Sempiternel débat

Hé oui, je continue à alimenter le sempiternel ''débat'' sur le casque.

The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws Piet de Jong , Risk Analysis  2012 This article seeks to answer the question whether mandatory bicycle helmet laws deliver a net societal health benefit. The question is addressed using a simple model. The model recognizes a single health benefit -- reduced head injuries, and a single health cost -- increased morbidity due to foregone exercise from reduced cycling. Using estimates suggested in the literature of the effectiveness of helmets, the health benefits of cycling, head injury rates, and reductions in cycling, leads to the following conclusions. In jurisdictions where cycling is safe, a helmet law is likely to have a large unintended negative health impact. In jurisdiction where cycling is relatively unsafe, helmets will do little to make it safer and a helmet law, under relatively extreme assumptions may make a small positive contribution to net societal health. The model serves to focus the mandatory bicycle helmet law debate on overall health.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/index.cfm?lang=en&repository=The+Health+Impact+of+Mandatory+Bicycle+Helmet+Laws

(Le soulignement est de moi)

On (le peuple) a tendance à tout mettre dans le même panier et croire que le casque est LA seule et unique solution.  On a l'obligation de porter des ceintures de sécurité dans les automobiles mais on a quand même des zoufs qui vont trop vite et ne respectent aucun code sauf celui de leurs hormones.  Il y a plus de décès dans des escaliers de maison qu'en vélo, on oblige (?) une rampe mais ça arrive pareil.  Va-t'on banir les maisons à deux étages et sous-sol?

.