News and Views » News Features

Bike helmet law crusade wins doctor's support

A cyclist uses the Dunsmuir Street separated bike lane in Vancouver.

Stephen Hui
By Matthew Burrows,

Physician Tom Demarco says forcing cyclists to wear helmets is misguided.

A cycling physician says he “absolutely” supports a Vancouver resident’s charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

“I think that the helmet law is bad, not only in terms of cycling but also from a public-health perspective. From a safety perspective, it’s very misguided legislation,” Tom Demarco told the Georgia Straight by phone from his Whistler office. “It’s doing far more harm than good.”

In August 2009, Vancouver police issued Ron van der Eerden a $29 ticket, under Section 184 of the provincial Motor Vehicle Act, for not wearing a helmet. Van der Eerden decided he would fight the ticket. “And it turns out that the only avenue to fight it—if you admit that you weren’t wearing one [a helmet]—is to fight it as a charter challenge,” van der Eerden told the Straight by phone. “Because, basically, that is my reasoning: that the law is unjust and ineffective and actually has quite the opposite effect of what it is intending to do. You know, the intention is to make things safer for cyclists, and I think it actually does the opposite.”

Van der Eerden said he has a binder full of material just dealing with head injuries. He cited a 2006 analysis put out by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, called Head Injuries in Canada: A Decade of Change (1994–1995 to 2003–2004).

According to this report, in the 2003-04 fiscal year, cycling incidents led to 4,605 hospitalizations in the country. Of these hospitalizations, 815, or 18 percent, involved head injuries. The average age of cyclists sustaining head injuries requiring hospitalization was 25 years. By comparison, head injuries sustained in motor-vehicle incidents accounted for 5,970 hospital admissions that same year.

In his notice of application filed with B.C.’s provincial traffic court on March 15, van der Eerden is seeking such relief from the enforcement powers of the provincial law “as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” and that is guaranteed under Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Elsewhere in his legal application, van der Eerden claims that sections 1, 7, and 15 of the charter are being violated. On August 12, the court will hear his arguments. Van der Eerden is representing himself in the case.

“Bicycle helmet legislation is discriminatory as it applies, with demonstrable justification, only to individuals who ride bicycles without being equally applied to individuals who drive automobiles or walk,” van der Eerden wrote in the court documents.

Arno Schortinghuis, a director and past president of the Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition, told the Straight by phone that he, like Demarco, wears a helmet but disagrees with the law. He argues it suppresses the numbers of riders and could hinder the success of the city bike-sharing program slated to arrive in Vancouver next year.

According to David Hay, a downtown Vancouver lawyer who is consulted by cycling groups, there is an “extremely limited” chance of the charter challenge succeeding. “I just don’t think there’s any judicial appetite for the abolition of the helmet law,” Hay told the Straight by phone.

Comments

Standing Water
“I think that the helmet law is bad, not only in terms of cycling but also from a public-health perspective. From a safety perspective, it’s very misguided legislation,” Tom Demarco told the Georgia Straight by phone from his Whistler office. “It’s doing far more harm than good.”

It would have been nice if you had put in something substantive that this fellow said. The helmet law is a good stop-gap until bicycle riders and their vehicles can be licensed. Cyclists must be subject to the civil authority.

The disputant's applicant is frivolous and borders on mental retardation---he might as well argue that it is unfair for a driver to carry a driver license because a pedestrian isn't compelled to carry a pedestrian license. He might as well argue that it is unjust to require passengers in cars to wear seat-belts because cyclists are not compelled to wear seat-belts, &c &c.

“Bicycle helmet legislation is discriminatory as it applies, with demonstrable justification, only to individuals who ride bicycles without being equally applied to individuals who drive automobiles or walk,”

Is this a Straight transcription error, or is this cyclist pumping out the lulz by arguing in his filing that it is "with demonstrable justification"? I guess this is par for the course for a cyclist, if he wrote that...

"He argues it suppresses the numbers of riders and could hinder the success of the city bike-sharing program slated to arrive in Vancouver next year."

