What this Forum is missing is a Good Old Fashioned Helmet Debate

Read. Discuss.

By: Chris Bruntlett

"When it comes to the big helmet debate, I believe in choice. Much like many other things in life, such as; smoking, drinking, eating fast food, and having unprotected sex. All of which affect our health care system far more than riding your bike around the seawall without a hideous mushroom cap on your dome. Are we going to make it the law to wear a condom or give out tickets to fat people? I am not opposed to wearing helmets, especially for children, and if one often takes long rides in traffic or along the highway, but for a leisurely ride around Vancouver? I choose to not wear one, and I think people should decide what’s right for them, like most places around the world.”
-Mimi Lauzon, Bicycle Babes

I have a confession to make: I consciously and blatantly break the law on a daily basis. Every morning, I kiss my wife and children goodbye, and ride my bicycle slowly along a 5-kilometre stretch of protected bikeway to my office, where I work as a Residential Designer. It is a simple act. One that should be encouraged and celebrated, as it is in 99% of the world’s great cities. But rather, because I choose to do this without a piece of Styrofoam on my head, I am labeled a criminal, and face being charged by the Vancouver Police Department under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicle Act (as I have twice). This despite the fact I am not riding a Motor Vehicle, that I feel perfectly safe riding the city’s plentiful bike lanes, that I am statistically safer than a pedestrian crossing the street or even a driver sitting into a car, and that my choice of transport is far more economically and environmentally beneficial to the city.

When British Columbia first passed its adult bicycle helmet law in 1995, it was widely accepted as a sensible initiative to promote and increase road safety. The City of Vancouver followed suit shortly thereafter, passing a by-law that made it illegal to ride on city paths and seawalls without a helmet, under punishment of a $100 fine. Now, seventeen years later, it is undeniable these laws have not resulted in any of the benefits that were promised. They have not saved lives. They have not reduced healthcare costs. They have not increased road safety. It is therefore not surprising that only a handful of jurisdictions (BC followed Australia and New Zealand; the Maritime provinces followed us; then nothing) have since instituted such laws, while the rest of the world has recognized them for what they are: a complete disaster.

The most significant impact of criminalizing cycling without a helmet is the simple fact that the majority of people won’t bother. In particular, short, slow, utilitarian pedestrian-like bicycle trips to the grocery store or restaurant become a rarity. In a province facing the growing healthcare costs of 1.5 million obese or overweight people, this is of grave concern: especially when it is abundantly clear that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. Almost every study on the impact of mandatory helmet laws show a 30%-50% decrease in cycling rates, and up to 80% in some demographic groups, such as young females. The cost of this inactivity to society, in both lives and dollars, is monumental. It has been estimated that New Zealand’s helmet law contributes to 53 premature deaths per year, while Australia’s costs the taxpayer around $301-million in healthcare expenses annually.

Bike-share systems are another area where mandatory helmet laws become extremely problematic. Since the Vélib' launched in Paris five years ago, the City of Vancouver has been studying the idea of a bike-share of our own. The lengthy delay has been down to one factor: how do you force people to wear helmets for a spontaneous, short trip on a shared bicycle? Meanwhile, over 300 cities around the world have passed us by, including such cycling hotbeds as Omaha, Houston, and Kansas City. Only three have attempted to do so under a helmet law: Melbourne, Brisbane, and Auckland, all of which were colossal failures. Vancouver tentatively plans to launch a system in spring of 2013, which will be significantly smaller than its Montreal and Toronto counterparts, and (laughably) includes helmet-dispensing and sanitizing machines. All of this notwithstanding the fact bike-share programs have proven to be incredibly safe; London, with far fewer traffic-calmed streets than Vancouver, hasn’t experienced a single serious injury after 4.5 million trips. 

Unfortunately, neither the BC Liberals nor the NDP want to revisit this law, which also remains popular amongst the motoring majority: drivers who are freely allowed to smoke, drink, and eat as much fast food as they want, with no thought of the healthcare costs they impose. Even more disappointing has been the lack of leadership from Vancouver City Council, with Mayor Robertson and Councilor Deal both calling the law “appropriate”, and insisting the long-delayed bike-share program will proceed without any exemption.

However, there is a small but growing number of local activists who are speaking out against the law, calling themselves “The Church of Sit-Up Cycling” (in reference to one exemption from the BC helmet law: “conflict with an essential religious practice”) and launching a call to action: http://www.helmetchoice.ca. I stand proudly with the “Church”: the adult helmet law is a direct contradiction to our city’s goal of becoming the “World’s Greenest” in eight short years. It’s time to abandon the idea of helmet regulation, and try something new: increasing cycling safety through numbers and infrastructure, as they do in Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Montreal, and New York City. Then, and only then, will the bicycle stand a chance of becoming a viable and widely accepted mode of transportation in Vancouver. I, for one, can’t wait.

