Here are the
Dutch statistics.
Sorry, I couldn't find the exact comparable for Canadian cycling. However,
here's a comparison between injury rates in the Netherlands, and in Australia (where helmets are mandatory for everyone). Some highlights:
- * In the Netherlands from 2003/07, an average 8,000 cyclists were admitted to hospital each year, of whom 2,150 (or 26.85 per cent) suffered head injuries.
* In Australia in 2005/06, 4,370 cyclists suffered serious injury, of which 1,122 (or 25.67 per cent) were serious head injuries.
* (The Netherlands has 22 million people to Australia's 16.6 million, or 1.33 times as many people).
* The Netherlands has a 1.8% greater proportion of cyclist head injuries than does Australia.
* On average, every Dutch person cycles 2.5km every day and 93% of the population rides a bike at least once a week. Australians cycle about 0.1km every day.
I did find this second-hand
reference to helmet use and injury rates among Dutch cyclists.
However, the Netherlands Infrastructure Minister has called for helmets to be mandatory for children and the elderly,
but not other cyclists.
Scientists writing in the British Medical Journal say
there is no conclusive evidence one way or another about the public health benefits of wearing helmets while cycling.
A Canadian study that independent analysts say is the statistically soundest on the subjects, found compulsory cycle helmet laws
have had "minimal" effect on number of cycling head injury hospital admissions.
Danish urban planner Mikael Colville-Andersen says cycling fatalities drop when helmet laws are implemented because fewer people cycle. He also says helmets paint cycling as a dangerous activity , which changes people’s behaviour. You ride more dangerously with a helmet on, and motorists treat you with less caution.
His
TedTalk on the subject.
Exposure-based Traffic Crash Injury Rates by Mode of Travel in
British Columbia
Table 3 shows what you're looking for.
And some interesting figures when it comes to cycling vs walking:
The evidence is pretty persuasive that mandatory helmets for pedestrians would save more lives and reduce serious injuries more than mandatory helmets for cyclists.
A woman was seriously injured by a hit-and-run motorists in a parking lot this weekend. Odds are high that she suffered a head injury. And yet the media coverage of the story didn't say "authorities say she was not wearing a helmet" because we don't expect people to wear helmets while they walk. Why not? It would save lives and injuries - more than helmets for cyclists. But it's a hassle people don't want to endure. They'd rather marginally increase their chances of suffering a head injury or fatality than wear a helmet around while they walked everywhere. That's a deliberate choice to place convenience above safety.
But let's be honest - it has nothing to do with people analyzing risk empirically and everything to do with social norms.
Walking = Normal thing that requires no special equipment or safety precautions
Cycling = Unusual activity that requires special equipment or safety precautions
And then there's the political aspect. It's a lot easier to bully 10 per cent of the population to adopt than unpopular safety measure than it is to bully 100 per cent of the population.
Yeah, there's isn't much doubt about that. Not only do more cyclists on the road increase safety for cyclists, but the more people ride, the better the overall health of the population from the exercise. And we're not talking putting on spandex pants and going for a 40 km ride, but hoping on your bike to pick up milk and bread, or go to Starbucks, or go to a friend's place to watch a hockey game, or pick up the kids from school.
Research showing the mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling. Dutch health authorities phrase it this way: Cycling helmet laws save a few heads, and lose many hearts. We reduce a very small number of one type of harm (head injuries), and substantially increase another type (heart disease, obesity).