http://www.ecf.com/ (European Cyclists’ Federation) We presume they make cycling advocacy their specialty...
John Pucher is a professor in the School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He has conducted research on a wide range of topics in transport economics and finance, including numerous projects for the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Canadian government, and various European ministries of transport. For over three decades, he has examined differences in travel behavior, transport systems, and transport policies in Europe, Canada, the USA, and Australia. Over the past 15 years, Pucher’s research has focused on walking and bicycling, and what North American and Australian cities can learn from European cities to improve the safety, convenience, and feasibility of these non-motorized modes.
So he has no medical qualifications but he is making statements about health benefits.
He also seems likely to have no training in economics and finance.
Personally If I has a health issue I would not seek advice from a Professor of planning and public policy.
As I asked before in what peer reviewed journal did his findings appear?
Show me the study and statistics.
He's fairly well regarded. He has a PhD in Urban Studies and Planning and a BA in Economics. He's also fairly widely published:
I imagine a fair number of the journals he's published in are peer reviewed.
Certainly John Pulcher has an extensive resume.
So the representative of an organisation that is not listed as funding any of John Pulcher's research is now an expert?
It seems the last piece of research that John did that has European funding was in 1996 how current and relevant this research is I don't know.
While it may be true that changing helmet laws may increase the number of cyclists am I being unreasonable by wanting to see some quality research that confirms this before I become a convert?
Newspaper story's are not quality research.
It would be nice if the issue was as simple as helmet laws however I am sceptical.
How about losing the tram tracks. Get your wheel stuck in one of those or lose traction crossing them in the wet and you may well be very grateful for MHLs
I am not retiring my helmet. Other pluses include hiding a bad hair day, the helmet visor, and attachment place for lights that always point where you want to see.
Unfortunately I do not know of any plans for Australia. What, make space for this by removing car parking or a travel lane on an arterial road?!@ What I would like (after being injured by 3 drivers) and what is needed to get many Australians cycling. Several surveys state that the main reason people give for not cycling is "unsafe". For example, 'Safety in Numbers: A cycling strategy for SA 2006-2010'.
Your acting as if people are trying to get helmets banned, We aren't talking about Burkas.
Nobody is saying people shouldn't be wearing helmets.
Doddsy, I like my helmet for safety reasons but chose to give extra reasons above. In Oct-2012 I was cycling slowly on a quiet country road when I crashed. Judging by my injuries and extensive bruises, grazes and cuts, reckon the helmet save me from head injury. My face had gone black before I left hospital emergency.
Yes and thats why nobody's telling you not to wear a helmet.
The article mentions "Bike use has risen from just 5 per cent of the German capital's population in 1990 to today's levels, where bikes outnumber cars in some neighbourhoods. Remarkably, the big leap has occurred with a corresponding 38 per cent drop in the cyclist injury rate, according to the Brussels-based European Cycling Federation"
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/drop-speeds-ditch-helmets-cycling...
Mandatory helmet laws did not get the results we were looking for. Unless the results our government was looking for involved getting people off bikes.
A cop out.
My European cycling experience includes about 300 km in Austria, where helmets are not compulsory, but about 30% do wear them. I found it a very safe place to cycle, as it is just part of their culture. Cyclists are respected by other road users both in cities and out on country roads. Budapest in Hungary was "interesting" !
From a public health point of view it seems likely that society would benefit from more people cycling.
It seems likely that there would be other benefits as well.
But what evidence is there that a significant number of people will take up cycling if helmet laws were changed?
If there is a significan number of people just waiting to go and start riding a bike as soon as helmet laws are changed it should be easy to get a list of people who will stand up and say.
"I am happy to spend $1000 on a bike but the $50 on a helmet is such a barrier they I will now spend nothing."
As an individual there seems to be strong evidence that a helmet will reduce the chance of head injury if you are involved in an accident that involves you head.