Good. Bikes are no better than cars. They sustain metalworkers whose general skills also make weapons and munitions, and they are disrespectful of the rules of the road. Just the other day, I was walking across the Burrard Bridge, and some knownothing cyclist (no helmet!) was going through opposing pedestrian traffic _right beside the reserved lane for cyclists_. I told him to get into the correct lane, and he just waved at me, smiling, nothing going on upstairs, enjoying his abuse of the sidewalk. Disgusting animal.
 
the Spokesman
I think that perhaps the greatest impediment to Van der Eerden's challenge is his lack of legal representation.

David Hay himself has said a challenge to this law has legal basis

(http://momentumplanet.com/articles/keep-a-lid-on-it-mandatory-helmet-leg...)

but what is preventing such a challenge is the emotional impressions most people have about how dangerous cycling is, and how protective a helmet can be.

It seems to me, a challenge in the courts would be a good venue to place these impressions to rest by examining verifiable evidence of our laws effects.

Good for Ron for forcing the question, shame on the legal community for not representing the best interests of the community at large.
 
June
Why would we compare anything other than bike related head injuries with and without helmets? This is not even mentioned but that is the only relevant statistic. Cars will always win at being the most dangerous-does this mean we should not have fall protection classes in construction because workers are way more likely to die on the way to work? This is flawed logic.
 
the Spokesman
June, ICBC keeps detailed records of injuries to cyclists involved in accidents and you can see from this page that provides the information

http://cyclehelmets.org/1103.html

that head injuries to cyclists did not decrease after cyclists were mandated to wear helmets.

You can also see that the number of collisions between cars and bicycles took a dramatic drop after legislation was implemented, so unless you think that simply wearing a helmets prevents collisions, you'd have to conclude that fewer people cycled after the law was enforced.

One must also not forget the purpose of our legislation which was repeatedly stated by legislators. It was to reduce the amount of deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in BC. One just has to look at the post law rise in cycling deaths to see, the law has had no effect on reducing deaths to cyclists in BC. In fact helmeted cyclists die at the same rate as non-helmeted cyclists because even when the cause of death is listed as a result of a head injury, there are other injuries present that lead to death as well. When the cause is solely due to head injury, it is almost always from an impact with a severity that is far beyond a helmets ability to provide protection.

Helmet do provide protection, but they only provide it in simple falls. The type of falls that pedestrians have and it has never been shown that cyclists suffer more these injuries than pedestrians do. This is part of the argument of discrimination. Motorists, and pedestrians suffer far more head injuries than cyclists do, yet it's cyclists that are subject to the law even if pedestrians and motorists can benefit from helmet use as well.
 
June
Spokesman, the statistics that I am talking about are: bike related head injuries where helmeted heads are compared with non-helmeted heads-as a bike commuter I am not interested in comparisons with other forms of transportation, only information about my safety, nor about law impact. It is an easy question: if I fall on my head while biking, will a helmet decrease my chances of brain damage? No one is even talking about that question, which demonstrates bias and a lack of intellectual rigour.

The data sets of two years is no where close to providing substantive patterns. I would be interested in seeing similar studies on seat belt use, which at the time of law implementation was expected to take a generation to see real results-you are expecting everything to magically change overnight?

This discussion is a red herring that will only serve to keep cyclists arguing-we should be fighting together for better road safety for everyone.
 
Jessica Werb
You may be interested in this Ted talk by Mikael Colville-Andersen titled "Why We Shouldn't Bike With a Helmet": http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen
Though I confess I'm very much pro-helmet myself and make no apologies for it!
 
Xian Qi
As I was reading this article, I was looking forward to being informed about how the helmet law is "ineffective and actually has quite the opposite effect of what it is intending to do." But nowhere do I read any evidence or reasoning behind this claim. All I read is "helmet law is bad" but I don't get the how and why. Yeah, maybe it discourages others from cycling -- but here we have a doctor implying that wearing helmets is unsafe. Please, please, please ... back up this kind of statement with solid reasoning and facts!

Until then, I keep wearing my helmet (just as I will keep wearing my seatbelt, and look both ways before I cross the road).
 
