Login / RegisterDebating helmet laws for cyclists is a no-brainer
Good for Ron van der Eerden for challenging the mandatory adult helmet law and to Dr. Tom Demarco for supporting him [“ Helmet-law crusade wins doc’s backing”, July 7-14]. This law should be repealed for a number of reasons, but one is that it is harmful to public health. I have met a large number of people who drive their cars in Vancouver, rather than ride bikes, simply because of the helmet law. This contributes to air pollution, obesity, and other health hazards.
Yes, it is sensible to wear helmets in many situations—busy streets, rain, and dark nights—and I do so. However, having a mandatory helmet law is harmful. For an older woman in menopause to receive a ticket for having taken off her helmet—because of the risk of overheating (itself a health hazard)—while riding uphill on a quiet bike route on a hot day, is ridiculous. Many older women I know won’t ride because of this threat.
This law is also a waste of my tax dollars. Rather than spending their energy targeting vehicle drivers who endanger the lives of cyclists and pedestrians, the Vancouver Police Department waits on bike routes to ticket cyclists who are not wearing helmets. This happens more and more as the weather heats up.
A British study shows that mandatory helmet use discourages cycling by portraying it as abnormally dangerous, and a British MP is refusing to wear one as he rides, for this reason. Pedestrians and drivers are at more risk of head injury than cyclists—why aren’t they all required to wear helmets?
Very few jurisdictions in the world require compulsory helmet wearing because numerous studies have shown that cycle use drops considerably once this law is imposed. If we are serious about reducing vehicle driving in Vancouver, we had better work hard at getting this law repealed. Let’s put our efforts into improving safe cycling infrastructure and education for both drivers and cyclists. That would be far more effective in keeping cyclists safe. The more people cycle, the safer we all are.
> Mary Sherlock / Vancouver
As an avid cyclist in the city, I am greatly concerned about the liberties cyclist feel they are entitled to on the streets. The cyclist in the article states feels he has been ticketed for violating an unjust law, requiring cyclists to wear helmets. He also feels that this law, while it aims at making the streets safer for cyclists, actually has the opposite effect.
I strongly disagree with this statement. What cyclists as a group need to recognize is that we have received a lot of liberties from the government over the past several years, but these also come with a certain set of responsibilities. We should consider that, in riding on the streets, we are basically entering into a contract to make it as safe as possible for all other cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. This is why there is legislation about crosswalks, traffic lights, and seat belts. If we cyclists wish to join in, then we should recognize that we too are legally and morally obligated to help make things as safe as possible for us and for everyone else out there.
> Bruce Smart / Vancouver
Helmets aren't seatbelts, folks. Seatbelts are there to keep you in a highly protected cocoon, helmets are little styrofoam hats you tie under your chin to make drivers feel better. I wear my little styrofoam hat whether I'm required to or not, but I sure don't feel great about its usefulness.
FYI unscientific random survey of 20 odd cyclists in downtown during a recent sunny afternoon shows the vast majority of you whiny "no helmeters" don't want to wear helmets because it messes you hair and you don't want "helmet head" at work...that was the most cited answer to "why aren't you wearing a helmet when it's the law". So, VANITY is the real reason you idiots are campaigning against a life saving safety device that is and should always be mandatory. How PATHETIC is that???
And BTW the the snarky writer who said he doesnt feel safe with a "piece of styrofoam" on his head. Maybe the government should up the impact safety requirement of bicycle helmets and make them more like full head cover motorcycle helmets for impact cushioning. Makes perfect sense and would only add another 3 or 4 lbs to the helmet and double their size. SAFETY FIRST!
