srw
It's a bit more complicated than that...
At the risk of re-opening a spiral that's just been locked, I came across this today. I don't believe it was linked in that spiral - apologies if so. http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/saving-the-unicorn/
The key points - already 84% of under-14s wear helmets, so there's a tiny population exposed to the theoretical risk of not wearing one. The TRL report only cites one year of historical data, in which there was an unusually large spike of bike injuries. In that year only 2 under-14s were injured - and only then only slightly.
So the impact of the law on injuries will be the square root of diddly-squat. The article I've linked to summarises it like this:
The key points - already 84% of under-14s wear helmets, so there's a tiny population exposed to the theoretical risk of not wearing one. The TRL report only cites one year of historical data, in which there was an unusually large spike of bike injuries. In that year only 2 under-14s were injured - and only then only slightly.
So the impact of the law on injuries will be the square root of diddly-squat. The article I've linked to summarises it like this:
So – and here is where we realise can ignore the discussion about efficacy – where is the problem that helmet compulsion is supposed to address? The report contains no evidence that it exists.
Remember, the legislation will only have an effect where:
- the individual is under 14, and
- is in the 16% not already using a helmet, and
- is in the 50-100% of that 16% who will start using a helmet rather than not cycle, and
- is in the 50% at most of that 50-100% of that 16% who – given the pre- and post-compulsion data cited in the report – will actually obey the law, and
- is involved in an incident in which, without a helmet, they would sustain a head injury, and
- the incident is of a nature where the helmet makes a substantive difference to the outcome