An ode to bike helmets — and Canadians
Posted on September 4th, 2008 – 4:25 PMBy Josephine Marcotty
In the days when my daughter resisted wearing a bike helmet I tried to argue that if she did fall or get hit by a car that the thing most likely to kill her or cause her long-term harm was a head injury. Broken leg? It would heal. Really bad scrape? it would heal. Broken head? Probable death.
I figured I was entitled to the use of a parental scare tactic, but according to a study published this week in Pediatrics, I was pretty accurate. 
In 1993 the government of Ontario, Canada passed a law requiring everyone under the age of 18 to wear a bicycle helmet. Under that law, parents of violators younger than 16 paid a fine. Those older than 16 have to pay their own fines. It became effective in 1995, but does not apply to those older than 18.
Canadian researchers decided to measure whether the law actually reduced the number of deaths among bike riding children.
Between 1991 and 1995, before the law was enacted, there were 13 deaths per year among children aged 1 to 15. After 1995, the number of deaths among children was cut in half, to an average of 6 per year.
But among those older than 16 the number of deaths annually increased slightly from 21 to 22 per year, the researchers reported.
They concluded that the law should be extended to all adults. Hard to argue with that. But, hey, they’re Canadian. Reason often prevails.
10 Responses to "An ode to bike helmets — and Canadians"
I work at a Level 1 Trauma Center in the Twin Cities. In the last two years, we’ve had 40 kids admitted to our hospital with injuries sustained in a bike crash. Of those 40 kids, only two were wearing bike helmets. Obviously our Emergency Department has seen many, many more kids than this, but the take home message is: Kids who wear bike helmets are only slightly injured and get discharged from the ER. Kids who don’t, get admitted.
I guess kids didn’t ride bikes when I grew up.
We should have more laws, in fact, I think the government should completely control every aspect of our lives. We should all have all income diverted to our local government, and they should make decisions for us. we are far too stupid to be in a position to make even the most simple decision. I also think we should all wear helmets not just while biking, but when walking, eating, pooping, and sleeping. More government!!!! NOW!!!!!!!
No, kids definitely rode bikes when we were growing up. But, fewer of them lived to be adults. Just like fewer kids survived car crashes, drownings, poisonings and just about every other major cause of childhood injury that has been dramatically reduced in the last 20 years due to environmental improvements and these pesky laws that do in fact keep kids safe.
I do find it interesting that you seemed to be concerned that your money goes to local government, and yet you apparently don’t have a problem paying for the long-term health consequences of childhood injury. Even a mild traumatic brain injury can quickly exhaust the average American family’s health insurance and then guess who pays the bill….
Alison,
The same people who have to bail out the morons who don’t understand their own terms of their mortgage. The same people who pay for the welfare receipients that use the ER as their GP.
The same people who pay for public housing. The same people who pay for unemployed people to have more children… you know, us working folk who happen to bust our asses for our money.
I understand that, I too am one of those hard working folks and I also don’t like my hard earned money going towards public programs which are excessive. But that’s where I don’t understand your logic. If you don’t like paying for things that in no way affect your own life, then why would you be against improving safety laws? They will only save you money in the long run as fewer kids will get injured and need hospitalization and long-term care/rehab. When families exhaust their medical insurance (if they have it in the first place) a public program picks them up or the hospital writes off the cost, which eventually leads to higher costs for everyone. Either way, you pay. So why aren’t you out demanding that parents take proven precautions with their children that will save you money?
So why aren’t you out demanding that parents take proven precautions with their children that will save you money?
Alison,
I don’t want to sound cold, but by having a child, you assume thousands of responsibilities. When I vote no for a school referendum, and get the usual response from parents if it fails, (you don’t care about children), I say what about fiscal responsiblity?
I really don’t give a rats ass about anyone’s kids. Sorry, not my problem.
I make good dough, and live in a very nice home. I’m tired of paying for other peoples kids.
“I’m tired of paying for other peoples kids.”
Then you seem to agree with the Canadians. They too were tired of paying for kids’ injuries so they created this law and have probably saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical care expenses. Obviously the lives saved doesn’t matter to you, but the previous findings to the above-mentioned study also found a 45% reduction in bike-related head injuries after this law was enacted. That is significant as I believe the statistic is that Americans spend about $80 milllion dollars a year in direct costs related to bike-crash injuries. Saving $40 million a year in medical expenses would surely help you keep some of your hard-earned dough.
Alison,
Canada is your answer?
Why don’t you ask a Canadian how they feel about their health care?
Have you read anything I wrote?
Canada is not my answer. Improved child safety legislation to reduce child injury and death rates, and in turn the associated medical expenses, is my answer. The Canadians just happen to have taken this bold step and now their tax payers (not to mention their children) are reaping the benefits.
Sorry, Alison, I’m hearing circus music as you comment.