It's obvious that the cyclists who think that they should be allow to go "no helmets" are just arrogant wingnuts. Helmets (along with lights and reflectors, also ignored by Many cyclists in this town) are the ONLY safety gear cyclists are required to wear. With all the cyclists demanding ridiculously underused, hugely expensive separated bike lanes (with a city that is already running with a large deficit and wants to raise home and gas taxes) because they're "safer" for cyclists, it seems VERY hypocritical that they insist they should be allowed to ride helmetless (it's NOT Safer, despite the "lone wolf" doctor from last week's article) or think they can ride on sidewalks (NOT safer, especially when they run into pedestrians, which they do) or not stop at lights/stop signs (certainly not safer) or ride at night without lights/reflectors (of all the 'not safer' points, this seems to be the most "no brainer" of the bunch; you can't claim it's the driver's fault if you get hit at night and no one can see you).
I agree that cyclists in this town (and unique to this town based on other cities where I've lived) do have an "anarchist streak" and thinks laws somehow should not ever apply to them (the "because I'm green" or "cycling makes me fitter" arguments don't hold water). I don't know if licensing them is the solution (though it does offer some strong points), but I do think making them obey the laws starts with stronger enforcement. The police (who do ignore most cyclist infractions; I've seen cops look the other way when cyclist break the laws right in front of them) need to enforce the laws on cyclists as strongly as they do drivers. Laws are useless without the "stick" of enforcement/penalty. If cyclist choose to constantly ignore the law, making sidewalks and road more hazardous, the police need to make them obey, through tickets, fines and (maybe) seizing of bicycles for multiple offenders (just like cars).
I think you are missing the point.
"Ontario's chief coroner says helmets should be mandatory for all cyclists, regardless of age.
The recommendation was part of a review on cycling deaths released by the coroner's office Monday. The report -- dedicated to Ontarians who have lost their lives cycling -- said every single cycling death in the province between 2006 and 2010 was preventable."
The laughable thing about this new militant cyclist movement that has come out of the woodwork the past couple of years is how incredibly selfish and childish - and frankly dumb their proponents are.
They whine and moan about being told to wear things for their own safety, and then whine and moan again when health care premiums go up partly because they're idiots.
This law needs some tinkering. If the gay little styrofoam things are not good enough, let's make them wear the offroad style ones - full face protection and all. $500 a helmet? Why the hell not?
And thanks be to the VPD for handing out no-helmet tickets in front of the Service Canada office on 10th last time I was there. Was hilarious how many little cyclists whined!
By all means, don't wear your helmet, get into an accident because you ran a red light or weren't visible at night and get yourself killed, the city is over crowded as it is.
Here's a great cartoon for you.
http://catalog.fborfw.com/indexkeywords2.php?q=helmet&Submit=Search
Scroll down to the third pane.
Talk to an emergency room nurse or neurosurgeon and give them your best talking points. Better still talk to someone, or one of their relatives, who has been saved from serious brain injury.
And this is not Europe where way more people ride bikes and cycling is a highly respected activity.
It is very sad that we have to legislate what should be common sense (e.g. seat belts, where to smoke), but that is our reality today.
Why are we not enforcing the "laws" of bike riding? I guess it's not worth the time and effort of our understaffed gendarmes.
Bikes should be licensed and have a "chip" installed so they can be located should they be stolen.
I applaud Vancouver, which used to be the "best" city in the world, for trying to make its streets safe for cyclists!
As a bike rider of 35 years, I started wearing a helmet in the early 90's. I've never been hit, never fallen off my bike to the point of needing the helmet and never put a helmet to the test - but I still wear one because I've seen firsthand how they can save brains, skulls and upper spines.
While I appreciate the need to NOT wear a bike helmet for whatever reason, please consider the poor sap that comes across you and your partially crushed cranium, just because of vanity or a rebellious streak. And for that reason alone I will continue to wear my helmet.
The vast majority, of studies actually could not find a correlation between soft-shell (the kind our law mandates) helmet use and decreased head injuries, but they all conclude that there is one, based on the findings of one study that claimed to have found such a correlation. That one study had to cook their data in order to find a correlation, and as a result it also shows that helmet use prevents broken legs.
The law only makes helmet makers, car sellers and oil companies happy. And no government is willing to spend any money on the science needed to determine if this law is just.