Mark Fornataro
Like motorcycling, bicycling is dangerous as hell. Several years ago when I was knocked out in a motorcycle accident and woke up in the Richmond General Hospital emergency ward, I was grateful I had been wearing a helmet. It saved my life. For those without helmets who get in to accidents and become vegetables, should the rest of society use its hard -earned tax dollars to support you for the rest of your life because you couldn't be bothered to strap on a helmet? When giving advice, Dr Demarco should remember from the Hippocratic oath: first do no harm.
 
Anon
Pretty soon, Doctors will be asking the public to wear helmets while walking around ni public just incase you fall down and bump your head.....

At what point do we stop telling people what to do with their lives??

 
the Spokesman
I suppose no one is talking about whether or not a bicycle helmet prevents injuries from a fall because that's not the question raised by the article.

The question raised is, does BCs helmet law violate the Canadian Charter of Rights? Your question seems to be the red herring.

Our law was passed on the basis of saving lives. Has this happened? Is the law valid if it has not?
 
Anon
As time keeps going on this is not a free society anymore..

The public is not trusted to make their own decisions that we need the government to tell us what to do.. Extreemly SADD!!
 
the Spokesman
Mark, it may be of some interest to know that there have been only 4 fatalities to cyclists in Richmond in the 15 years since our helmet law was implemented and to my knowledge, every single one of those fatally injured cyclists were wearing helmets.

Cycling has proven to be a very safe mode of transport and with the beneficial effects derived from the exercise required to ride bicycles, cycling is a valuable asset to any community that cares about it's health.

Our helmet law has not only not reduced deaths to cyclists, it has reduced the publics health by decreasing the amount of people cycling
 
Anon
This whole thing makes me soooo sad!
I mean, I want to be able to do whatever I want without "the man" telling me what to do.

Gotta get some Ayn Rand up in this hizzle!
 
Brandon
@June,

If your concern is truly about cycling safety then you will be interested in knowing that helmet laws are a barrier to increased cycling mode share. What this means is that the law places an artificial cap on the amount people who choose to cycle keeping the mode share low in comparison to regions that don't have a helmet law. When you also take into consideration that in regions that have high cycling mode share and no helmet laws the number of injuries per capita goes way down. This is called safety in numbers.

If the law was really about preventing head injuries then we would force drivers and pedestrians to wear a helmet as they are more likely then a cyclist to suffer a head injury.

So a helmet may in very specific conditions prevent a individual cyclist from suffering a head injury overall it makes all cyclists less safe.


Keep your laws off my head.
 
r_
@June "...arguing-we should be fighting together for better road safety for everyone."

So do you support laws requiring motorists to wear helmets?

After all studies have found that they are more likely to suffer head injuries in an accident then cyclists.
 
Michael_K
"It would have been nice if you had put in something substantive that this fellow said. The helmet law is a good stop-gap until bicycle riders and their vehicles can be licensed. Cyclists must be subject to the civil authority."

They are, much int he same way that pedestrians are. Do you want licensing for pedestrians too?

"The disputant's applicant is frivolous and borders on mental retardation---he might as well argue that it is unfair for a driver to carry a driver license because a pedestrian isn't compelled to carry a pedestrian license. He might as well argue that it is unjust to require passengers in cars to wear seat-belts because cyclists are not compelled to wear seat-belts, &c &c."

No, it's about the danger you can pose as a person by having a certain activity. We have determined as society that in order to move several thousand pounds of machinery around you require a license. With this license come other obligations (e.g. seat belts). So your comparison does not even past a basic sniff test.

Oh, now you would like to change it to motorcycles? Well, there is one major difference between motorcycles and bicycles: You don't have an engine on a bicycle and if you stop pedalling it stops moving forward, you can't have a "stuck accelerator" etc. and the mass a cyclist has is much much closer to a pedestrian than a motorcyclist.

"Good. Bikes are no better than cars. They sustain metalworkers whose general skills also make weapons and munitions, and they are disrespectful of the rules of the road."

How about we put rules out that are actually working to make cyclists safer instead of pretending that every bicycle is a car?