Photo Credit: By David Ellingson for Bicycle Babes

Views: 1067

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Schmoe on August 8, 2012 at 11:36am

A guy who was opposed to NY state's motorcycle helmet law, and was on a protest ride against said law, died in a low-impact crash, where he would (likely) have lived had he been wearing a helmet. In Canada, a nationalized health system means that all taxpayers are essentially funding your healthcare.  Being fat, and other lifestyle choices, are nuanced and have different impacts on the health of different people. Helmets are different. They are inexpensive, and easily taken on and off, and they're life-saving properties can be debated... but not really.  And off-point, her 5 km ride, or others short rides to the grocery store don't burn enough calories to make any kind of real impact on health, particularly if you're already obese. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-dies-helmet-p...

I understand the allure of choice, and I'm personally quite a big fan of the freedom to make choices.  I've personally made the choice to not wear a helmet when scooting around the neighborhood on occasion. That decision does have the possibility of costing the taxpayers money, and causing EMTs and cops the unenviable task of scraping my brain off the pavement.  While I'm not in favor of laws like this for cyclists in the US, I wouldn't complain too loudly if a city-wide ordinance were passed.  The biggest impact that I would be opposed to, are all the low-income riders on beaters (who aren't generally on this forum) that would be discouraged from cycling. 

Permalink Reply by Gort 12-mile Pinklegneep on August 8, 2012 at 12:01pm

This doesn't really inform the Helmet Debate though, since aggregate the healthcare cost of a law that's almost entirely ignored tells us pretty much zip about whether or not people should wear one.

It's a bit weird coming in arguing the principle from one of individual choice and then backing it up with as remotely-collective a figure as possible.

Permalink Reply by Gene Tenner on August 8, 2012 at 12:35pm

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 8, 2012 at 3:32pm

I support a helmet ban.

Permalink Reply by Vilda on August 9, 2012 at 2:03am

I need to shave my head...

Permalink Reply by Brendan Kevenides on August 9, 2012 at 2:27am

I am completely against a statute or ordinance that would mandate helmets.

That said, I wish I could share with all of you who ride in the city w/o one photos of a client I presently represent who was hit by a SUV and suffered a serious head injury.  He was not wearing a helmet and told me that he wish he had.

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 9, 2012 at 2:56am

I agree that it should be an individual choice, but I hope that more people will choose helmets.

Permalink Reply by Liz on August 9, 2012 at 3:16am

While I do wear a helmet, I've always felt that there are other ways to reduce the number of cycling injuries.  

Wearing a helmet and mitigating the effects of an accident

Riding more defensively reduces the risk of an accident in the first place. Paying attention to stop sign/lights, using head/tail lights, not passing turning vehicles on the right, passing stopped traffic with caution and maintaining adequate space, etc seem to me a better way to reduce the total number of injuries.  

There are some collisions and falls that are not preventable, but many can be prevented. 

Permalink Reply by Lanterne Rouge on August 9, 2012 at 3:16am

I think I saw this guy at Full Moon Fiasco.
 
Gene Tenner said:

Permalink Reply by Chris B on August 9, 2012 at 4:22am

I just lost my helmet. I had it yesterday morning, and when I left work it was gone. I have no clue where it is, but I figure it must be in the building somewhere.

I read that Boston is adding a "helmet-share" to their bike share, where people can rent helmets. It will be interesting to see how that works out. I really don't want someone else's sweaty helmet.

Permalink Reply by in it to win it 8.0 mi on August 9, 2012 at 4:24am

I'm pro-choice.

 

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on August 9, 2012 at 4:33am

I'm pro-choice on everything -but with politics being pro-choice is always a slippery slope to fall from.

If you are pro-choice and the other side is pro-ban/pro-mandate there is always an inevitable "compromise" and what you get is something in between which is a slippery slope towards what the other side wants.  In another couple of years there will be another "compromise" with the banners/mandaters getting closer and closer to their inevitable goal.

Xeno's Revenge

So from now on I'm not pro-choice -I'm PRO-BAN.     Ban all helmets -or at least make people register their helmets and/or get a special license to be allowed to own/use them.   Maybe then we can compromise in the middle-ground with the Helmet-mandators...

Being pro-choice just gets you screwed in the end.  You need a bigger stick to go into battle with or you'l lose ground with every compromise. 

in it to win it said:

I'm pro-choice.

 

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service