User:Rahmounik/sandbox

My name is Rahmouni k and I am a full time blogger and author of a kids bikes shop blog and bikes news called Kids Bikes Shop “Shop The Best Bikes for Kids”

Bicycle Helmet
Recent research on bicycle helmets and concerns about how public bicycle hire schemes will function in the context of compulsory helmet wearing laws have drawn media attention. The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) has commissioned the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) to review the available research and data to inform the development of the policy paper. This report commences with reviews of the national and international literature regarding the health outcomes of cycling and bicycle helmets and then presents crash and hospital data. The report also includes critical examinations of the methodology used by Voukelatos and Rissel (2010), and possible segmented approaches to bicycle helmet wearing legislation.

Cycling and health outcomes
The effects of bicycle riding on health can be positive or negative and can be divided into those which are direct to the individual and indirect effects on society as a whole. Elvik (2000) notes that the net effect on health of walking and cycling to the individual is the outcome of three impacts: (i) exposure to the risk of road crashes, (ii) exposure to air pollution from walking or cycling close to motor vehicles, and (iii) walking and cycling as a form of physical exercise. Indirect benefits may accrue to society if increased cycling results in less car use and therefore reductions in air pollution. Approximately 70% of Australians undertake insufficient weekly levels of physical activity which is associated with a number of chronic health conditions. A 10km bicycle commute to work twice a day has been shown to improve fitness and HDL cholesterol levels. The annual health benefit of active travel by bicycle has been estimated at approximately $3,500 for each new person, and half that value for continuing commuters (Genter et al 2008). A large number of studies have sought to examine the relationship between physical inactivity and increased mortality and morbidity. Some studies have focussed on cycling, while others have included a range of different types of physical activities. The research has generally found that cycling (and other forms of physical activity) are associated with lower premature mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer (all, colon, breast and lung), Type 2 diabetes, and depression. However, there are many factors that affect both health and the likelihood of cycling, making unambiguous links between cycling and better health outcomes difficult. Research into exposure to air pollution has shown that cyclists inhale more pollutants than drivers because of increased breathing rates and that this can result in immediate and longer-term cardiopulmonary damage. However, the general conclusion of most of this research has been that the benefits of physical activity outweigh the negative effects of exposure to air pollution (Pearce et al., 1998, cited in Elvik, 2000). The public health argument for bicycle use is a strong one, but includes a number of assumptions that can be questioned and the comparisons with injury data suffer from the poor quality and completeness of cycling injury data. There is a need to use the same basis of costing for both disease and injury costs, because injury costs are sometimes underestimated by using the human capital approach. The lower and upper threshold values for exercise (including cycling) to have a health benefit require good population data on how many people are riding how far and for how long and what other exercise they are doing that is generally missing. While safety in numbers has become something of a mantra, the underlying principles at the individual (cyclist and driver), local and wider level need to be understood. The initial demonstration of safety in numbers showed that increases in walking and cycling were found to lead to lower risk to the individual, but an increase in total motor vehicle crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists was still predicted. Some more recent research has examined whether circumstances could exist in which the reduction to risk to the individual could be large enough to result in an overall reduction in crashes. Cycling fatality and injury rates vary considerably among countries, being lowest in countries with well-developed cycling infrastructure and high cycling participation. While Australian rates per kilometre travelled are not available, New Zealand estimates show that fatality rates for cyclists per hour of travel are about four times greater than for car travel. In countries with low cycling participation (such as Australia but without universal helmet laws) the fatality rate per distance travelled is about 14 to 28 times higher than travelling in a car, although estimates of distances travelled by bicycle may not be reliable. Injury rates are more difficult to estimate because many low severity injuries are not treated and many on-road crashes are not reported to Police. Off-road riding is associated with lower injury severities than riding on the road. Clearly-marked, bicycle-specific facilities (including cycle tracks at roundabouts, bike routes, bike lanes and bike paths) are safer than on-road cycling with traffic or off-road with pedestrians and other users. Bicycle crashes on rural roads are often more serious because of the higher average vehicle speeds and lack of bicycle infrastructure.

Bicycle helmets
A review of the most scientifically rigorous research concluded that bicycle helmets that meet national standards protect against head, brain, and facial injuries. Helmet wearing was associated with a 69% reduction in the likelihood of head or brain injury and a 74% reduction in the likelihood of severe brain injury. The benefit was the same whether a motor vehicle was involved in the crash or not. Helmet wearing reduced the likelihood of injury to the upper and mid-face by 65%. In Australia, bicycle helmet wearing laws are universal in approach, applying to bicycle riders and pillions of all ages who are riding on roads and road-related areas (except in Northern Territory where they apply only on roads). Road-related areas include most riding locations. Bicycle helmet wearing laws have been introduced in many other jurisdictions in North America and Europe but most commonly apply only to children (or apply to certain riding areas only in a small number of countries). Compulsory helmet laws have been criticised by various organisations (e.g. the British Medical Association) and individuals. Many of these critics acknowledge the injury reductions associated with helmet wearing but consider that these are outweighed by detrimental health and safety impacts associated with reductions in cycling participation. Others have argued that helmets encourage risky riding or that they distract attention from other safety measures such as improvements to infrastructure and reductions in motor vehicle speeds. The introduction of bicycle helmet wearing legislation has led to increases in wearing rates in jurisdictions where the legislation is universal (with lower rates but still increased for teenagers) and where it applies to children only. Australian and international research has demonstrated that introduction of bicycle helmet legislation was followed by a reduction in the number and severity of head injuries to cyclists. New Zealand research shows that the legislation has good cost-effectiveness. In support of this conclusion, changes to US motorcycle helmet laws have shown that head injury (and overall fatality and injury) rates have increased when universal laws were repealed and returned to earlier levels when laws were reinstated. The ability to assess the effects of bicycle helmet laws on cycling participation rates is constrained by the lack of long-term participation data that covers all types of riding. It is also difficult to predict what current cycling participation levels might have been under different scenarios. Limited work has been conducted in Australia specifically to evaluate the effect of helmet legislation on cycling participation. In Melbourne adult cyclist numbers doubled after the helmet legislation was introduced but there were fewer child cyclists, particularly teenagers. Data from South East Queensland suggests that the number of journeys to work by bicycle fell after the introduction of helmet legislation but now exceeds pre-legislation trip numbers. However, this excludes the number of trips taken by for purposes other than commuting (recreation, social, health and fitness, training etc.) which are likely to outnumber commuting trips. Research studies, bicycle counts, sales data and anecdotal evidence suggest that cycling is increasing in popularity. There is evidence that the number of commuter cyclists has increased in Melbourne since 2006, and that the total number of cyclists travelling on bicycle paths in Perth increased between 2008 and 2010. The WAVE surveys undertaken in Queensland provide little reliable information on the extent to which compulsory helmet wearing is a disincentive to cycling because of the very small number asked this question and the variations in how the question has been asked over time. Even among the small sample of respondents, compulsory helmet wearing was never provided as an unprompted response and it was the sixth or tenth most common response when prompted. Other Australian surveys have also reported that compulsory helmet wearing ranks very low among a long list of reasons for not riding a bicycle. There is mixed evidence regarding the effect of mandatory helmet use for children on cycling participation in international studies. Research from locations where helmet wearing is not compulsory has identified many other factors as barriers to cycling including weather, distance, perceived levels of safety and other psychological factors.