"Just the other day, I was walking across the Burrard Bridge, and some knownothing cyclist (no helmet!) was going through opposing pedestrian traffic _right beside the reserved lane for cyclists_. I told him to get into the correct lane, and he just waved at me, smiling, nothing going on upstairs, enjoying his abuse of the sidewalk."

Oh no, no helmet? Well that settles it. Clearly he was a lowlife know-nothing. If there ever was a good reason to get rid of this stupid law you just gave it.

"Disgusting animal."

That statement says more about you than you would like to admit.
 
Michael_K
@June

"Why would we compare anything other than bike related head injuries with and without helmets?"

Because we don't have the data. The problem is simple getting it, we can't really.

1. We only know of injuries that either involve a car / other person and thus police involvement.
2. We only know of injuries that require hospitalization.

And there lies the rub. If you fall off your bike today, get up, dust yourself off and ride on nobody will know that you had a wipeout. The only time they know about this is if you end up in hospital.

This is also why the argument: "I have seen many cyclists with head injuries and I work in the ER" is a completely stupid argument. It's like a car mechanic saying: "Man, all cars are crap, they all break down and need to get fixed."

The helmet law comes from a simple idea: "Hey, helmets work, so putting a helmet on a cyclist works too!" There is no data behind it that supports that assertion, the study done in the early 90s that claimed a 80% reduction in serious head injuries has pretty much been withdrawn. Australia, who has mandatory helmet laws AND made a serious attempt at enforcing it, has not seen a significant drop in serious head injuries among cyclists either (though they did notice a drop in ridership).

Oh, and then there's this: The EU just recently finished a study on motorcycle accidents / injuries. They specifically looked at head injuries and concluded that the majority of the heading juries happen to the front of the face (which actually makes sense if you have basic understanding of newtonian physics) and concluded that only a full face helmet is really useful.

Now, how many full face helmets have you seen on bicycles?
 
Craig
I was hit by cars twice in 2009 and both times my helmet took a good whack(both times with a million blinky lights and car 100% fault). If I was not wearing one I have no doubt that I would have woke up in a hospital at great cost to all tax payers. My $40 dollar helmet probably saved " the system $4000.00". You know what paramedics call people who don't wear helmets? Organ donors.

Arno you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that all funding is cut to the VACC for your statement.

As for the statistics quoted before and after helmet laws. No more people wore helmets after the law as it was never really enforced. A better comparison would be of helmet wearers vs. non-helmet.

Argh I am so pissed as a tax payer who will be paying to defend against this challenge to the helmet law.

 
Taxpayers R Us
Maybe full-face helmets are the way to go. BMX competitors don't seem to mind them, and they probably experience less overall risk than the courier goof cutting into oncoming traffic.

If those gay little head-things cyclists wear these days are not working, then the helmet is the problem, not the law or statistics available.

 
Matthew Burrows
Michael_K:

Off the top of my head (sorry, bad pun) the only full-face helmet wearer in Vancouver is former two-term COPE city councillor Fred Bass.

http://www.straight.com/article-134753/urban-cyclists-still-face-unfrien...
 
MarkBowen
It's not about keeping cyclists safer. It's about reducing preventable costs on our health care system. You know, the one you pay for with your tax dollars.

Trust me folks, if you ride long enough and far enough, eventually you will have an accident (or have one forced upon you) that inflicts a blow to the head. Without a helmet, you probably won't get up and walk away.

Says a guy who has thrown out 2 cracked helmets, one from driver inattention, one from riding too fast and cornering too hard in poor weather. Both would probably have killed me or left me drooling for the rest of my life.

Just put it on. It's not a big deal. It beats being dead, anyhow.
 
R U Kiddingme
As a daily cycling commuter, it continually astonishes me how many other riders seem maniacally fixated on making us look like ungrateful, suicidal idiots. As if we don't already have the moron weaving in and out of traffic (on his fixie, the bike for people who are too cool to have brakes), or the jerkass passing on the right with no warning and then blowing through the red lights, and the monthly Masshole ride that calls out for the proverbial Monty Python 10-ton weight, we now have this goof arguing that he has a Charter right not to wear a helmet.

It's embarassing is what it is.
 
