Umsagnir LHM vegna hugmynda umhjálmaskyldu

Til viðbótar efninu sem vísað er á hér fyrir neðan má nefna ítarlegar samantektir um málið í athugasemdum LHM við drög að nýjum umferðarlög 2008 og 2009. Sjá nánar í greinasafni okkar og styttri samantekt í þessari greininni "Um reiðhjólahjálma – skyldunotkun eða frjálst val ?" sem birtist á vef ÍFHK sem er aðildarfélag LHM. -PG



Umsögn Nr 1  (35 kb pdf)
Umsögn Nr 2  (426 kb pdf)
Skýrsla  Dorothy. L. Robinson   (132 kb pdf)
Umsögn Nr 3


Sjá einnig:

Tölvupóstur Magnúsar Bergssonar stjórnarmanns LHM þann 2. mai 2005 til Óla H. Þórðarsonar formanns Umferðarráðs vegan hjálmamálsins.

D. L. Robinson: Changes in head injury with the New Zealand bicycle helmet law • SHORT COMMUNICATION Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 33, Issue 5, September 2001, Pages 687-691

Robinson, D.L., 1996: Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws. Accident Analysis and Prevention 28, pp. 463–475.

Paul J. Hewson ( May 2005 ): Investigating population level trends in head injuries amongst child cyclists in the UK • ARTICLE Accident Analysis & Prevention, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 17

Wardlaw M. (Aug 2004) : Effectiveness of cycle helmets and the ethics of legislation. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine [NLM - MEDLINE]. Aug 2004. Vol. 97, Iss. 8; p. 409

"" eða

Hendrie et al, An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia ( Delia Hendrie, Matthew Legge, Diana Rosman and Carol Kirov Road Accident Prevention Research Unit Department of Public Health The University of Western Australia ) eða

" Under the assumptions used in the study, the most favourable estimate of the Net Present Value of the bicycle helmet legislation was $2.0 million, and this calculation excluded any costs associated with reduced cycling activity."

Sjá líka

"Cycling and Children and Young People - A review" af Tim Gill sem The National Children's Bureau gaf út í desember 2005:

Úrdráttur út "Cycling and Children and Young People - A review":

Aim and scope
This paper summarises and critically reviews the public policy evidence andarguments on cycling and children and young people's health, well-being andsafety. The paper focuses on England, though it follows much of the publisheddata in using relevant statistics from Great Britain or the UK as a whole.

There is widespread and growing agreement about the benefits of cycling for all sections of the population, and especially for children and young people. Children themselves remain the most active and enthusiastic age group of cyclists, in spite of the large decline in child cycling over the last thirty years or

There are clear drivers for action from the health, environmental, transport, sustainability and child policy arenas. And yet the level of activity remains modest, patchy and narrowly focused.

Most significantly for the National Children's Bureau (NCB) there is little evidence of engagement in cycling debates from the leading children's sector agencies involved in children's policy or child health. The formation of Cycling England marks a milestone in the development of cycling policy. ! It is also a good opportunity for NCB and others advocating for children to start a dialogue that could lead to advances for both the cycling movement and for children and
young people's happiness, health and well-being.

Child cycling has for some years been a policy priority for those concerned with cycle promotion. More recently, cycling has also come into the frame for those concerned with children's health and well-being. A look at their shared agendas suggests the potential for engagement and collaboration on the following issues:

· making the built environment cycle-friendly and child-friendly
· promoting cycling for fun and as a sport, and for journeys other than the school trip, including social and leisure destinations
· cycling in parks and open spaces
· cycling and social inclusion
· gender differences and promoting cycling for girls
· cycling as a lifetime travel mode: how childhood experience influences adult attitudes and choices.

As the ambivalent quote on cycling from the 2004 DfT road safety review shows, safety remains the contested territory in debates about cycling. There is little consensus about whether cycling, as an activity is `safe' or not. There is little consensus about how the responsibility for ensuring acceptable levels of cycling safety is shared between the state, other road users and cyclists (and in the case of child cyclists, their parents and carers). Limitations of scope mean these issues cannot be explored in detail here, though this paper argues that cycling is comparatively safe even for children and! young people, and the annex to this paper argues that the case has not yet been convincingly made for the compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets. Whether or not these conclusions are accepted, there is clearly a need for a consensus on the wider
question of responsibility for cycle safety.

The conclusion from the arguments outlined above is that the case for cycle helmets is far from sound. The strong claims of injury reduction made by helmet proponents have not been borne out for fatalities (which this paper argues is the most methodologically sound test of effectiveness) in real-life settings with large populations. Technical and operational limitations on the effectiveness of helmets support this conclusion, and arguments from the way humans respond to risk give it further support. Two key arguments against helmet promotion ­ strong criticism of the key case-control! studies and the first empirical evidence of risk compensation ­ have both recently appeared in peer-reviewed journals (Curnow 2005 and Mok and others 2004). The case of cycle helmets is arguably an example of a wider phenomenon in childhood accident prevention noted a decade ago by Dr Elizabeth Towner, first author of the Towner review:
`Very few of our present interventions, intended to prevent these injuries, are actually known to work' (Jarvis, Towner, & Walsh 1995).