Text 1: Public-health official Park argues that bicycle helmet laws save lives. After Australia introduced mandatory helmet laws in 1990, head injuries among cyclists fell measurably. Helmets reduce the severity of impacts, Park notes, and laws ensure that more cyclists wear them.
Text 2: Public-health official Singh agrees that helmets reduce injury per cyclist but raises a counterargument. Mandatory helmet laws, she notes, also reduce overall cycling rates by making the activity less convenient. Fewer cyclists may mean less pressure for safer infrastructure and worse population-level health outcomes from reduced exercise.
The authors most clearly disagree about
- A
whether helmets reduce injury severity in crashes.
- Bcheck_circle
the net public-health impact of mandatory helmet laws.
- C
whether Australia exists.
- D
whether bicycles exist.
Explanation
Both accept that helmets reduce injury; they differ on net population effects of mandates. B captures the dispute. A, C, and D are points of agreement or trivial.