Michael_K
You guys actually made some great points. I think you've changed my mind. I mean, what's the big deal about wearing some safety gear?

Thanks! :)

Helmets R Me!
 
Michael_K
"You guys actually made some great points. I think you've changed my mind. I mean, what's the big deal about wearing some safety gear?

Thanks! :)

Helmets R Me!"

This was not posted by me.

As for "not wearing safety gear". Hey, wear whatever you want, but don't force a law on me for a safety device with dubious benefits only so that the powers that be can pretend they've done something for road safety.
 
Michael_K
"If those gay little head-things cyclists wear these days are not working, then the helmet is the problem, not the law or statistics available."

Only that the law actually defines what helmet you are supposed to wear, section 184 states:

"is designated as an approved bicycle safety helmet under subsection (4) (a), or
meets the standards and specifications prescribed under subsection (4) (b)."

So yes, the law in a way is the problem because the description is based on the SNELL rating.

If you actually take a look at the history of the bike helmet you quickly realize it is a foul compromise. They realized they couldn't smack motorcycle helmets on cyclists (why? The mass of the rider doesn't change if he's on a bicycle or motorcycle, why two different standards for basically the same activity?)

The law IS the problem.

Oh, and before someone says: "But Montainbikers don't have that problem". Right, they also tend to wear full body armor AND the law does not apply to them, it only applies to riding on the road, so the argument is completely useless.
 
Michael_K
"It's not about keeping cyclists safer. It's about reducing preventable costs on our health care system. You know, the one you pay for with your tax dollars."

Providing an environment that reduces the risk of injury is much preferable over slapping a questionable safety device by law on people. If you're about reducing the cost to tax payers why don't we ban smoking, alcohol, walking around without a helmet (many many more people hit their head while slipping and falling every year in Canada than landing in hospital with a head injury due to cycling) or force car drivers to wear helmets who also far outnumber cyclists in head injuries.

It's a false argument to say it's about "saving the tax payer money". If that truly is your reason to support that law then you better get one on the books for pedestrians or car drivers as well, the savings are way bigger in those two groups than in the cycling group.

"Trust me folks, if you ride long enough and far enough, eventually you will have an accident (or have one forced upon you) that inflicts a blow to the head. Without a helmet, you probably won't get up and walk away."

I have been riding a bicycle for 30 years, I have, at times, clocked 500km/week. I had my fair share of spills. I have so far never hit my head on the bike, but I had two concussions in my life. One in the Gym when I came up from an incline chest press and hit my head on the bar (should have worn a helmet, gyms are dangerous) and the second time in a car accident where my head slammed into the b-pillar and I was out for several hours (or at least I have only memory fragments). Clearly, Gyms and cars are much more dangerous to ones head.

Likewise, a friend of mine slipped on something in the dark (while walking), fell backwards and cracked his skull in three places. He spent three years in rehab before he was 99% back. Clearly, we need pedestrian helmets.

"Says a guy who has thrown out 2 cracked helmets, one from driver inattention, one from riding too fast and cornering too hard in poor weather. Both would probably have killed me or left me drooling for the rest of my life."

You may want to read up on how bike helmets are tested and what forces they are supposed to withstand. Just because the helmet cracked doesn't mean it would have prevented it. They are fragile on purpose, this is how they dissipate the impact force, a friend dropped his from table height onto wood floor, it came apart into three pieces.

"Just put it on. It's not a big deal. It beats being dead, anyhow."

Yes, better safe than sorry. We better all wrap ourselves in full body armour and wear ballistics helmets. After all, better safe than dead or costing the tax payer any money, right?
 
Dude
No way, Michael_K

Let us reflect on the words of Pastor Martin Niemí¶ller and think about how they can relate to our current debacle.

First they came for the reflectorless,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't reflectorless.

Then they came for the helmetless,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't helmetless.

Then they came for the fixed-gear cyclist,
and I didn't speak out because mine has 18 speeds.

Then they came and told us to get licenses to cycle,
and I'm like, 'Screw that! That violates the Charter, bro!"
 
