What this Forum is missing is a Good Old Fashioned Helmet Debate
Read. Discuss.
"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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
I'm curious how they will address this with the bike sharing concept. We have a bike sharing program for our staff & users must agree to wear a helmet (we keep a large selection) when they get the key to unlock/check out a bike.
But the bike sharing already in existence (it's very popular here on the Museum Campus/lakefront) seems to assume that the average bike renter will just be carrying a helmet around with them, which is obviously preposterous, as a huge number of them are clearly tourists and renting the bikes opportunistically/as an impulse.
I will confess that I didn't wear a helmet until my late 20s - a co-worker I adore basically used her wily charms to shame me into it. I won't wear one when I'm doing rail-to-trails/protected rides, but I do now wear one for street riding. I do hate it, especially on a 100 degree day, so I'm conflicted but would lean towards it being a matter of choice.
-
Permalink Reply by Dragonborn on
-
This is a bicycle advocacy site, correct? One of the primary goals is to increase the number of cyclists as much as possible, yes? Then a mandatory helmet law or ordinance would be a serious blow to such advocacy. Pass such a law and the number of current and would-be cyclists will drop.
Do I believe helmets save lives? Maybe. Helmets protect the head, but they don't protect everything else on the fragile human body. Get creamed by a vehicle or other similar impact and no helmet will save you.
Am I against cyclists wearing helmets? Absolutely not. When I see other people wearing helmets, I feel they are making the right decision for themselves and I have great respect for helmet wearers. The key phrase here is "for themselves." Me? I have never worn a bicycle helmet my entire life. Do I ever consider wearing a helmet myself? Yes, I often do, but the choice is mine alone. When I used to ride a motorcycle, I wore a helmet an overwhelming majority of the time, but still not always and it was my personal choice. As a human being, it certainly is not my duty to impose or force others into doing something they don't want to do. Whether or not an individual chooses to ride while protecting their head, that choice is up to the individual alone and not up to other citizens, law enforcement, or government.
I feel that it is good to "educate" people about helmets, I see no harm in education. But when it comes to the individual making their own decision after receiving such education, the decision is personal and the business of no one else.
-
Permalink Reply by mike w. on
-
My 2 cents: (&+1 to Dragonborn's comment)
From my personal observation, many people don't know how to properly fit up and wear a helmet. How many times have any of us seen a helmet being worn like a yamulke, or worse, backwards? Often they're on children whose parents bought some cheap POS from WallyWorld, and just slapped it on 'em... the parents are as clueless as anyone. What protection is that?
An improperly fitted helmet is probably as bad or worse than no helmet. How many times have you seen a kid dangle the helmet on the bars? How would a helmet mandate be enforced?
i do wear my helmet religiously, but don't try to impose my religion on anyone else, and i resent any attempt to mandate helmet usage.
What's wrong with people taking some personal responsibility for their own safety? Why the seeming need to legislate behaviour? Do we really need more (unenforceable) laws?
-
-
My guess is this is driven by the same groups which mandated motorcycle helmets. My general recollection (not personal opinion, I have done no research on this) is the argument proffered was that preventable massive head trauma costs society in terms of the medical resources which then need to be allocated. Similar arguments have driven the seat belt mandates.
mike w. said:What's wrong with people taking some personal responsibility for their own safety? Why the seeming need to legislate behaviour? Do we really need more (unenforceable) laws?
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
But you know we're one of the last states in the US which does not require a motorcycle helmet, don't you? (along with Iowa and New Hampshire).
Carter O'Brien said:My guess is this is driven by the same groups which mandated motorcycle helmets. My general recollection (not personal opinion, I have done no research on this) is the argument proffered was that preventable massive head trauma costs society in terms of the medical resources which then need to be allocated. Similar arguments have driven the seat belt mandates.
mike w. said:What's wrong with people taking some personal responsibility for their own safety? Why the seeming need to legislate behaviour? Do we really need more (unenforceable) laws?
-
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on
-
Most states do not require helmet use for adults with fully-endorsed motorcycle driver's licenses.
There are a few states that require them for learners and most require them for minors. But other than that mandatory helmet laws for licensed adult motorcycle drivers used to be pretty rare in the USA although they are making comebacks on the coasts.
-
-
Well, hot damn, I learn something every day. thanks!
OK, so that settles it for me - if a helmet isn't mandatory for a motorcycle, nuts to forcing it on cyclists.
-
-
You are right that ill noise is one of only two states without any helmet laws whatsoever regarding motorcycles.
-
-
viva la annoyin' Illinoisans!
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Schmoe on
-
"...is the argument proffered was that preventable massive head trauma costs society in terms of the medical resources which then need to be allocated. Similar arguments have driven the seat belt mandates."
So really, what's the difference? I think it boils down to that some people think helmets look dumb, uncool, or are hot to wear in the summer. Or they mess up your hair. The same way seat belts wrinkle your clothes.
-
-
True - but I am pretty confident tons of hard data exists supporting the contention that seat belt usage saves lives and prevents serious injuries. If this existed for helmets I'm sure it would be trumpeted by the local fishwraps all the time as yet another reason why cyclists were (take your pick) reckless-ignorant-crazy blah, blah, blah.
I'm also guessing bike companies don't have the impetus the auto industry/Fortune 500 companies did in terms of drivers/health insurance companies leaning on them. Also, those companies had existing R&D departments which already worked on safety and refining seat belt design (which supported the argument that seat belts worked), crash test dummies to measure impact and distance thrown from a vehicle, etc.
I don't know how much better bike helmets can get without them becoming absurdly large. And while a bike helmet is great if it cushions impact just right, if you go forward, sidewise, etc. it may not even come between your skull and the surface. IMO a bike is more like an endoskeleton while a car is an exoskeleton, you can't redistribute external force of impact for a cyclist. I think these factors/lack of data make mandating bike helmet usage a tougher sell.
Joe Schmoe said:So really, what's the difference? I think it boils down to that some people think helmets look dumb, uncool, or are hot to wear in the summer. Or they mess up your hair. The same way seat belts wrinkle your clothes.
-
-
If cutting down on preventable head injuries were really the main goal simply banning bikes would do a much better job of that than simply mandating helmet use -especially since many studies have had a hard time pinning down how well helmets work. Banning bikes would be much more effective in preventing bicycle head injuries.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
