Biesikl helmets, saefty and lors

Prompted by this nies series of komiks. Mimi and Eunice is very rekomendabl.

Then i did sum initial reeding, starting with Wikipedia.

Eeven tho thear is noe sientifik konsensus about just hou saef thees helmets ar, it seems to me that the purson hu konklooded that this is basikaly korekt:

“The exercise is included to show the maximum impact on fatalities that helmet

laws could have in the best of all possible worlds. It is included for three

reasons: as an indication of the scale of the benefits the intervention might

achieve, as a contribution to debates about the costs and benefits of helmet

legislation, and as a methodology that others may wish to refine. It is most

certainly not an estimate of the expected reduction. It assumes universal and

correct use of helmets, it assumes that risk compensation does not occur and it

assumes that no children die as a result of strangulation or other injuries caused

by helmet use. These assumptions are most unlikely to be correct in the real

world.” (Gill, Tim (2005) (PDF). Cycling and Children and Young People, A review. National Children’s Bureau. pp. 42–43. ISBN 1-904787-62-2.)

Seems liek a typikal kaes of an oeverly strong fokus on saefty (esp. with children “save the children”) with disregard for other konsekwenses of such lors. Ofk, thear ar orlsoe isues with paternalism.

Leave a Reply