Sentences with phrase «helmet legislation»
Helmet legislation refers to laws or regulations that mandate the use of helmets, typically for specific activities or in certain situations. These laws are put in place to ensure the protection and safety of individuals by making it mandatory to wear helmets to prevent injury, especially to the head or brain. Full definition
There were three general arguments advanced against mandatory helmet legislation....
treehugger.com
There are proponents and opponents of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation, and both sides have a number of valid points to consider.
The researchers did not find a correlation between bike helmet legislation and injury rates, but it did find that female cyclists tend to be more cautious.
The first related to the potential for mandatory helmet legislation to decrease the overall number of cyclists.
The report The effects of bicycle helmet legislation on cycling - related injury» is available as PDF.
«Contrary to popular belief, provincial helmet legislation does not cause people to cycle less, but it does result in increased helmet use, which has been shown to prevent serious head injuries, «said Dr. Zarychanski.
The results were released today in a study, Bicycling injury hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions: analyses examining associations with helmet legislation and mode share.
In addition, some stakeholders felt that mandatory helmet legislation sent the message that the responsibility for safety rests with the cyclist alone, rather than being a shared responsibility of all road users.
Mandatory helmet legislation showed NO statistical evidence that it reduced fatalities and head injuries!
Associate Professor Chris Rissel wants to see a trial for two years in one city to see if repealing the bicycle helmet legislation increases cycling participation, and / or any change in the volume of head trauma case.
Dr Rissel told reporter Lindy Kerin: «There was a substantial drop in head injuries compared to wrist injuries in the 1980s, which then tails off and flattens out from the 1990s and the introduction of helmet legislation came in 1991 and all the big drop in head injuries happened before the introduction of the legislation and the legislation doesn't seem to have been associated with a big reduction that you'd expect.
Dr Rissel added that after helmets were made compulsory, he and his colleague discovered «a continued but declining reduction in the ratio of head injuries to arm injuries [and]... it is likely that factors other than the mandatory helmet legislation reduced head injuries».
After studying health data, they found that helmet legislation introduced in two jurisdictions, PEI and Alberta, had no negative impact on bicycle use.
This created an opportunity for Researcher Kay Teschke and associates «to calculate exposure - based bicycling hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions with different helmet legislation and bicycling mode shares, and to examine whether the rates were related to these differences.»
It makes for an interesting study on The effects of provincial bicycle helmet legislation on helmet use and bicycle ridership in Canada.
Stricter bicycle helmet legislation and mass helmet usage in other countries (U.S.A., Australia, and New Zealand) have failed to produce any statistically significant reduction in the rates of fatalities and head injuries, despite optimistic projections.
While there may be differences of opinion with respect to the value of mandatory helmet legislation, the key message to all Ontarians is simple:
The second argument against mandatory helmet legislation relates to the view that government may see mandatory helmet legislation as «the answer» to cycling safety, with the result that other measures recommended in this Review (improved infrastructure, legislative review, education and enforcement activities) are de-emphasized or not acted upon.
In recognition of the controversy that surrounds the issue of mandatory helmet legislation, both within the Review's Expert Panel, and in the cycling community as a whole, this recommendation indicates that the implementation of such legislation should occur within the context of an evaluation of the impact of mandatory helmet legislation on cycling activity in Ontario.
Notwithstanding the varied perspectives on helmet legislation, the Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario takes the position that helmet use by all cyclists can and will decrease fatal head injuries.
Proponents of this view cited the experience in Australia, where the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation was associated with a drop in cycling activity.
When it comes to mandatory helmet legislation, it is widely considered by experts now to have either no impact or a negative impact on public health.
The bicycle - related mortality rate in children 1 to 15 years of age has decreased significantly, which may be attributable in part to helmet legislation.
The ultimate conclusion is that other factors are more important that mandatory helmet legislation.
More in the Globe and Mail More in Treehugger on bike safety, helmets and helmet legislation.
We did not find a relationship between injury rates and helmet legislation.
In our view, the most important implication of our results is that factors other than helmet legislation influenced bicycling hospitalisation rates, whereas helmet legislation did not.