Brandon
If we are going to make this discussion about health care costs then lets talk about cars and the fact that they are the number one cause of deaths and injuries in children and young adults. That is the NUMBER ONE cause of injury and deaths in North America, not cycling accidents that ranks way lower.

Also poor health and lifestyle choices are right up at the top of things that are draining our health care tax dollars not cycling accidents. The benefits of people cycling far outweigh the very small risk of a head injury while cycling.

The real red herring in this situation is to say that cyclists head injury are going to drain our health care system. Really it is motor vehicle accidents and lack of physical activity that place the greatest burden on our health care.

The benefits of cycling by far outweigh the risks.
 
Michael_K
All of the above posts were my own.
I have nothing better to do than write long diatribes on comment boards and occasionally switch sides.
 
Michael_K
"All of the above posts were my own.
I have nothing better to do than write long diatribes on comment boards and occasionally switch sides."

And once again the children come out to play, impersonating others they don't agree with but don't have the mental faculty to construct an argument that passes a simple logic test.

Must be all the exhaust fumes he or she is sniffing day in day out staring at the rearend of other other cars while those darn cyclists without helmets zip past by.
 
Michael_K
"Let us reflect on the words of Pastor Martin Niemí¶ller and think about how they can relate to our current debacle."

Well, we got a winner. Finally someone invoked Godwin's law. What took you so long?
 
r_
@MarkBowen
"It's about reducing preventable costs on our health care system. You know, the one you pay for with your tax dollars."

If that's the case why don't we require drivers and car passengers to wear helmets. The evidence is that they are more likely to have head injuries in an accident than cyclists. Pedestrians too.

If this was really about saving health care costs we would be requiring motorists and pedestrians to also wear helmets. That would save much more money then the requirement for cyclists.
 
MarkBowen
Brandon: not to say your facts are not correct, but that's not really relevant to the discussion. Pretty classic argument by deflection/diversion.

The question is not whether the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks or not, we know that. It's about the value of helmets vs. the costs. (messy hair?)
 
stadiumguy
It is amazing that those who want to compel others to do things using legislation have every excuse not want the same thing for them. We have the nanny state and you will worship it.
 
Ron van der Eerden
Mark, actually it is relevant. Section 15 of the charter is protection from discrimination. If cyclists are being singled out to wear helmets when the value to society of motorists wearing helmets would be far greater then the charter is being violated. ICBC/Coroners/StatsCan stats show the risk of head injury in a car is far higher than on a bicycle. Motorcycle helmets or similar are also 8 times more effective than the necessarily lightweight, vented cycling helmets.
 
Brandon
@MarkBowen,

You said, "It's not about keeping cyclists safer. It's about reducing preventable costs on our health care system. You know, the one you pay for with your tax dollars."

Those are your words, so if we are talking about reducing preventable costs on our health care system then my response is most certainly not a, "Pretty classic argument by deflection/diversion." It is actually addressing your concern directly in multiple ways.

First of all the helmet laws have been proven to deter people from cycling and many of those who don't cycle because of the helmet law choose to drive. As stated before drivers are far more likely to be involved in accidents that will leave them crippled costing our health care system untold millions in care taking expenses.

Secondly because many choose not to cycle because of the helmet law and choose to drive instead they suffer from a lack of physical activity and increased stress from driving which leads to obesity and cardiovascular health problems also costing our health care system untold millions.

It has been clearly shown over and over again that statistically cyclists cost our health care system significantly less due to increased physical activity. More cyclists equal less health care expenses. Helmet laws decrease the amount of cyclists and increase the amount of drivers equaling higher health care costs.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it but if you still don't get it I will try and simplify it further for you.
 
Hoopz
Before we had sidewalks, traffic lights and crosswalks, pedestrian deaths were much higher. We didn't decide to require all pedestrians to wear armor, we changed the traffic situation so cars and pedestrians don't interfere with eachother.

The same needs to happen for bikes. Otherwise, the only people biking will be the hipsters on their fixies, instead of the mom riding her daughter to the grocery store.

It's really simple. People are not dying from traumatic injury left and right in countries where bike helmets are optional for adults. Ridership is universally higher in countries without mandatory bike helmet laws.
 
