknown. There is a risk that helmets may actually increase both the brain and other injury rates because the addition of head gear will increase both the size and mass of the head.
This means blows that would have been glancing and minor, may become more solid and thus transmit increased rotational forces to the brain and may increase diffuse brain injury. Another consideration is the differences in friction between the bare head and a helmet. A bare head and hard shell head gear are very similar and generally slide readily on impact.
However, tests have shown that soft helmets tend to grab the surface of asphalt, rotating the head and producing large angular accelerations. This is a matter of concern given that most head gear worn are soft-shelled.
However most of these are now have 'slippery' outer layers. There are cases of young children playing on or close to bunk beds,clothes lines, trees, play equipment, etc. To avoid these serious accidents, carers and parents should take care to ensure that children do not wear their bicycle head gear when playing unsupervised, or when using climbing equipment at home or in public parks. Bicycle use has been shown to have major large long-term health benefits and many countries and authorities have launched campaigns to increase the number of people who use bikes and introduced bike paths and other facilities.
Estimates have shown that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, perhaps by 20 to 1 according to one estimate. A reduction in the number of cyclists is likely to harm the health of the population more than any possible protection from injury. Introduction of compulsory laws has generally led to a decline in bicycle use and a reduction in the health benefits. Bike helmets are an additional expense and may make cycling less convenient; they are bulky and they cannot be stored securely with bikes and this is an added inconvenience.
Bicycle head gear is seen as incompatible with some hairstyles many regard helmets as vexatious and ridiculous. The British Medical Association, in , formally called on the UK government to introduce cycle helmet legislation. The Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV found contradictory evidence for and against bike head gear use, but on balance concluded "that a bicycle helmet is an effective means of protecting cyclists against head and brain injury", however the Dutch Government does not support compulsion or promotion.
A study, much quoted and debated, by Thompson et al. The review authors concluded from the study that helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury. However but this study has since been widely criticized for it's faulty methodology.
The issue that raises is whether the behaviour of cyclists change as a consequence of wearing head gear in ways that offset the protective benefits. Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to increase their risk taking by a factor of four to overcome the protective effect of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions.
Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries. Neither enforced helmet laws nor promotion campaigns have been shown to reduce serious head injuries, except by reducing cycling. The remaining cyclists do not gain any detectable reduction in risk, and they may lose some of the benefits from 'safety in numbers'. So instead of focusing on helmets, health and road safety professionals and others should promote cycling as a safe, normal, aspirational and enjoyable activity, using helmet-free role-models and imagery.
Individual cyclists may sometimes choose to use helmets, either for confidence or because of the type of cycling they are doing. However, they should not feel under any pressure to wear them.
For the sake of our health, it is more important to encourage people of all ages to cycle, than to make an issue of whether they use a helmet when doing so. Policy Key Facts. Enforced helmet laws have consistently caused substantial reductions in cycle use e. They have also increased the proportion of the remaining cyclists who wear helmets, yet the safety of these cyclists has not improved relative to other road user groups e.
Surprisingly, no state bicycle law requires adult cyclists to wear a helmet , and only 22 require younger cyclists to wear them, usually up to age By contrast, 47 states have motorcycle helmet laws, and 19 of them have universal helmet laws — that is.
Posted in : Medical Law Show details. Posted in : Sea Law Show details. Bring up the subject of bicycle helmets. Mandatory bicycle helmet laws are a terrible idea. Cycling as a form of recreation and transportation offers a myriad of benefits to the individual and the community as a whole.
The same law applies to passengers riding on the bike or in an attached trailer. In Black Mountain and Boone, all riders must wear a protective helmet , no matter how old they are. It may not do so in all occasions, but it may make the difference between life and death in some occasions. I am sure nobody will challenge this statement. Now another maybe-not-so-evident truth: any imposition wil. It is a message that was drilled into bicyclists when they were children learning to ride for the first time: Wear your helmet so that you do not crack your skull.
In some states. The effect of good infrastructure cannot be ignored: the Netherlands — which is the safest country in the world for cycling , with the widest demographic of people who cycle — also has the lowest rate of helmet …. Posted in : Form Law Show details. The proposed law , in addition to extending that to all riders, would require riders to wear …. Without a national law saying that helmets are or are not required despite the CDC's efforts , we've ended up with a …. One of proposed changes would lift the helmet requirement for both riders and passengers over the age of 21, and other would exempt riders whose motorcycles are registered in a state without helmet law.
Out of the. The map below shows what states require youth to wear a bike helmet and the ages that these requirements apply. If you ride a bike, you need to wear a helmet. At present, 22 states, including the District of. Posted in : Sports Law Show details. So too, the man killed on that dark Midlands road. Every year more than cyclists ….
Colorado does not require adult motorcycle drivers or passengers to wear helmets. All operators and passengers under 18 years of age must wear helmets that meet or exceed the standards established by the United States Department of Transportation DOT for motorcycle helmets ; the helmets must be designed to reduce injury from head impact, as well as ….
Twenty-one 21 states and the District of Columbia require bicycle helmets for children mostly 15 and younger, with some exception. Since , 21 states and the District of Columbia have made wearing helmets mandatory , with the other 29 yet to enforce state-wide laws on the matter. First of all, fairly obviously, it is against the law to cycle when under the influence of drink or drugs, regardless of whether you were riding on a footpath or the road.
Though this differs slightly from drink-driving in that a police officer cannot force you to provide a sample of your breath, blood or urine. Perhaps less well-know is the law on cycling on pavements. Bikes are considered vehicles, so however harsh this may seem at times, they are meant for the roads. Pretty straightforward stuff.
There is no law in the UK that requires cyclists to wear a helmets, although they are recommended to be warn by the Highway Code. Matthew is a freelance sports journalist from Warrington, England. See Matthew's Muck Rack profile.
0コメント