All bike riders in Australia have to wear a helmet, regardless of age. The country has had a mandatory, universal helmet law since 1990.But could helmet laws actually harm public health? Piet de Jong, an Australian mathematician at Macquarie University, thinks so. Helmet laws have an obvious positive effect: namely, reducing the likelihood of a serious head injury in a bike accident. But, according to de Jong, that is outweighed by the fact that helmet laws mean people bike less, thereby reducing the amount of exercise people get, causing health problems like obesity.According to de Jong, bike helmet laws actually have pretty big net costs. Research has found that biking decreased by 20 to 40 percent in several Australian cities after their universal health law went into effect. Given his estimates of the health benefits of biking, de Jong estimates that “bicycle helmet laws would cost the U.S. $4.8 billion per year” if we enacted them here.As Cliff Kuang points out, helmets make a lot of sense for urban cycling. But a mandatory helmet law feels pretty paternalistic to me. And you don’t see many helmets at the average Critical Mass ride. If all those people had to wear one by law, would they just bike less?You can download de Jong’s study here.Photo from flickr user malouette (cc).
Tags
advertisement
More for You
-
14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations
These trailblazers redefined what a woman could be.
Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.
-
Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories
Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.
While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.
When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.
Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.
advertisement