Carrie Swiggum
I must say I have not taken the time to read the previous comments.

That said, British Columbia is quite unique to have a helmet law in place at all--it is one of the only major cities in the world that have this law. It has only been around for 15 years. There is evidence that we got on just fine before this time, and that cyclists were not labeled as suicidal miscreants.

Those who complain about the lack of people in the bike lanes downtown do not realize how having such a law in place keeps the numbers of cyclists down. For whatever reason, including vanity, if people do not want to wear a helmet, they will not bike or they will not wear one.

If Vancouver wants to increase the amount of cyclists in the city, it is obvious that the province would have to repeal the helmet law.

If the city wants a public bike share system, then B.C. will have to repeal the helmet law, like Mexico City did last year after installing their public bike share system.

Vision Vancouver has a goal of 50% bike share use by 2020, but this will never be achieved without repealing the helmet law!
 
Standing Water
Where is there any evidence that people choose to drive instead of cycling because of the helmet law? There is certain evidence that helmets will reduce the severity of certain injuries to certain individuals---does such mean much in aggregate? Maybe not. When I was very young, my bike flipped over on me---I have no idea how, really, but if I had not been wearing a helmet, ouch.

I think this "people don't cycle because of the helmet law" thing is a red herring. It cannot be cost, as anyone who can afford a car can afford a bike + helmet. It cannot be that people are anti-authoritarian, as they'll wear seatbelts. What is it, people are vain and think helmets look dorky? Bad hair at the office? Seriously, people suggesting it's debatable whether helmets have any health/safety value but asserting that it's certain that people are driving instead of biking because of the helmet law seems off kilter.

But, then, that is to be expected from bicyclists. Wheelchair bound ninnies. You have legs for a reason, dorks.
 
Mad Max
How can you measure head injuries to cyclists vs head injuries to car drivers - it is apples to oranges. Of course there are going to be more injuries to car drivers because.....there are more cars on the road than bicylces.

It is a ridiculous and misleading statement.

And I can't believe there are people posting that by forcing folks to wear a helmet, it will reduce the number of people wanting to cycle.
Really, what do you have to back that piece of information up?
 
Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabbadoo
Thanks Dude for the moment of levity in this heavy debate. (Despite breaking Godwin's Law)

The Joe abides!
 
no dog in this hunt
""The disputant's applicant is frivolous and borders on mental retardation---he might as well argue that it is unfair for a driver to carry a driver license because a pedestrian isn't compelled to carry a pedestrian license. He might as well argue that it is unjust to require passengers in cars to wear seat-belts because cyclists are not compelled to wear seat-belts, &c &c."

No, it's about the danger you can pose as a person by having a certain activity. We have determined as society that in order to move several thousand pounds of machinery around you require a license. With this license come other obligations (e.g. seat belts). So your comparison does not even past a basic sniff test."

This does not pass a sniff test either, whether or not a driver is wearing a seatbelt does not affect the harm they may cause to others, rather it affects the harm they may cause to themselves..

The argument clearly fails if you substitute motorcycle for bicycle in

“Bicycle helmet legislation is discriminatory as it applies, with demonstrable justification, only to individuals who ride bicycles without being equally applied to individuals who drive automobiles or walk,”

So sure, repeal the bike helmet law... so long as you repeal the motorcycle helmet law, and the seat belt law... all 3 have the same "the government knows what is best for you" raison d'íªtre,
 
JC
With all things considered, it should be abundantly clear that the helmet law has not resulted in the change it was intended to produce. I don't think that anyone questions weather or not helmets have a positive effect on preventing head injuries, and that their use should be encouraged, both on the street and while partaking in many athletic activities.

When implementing a law that has implications that alter the way society acts in a profound way, there should be considerations given such as stated above. If meta-data has proven that both the rate of head injuries remains constant and that bicycle use is reduced, it becomes evident that another approach should be taken.

As BC moves forward, with Vancouver in mind specifically, the push to have individuals utilizing bike lanes and move away from a dependence on cars should force this issue. I have been in a fairly serious accident by which a helmet may have prevented a serious head injury, but would still encourage anyone to cycle without a helmet, rather than not to cycle at all.

