• Taleya
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    countries with heavy helmet use have more head injuries per 100,000 miles ridden than those with low helmet use.

    Now compare that to fatalities. There’s the answer to your second sentence.

    • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, fatalities also go down. All hospitalizations do. It’s not survivor bias, it’s a solid inverse correlation between helmet use and injury. Netherlands, Denmark, Japan all have very low helmet use and very low injuries.

      • Taleya
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The three you just mentioned also have a heavy cyclist culture, and infrastructure in place that facilitates separate biking though

        • uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s quite true. And they got that via sustained policy to encourage cycling. It’s been quite demonstrated that mandatory helmets actively discourage cycling, leading to both a disinvestment in infrastructure and drivers being less comfortable around cyclists (thus more dangerous)

          I am not making a point about individual choices. Anyone should feel free to wear a helmet. But public policy is a different beast, and the data on mandatory helmets laws are inconclusive as to benefit and clear as to cost.

          • Taleya
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Good lord, no.

            If having to wear basic safety equipment that literally dons and removes in a split second ‘discourages’ you from cycling, you are either incredibly vain or outright lying to yourself about the true causes of not riding.