this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
48 points (96.2% liked)

Australia

3607 readers
39 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

That meta study is actually quite interesting as a source for specific data. For instance, this paper found that the swedish helmet law had low effect on head injuries because it causes low risk cyclists to stop cycling.

This paper demonstrates that a safety-in-numbers effect exists for cycling, suggesting that we have policy which encourages more cycling.

What most of the sources cited demonstrate, and which I haven't contested because its pretty self evident, is that out of people admitted to the emergency department of a hospital, those who where wearing helmets had less head injury.

That meta study, and most of the cited studies, does not account for the injury rate for time spent by cyclists, or the total number of cyclists on the road. As seen in studies linked elsewhere in this thread, helmet laws do have an impact on those metrics also, and can be detrimental to the safety in numbers effect.