1. The cost of helmets, both monetary and social — i.e., Helmets are uncool, so if I’ve got to wear a helmet to ride my bike, I’ll find something else to do.Freaky economist also offers his own possible explanations:
2. “There is evidence that youths have suboptimally high discount rates (Gruber 2001), such that some youths might place too little weight on the expected gain in future utility from the prevention of injury or death relative to the costs of wearing helmets today.”
3. Bike-helmet laws lower the price of activities similar to biking — skateboarding, rollerblading, etc. — that do not require a helmet.
1. Helmets are a hassle.
2. Helmet laws make cycling seem more dangerous than we used to think it was. Therefore, a certain kind of parent develops a bias against it, and no longer encourages his or her kids to ride a bike — or, perhaps, never even bothers to buy the kid a bike.
Helmet laws exist in 21 states... including Georgia and Alabama.
What's poorly reasoned about that? Looks statistically sound to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, interesting to note the 19% reduced fatalities from helmet laws.
I've spent a lot of time in economics classrooms and never felt the discipline give off its own impulse....
I think they mistake correlation for causality. One might say it's a question about endogeneity!
ReplyDeleteso dialectically speaking, there is just an independent wave of anti-bike sentiment sweeping the coastal states (and georgia and alabama)? Or that the waning bike enthusiasm in coastal states (and georgia and alabama) brought on helmet laws?
ReplyDeleteIs there another way to look at the data that makes sense?
I know of a couple seminars you should attend. Pizza will be served.