As far as motor cycles go, it is a completely different conversation as we are talking about something that easily travels at speeds in excess of 100 KM/h. I would sincerely hope that anyone who rides their bike in the middle of traffic would wear a helmet (and perhaps other protection as well, don't forget that many bikers wear thick leather as protection that saves many lives and yet is not written to law). Many cyclists do not feel comfortable in traffic, and avoid cycling on busy streets. Where I would feel nervous with a cyclist on Grandview highway during rush hour wearing a helmet, I would see no issue with along 11th ave without.

The picking and choosing of what to outlaw and what not to solely on the basis of stigmas plays little benefit to society.

A great article that shows a comprehensive study with a clear indication that there is indeed safety in numbers for cyclists.
http://www.cher.ubc.ca/cyclingincities/injury.html
 
James Smith
to the Spokesman,
It's very unfortunate that there were 4 cyclists killed in 15 years in Richmond.
However, I doubt very much that the reason they died is because they were wearing Helmets.
 
O Joy...
One day it will be law: http://www.thudguard.com

Unless of course we stop being so gullible.

 
the Spokesman
I believe you're right James. I also doubt that the reason the cyclists died was because they were wearing helmets. I know they all died because they were involved in collisions with motor vehicles that were involved forces that were far beyond a helmets ability to provide life saving protection just as virtually all the deaths that have occurred to cyclists have.

Bicycle helmets are meant to mitigate injuries from simple falls and not to provide adequate protection in collisions with motor vehicles. That many people do believe helmets provide protection in collisions with mvs lead them to take a risk they otherwise may not take because they feel they are protected.

These risks can result in the injuries that lead to death as often as head injuries. Broken necks, ruptured spleens, torn aortas. Even impacts to the lower half of the head where the helmet doesn't provide coverage. A large portion of the brain lies exposed.

But the 4 deaths in 15 years does demonstrate just how rare deaths to cyclists are though. In fact ICBC commissioned a study examining all collisions between motor vehicles for a 3 year period and found a cyclist has a 99.6% survival rate, so even if these are the collisions that do kill cyclists, it's still a rare event if it happens.

I think it's important to note that no one who is in favor of repealing the law is saying people should not wear helmets. What is being said is an adult should have the right of choice to wear one. Few argue that helmets are useless, most are just pointing out there are limitations and that there is an effect of reducing the amount of cycling because cyclists are forced to wear helmets.
 
SP
@O Joy...

That, plus a 20 km/h speed limit for all cyclists in the province... 'cause speed kills and a suitable helmet cannot be developed to protect from falls faster than that.

Note: I do wear a helmet in the off-chance that it might somewhat protect me, but I just don't think they should be law.
 
Barney Fife
It's just another cash grab. What's next, mandatory bicycle insurance?
 
stib
I'm sure all the self-described taxpayers here who are backing helmets in order to lower medical bills are also strongly in favour of separated bike lanes, reduced speed limits on side streets, and gas tax levies for improved transit. All of these result in improved health and lower medical costs.

There's still that other problem: medical costs never drop. The system responds to reduced pressure on one hand by purchasing newer equipment, increasing research activity, and paying administrators more.
 
b5baxter
@standing water:
"Where is there any evidence that people choose to drive instead of cycling because of the helmet law? "

There have been studies in both Australia and New Zealand that supply this evidence (nearly a 30% decrease in modal share). See:
http://www.fubicy.org/spip.php?article191

@Mad Max

"....... it is apples to oranges. Of course there are going to be more injuries to car drivers because.....there are more cars on the road than bicylces."

No, it is not. The comparison is based on a percentage of injuries from the various modes not the absolute numbers. It is based on:
Sécurité routií¨re, ONISR annual report. Analysis on over 8000 victims, press release 8 march 2005.

Figures can be viewed here: http://www.fubicy.org/spip.php?article191
 
 
[Comments Disclaimer]
Post a comment
· Use your real name to have your comment considered for publication in print.
· URLs and email addresses will be automatically turned into links.