The team that did this research considered a factor that was definitely ignored or not fully considered by legislators: some people would stop riding bicycles completely instead of wearing helmets. Therefore, they estimate how many people will give up riding bicycles or use them less, what alternative modes of transportation they will choose, and what impact less cycling will have on their health. The negative impact on health may mean an increase in the cost of the national health care system, which will offset some of the costs saved by reducing the consequences of accidents.
The team used new interview techniques (stating preferences and activity-based surveys, and learned that this was the reason why I joined ITS) and collected a lot of data to be processed.
The team found that reducing the mandatory helmet law caused by cycling per kilometer (or personal mile) would be considerable. Most importantly, it will not affect all the population in the same way, but the elderly will reduce the use of bicycles. The population is younger and healthier, and the economy means that people with lower levels, especially those living in small villages, will ride bicycles less often than the rich people living in cities.
Can you imagine a Welsh farmer leaving his hat at home, wearing a neon bicycle helmet and riding his old railing to a bar? Or the old woman with blue hair and crushed curly hair with a bicycle helmet? Even death.
Another finding of this study is that people will quit bicycles or reduce the use of bicycle helmets, which will only replace walking or taking public transport to a certain extent. To a large extent, they can consider using cars, or another motorized transport, or simply give up some travel and stay at home, because in most cases, the journey by bicycle is too long and there is no other convenient public transport. This will make mobility more expensive, more difficult for many people to obtain, and bring negative social impact (this study did not consider this because it is not its scope).
Summing up all the advantages and disadvantages, the researchers found that the increase of heart and vascular events, diabetes and other minor illnesses caused by less physical exercise in old age will bring additional costs to the British national health insurance system, which will greatly reduce the costs, deaths and injuries caused by infringement.
The deep meaning of this study is that riding a bike with a helmet is good for you personally, because you protect your head. This is not the budget of the NHS, but it may be bad if it is imposed on the whole community.
A strike may be absurd. Riding a bicycle with a helmet will increase the health cost of an unhealthy population, but this type of research has replicated the same result in many countries: unlike motor vehicles, bicycles are very sensitive to restrictive regulations.
The Dutch method is to create a safe street environment for anyone who wants to ride a bike: parents with children, old people and warriors on the road. Riding a bike in Holland is no different from walking, and you don't need to wear special clothes.
Other countries have adopted a different approach: recognizing environmental dangers rather than solving them, and asking potential victims to protect themselves by forcing (or strongly recommending) helmets, high-visibility vests, etc. Sometimes, this practice is even partly blamed on the victims of traffic accidents (this time it is actual, not potential), because they died or were disabled without wearing proper protective equipment.
The second method puts cyclists and drivers on the same level: they must abide by the same laws, and they are all required to protect themselves: helmets, high-visibility vests take precedence, seat belts, airbags and collision avoidance.