Nolén Sixten, Lindqvist Kent
Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linköping, Sweden.
Inj Control Saf Promot. 2004 Mar;11(1):39-46. doi: 10.1076/icsp.11.1.39.26314.
The municipality of Motala in Sweden introduced a local bicycle helmet 'law' on May 1, 1996. This is not a legally enacted ordinance, but instead a legislated recommendation backed up by information and education. Formally, the law applies to children (aged 6-12 years), although the intention is to increase helmet use by all cyclists. The objective of the present study was to quantitatively evaluate the impact of the Motala helmet law on observed use of helmets by children and adults. Bicycle helmet use was monitored in Motala (n = 2,458/year) and in control towns (n = 17,818/year) both before and after adoption of the helmet law (1995-1998). Chi-square tests showed that helmet wearing 1995-1998 increased in Motala among all bicyclists (from 6.1% to 10.5%) and adults biking on cycle paths (from 1.8% to 7.6%). Helmet use by school children aged 6-12 increased during the first 6 months after introduction of the law (from 65.0% to 75.7%) but then progressively decreased to the pre-law level. Considering children cycling on cycle paths and for recreation in housing areas, there was a tendency towards increased helmet use during the first post-law year, but this was followed by a reduction to a lower level in 1998 than in 1995. Logistic regression analysis taking into account data from the control towns indicated that the helmet law had a positive effect on children cycling to schools during the first 6 months, and a weak delayed but more long-term positive effect on adult cyclists on cycle paths. There were no positive effects on children in housing areas and on cycle paths. The Motala helmet law probably would have had greater and more lasting effects on helmet use by bicyclists, if certain problems had been avoided during the initiation phase. Moreover, although it did have a positive influence on both school children and adults, it is not legally binding, and hence no penalties can be imposed. Presumably, compulsory legislation would have a more substantial impact on helmet wearing than a non-mandatory helmet 'law' such as that introduced in Motala.
瑞典的莫塔拉市于1996年5月1日出台了一项地方自行车头盔“法律”。这并非一项依法颁布的条例，而是一项通过宣传和教育予以支持的立法建议。从形式上讲，该法律适用于儿童（6至12岁），不过其目的是提高所有骑车人的头盔使用率。本研究的目的是定量评估莫塔拉头盔法律对儿童和成人头盔实际使用率的影响。在头盔法律实施之前及之后（1995 - 1998年），对莫塔拉（每年n = 2458）和对照城镇（每年n = 17818）的自行车头盔使用情况进行了监测。卡方检验表明，1995 - 1998年期间，莫塔拉所有骑车人的头盔佩戴率有所上升（从6.1%升至10.5%），在自行车道上骑行的成年人的头盔佩戴率也有所上升（从1.8%升至7.6%）。6至12岁学童的头盔使用率在法律实施后的前6个月有所增加（从65.0%升至75.7%），但随后逐渐降至法律实施前的水平。考虑到在自行车道上骑行以及在居民区进行娱乐活动的儿童，在法律实施后的第一年有头盔使用率上升的趋势，但到1998年又降至低于1995年的水平。考虑到对照城镇数据的逻辑回归分析表明，头盔法律在最初6个月对骑车上学的儿童有积极影响，对在自行车道上骑行的成年骑车人有微弱的延迟但更长期的积极影响。对居民区和自行车道上的儿童没有产生积极影响。如果在启动阶段避免某些问题，莫塔拉头盔法律可能会对骑车人的头盔使用产生更大且更持久的影响。此外，尽管它对学童和成年人都产生了积极影响，但它没有法律约束力，因此不能实施处罚。据推测，强制性立法对头盔佩戴的影响可能会比莫塔拉推行的这种非强制性头盔“法律”更为显著。
