HelmetChoice.ca – the web site that aggregates all the items in favour of lifting the compulsory-helmet law.
_____________________________________________________
.
Liberal policy chair differs with his government.
The mandatory helmet law is even being questioned by those close to the premier.
Ted Dixon, the BC Liberal Party Policy Chair, told The Province Monday he is speaking out personally about the mandatory helmet law, adding he thinks it could be a topic of debate for the next election.
“We need to bring the responsibility back to the individual who is riding the bike,” he said. “My personal view is the individual is best able to assess the risk.”
Dixon said he hopes the law is reviewed and ultimately changed, noting that in Australia a mandatory bike-helmet law resulted in people shying away from bikes.
_____________________________________________________
.
The position of the B.C. Cycling Coalition:
Helmet Education – Encouraging the use of helmets through evidence-based education that accurately reflects the risk of cycling in different circumstances. Helmet marketing campaigns that exaggerate the risk of cycling and thus discourage people from cycling should be avoided.Helmet Choice – As many jurisdictions which have implemented comprehensive crash reduction measures have cycling fatality rates dramatically lower than BC and also very low rates of helmet usage, we recommend allowing adults choice regarding helmet use by eliminating the mandatory helmet requirement for adult cyclists. This will enable enforcement resources to be focused on collision reduction and facilitate the successful introduction of bike share systems.
_____________________________________________________
.
More than 20 years ago, G.B. Rodgers examined 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the U.S over 15 years and concluded there was no evidence that helmets reduced head injury or fatalities. That injury survey remains the largest ever done.
Not only did it lead Rodgers to conclude helmets don’t work, according to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation, it also led him to conclude “that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.” The foundation is not some anti-helmet crazed, personal-liberty organization. The foundation’s website sets out good arguments both for and against helmets. The foundation claims to have been “established to provide a resource of best-available factual information and to challenge evidence and policies that do not stand up to scrutiny.” …
What Anchorage ought to be doing, if it cares about its children, is encouraging them to get out and ride. What Anchorage ought to be doing, if it cares about its children, is designing safe routes to schools, playgrounds, ball fields and other activity areas. And what Anchorage ought to be doing, if it cares about its children, is dumping a do-gooder law that discourages kids from riding a bike.
_____________________________________________________
A helmet study conducted by the Snell Memorial Foundation on the severity of bicycle injuries found the following:
There is a decrease of head injury by 69%, a decrease of brain injury by 65% and a decrease in severe brain injury by 74% in cyclists wearing helmets
Regardless of your age helmets work equally well examined. Helmets were equally effective in protecting cyclists in crashes involving motor vehicles and those not involving motor vehicles.
Helmets provide substantial protection against lacerations and fractures to the upper- and mid- face, but appear to offer little protection to the lower face.
Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.
Hard-shell helmets, offer greater protection against severe brain injury.
The major site of helmet damage was to the rim in the frontal region.
1996 Snell Memorial Foundation – need permission – http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/report.html
Thanks for the stats Shayla. As I’m sure you know, helmet choice is different from a ban on helmets. And arguments for helmet usage are not arguments for helmet laws. Portland (no law) has higher usage than Vancouver.
You note that “Involvement in a motor-vehicle crash was the most important risk factor for serious injury.” which is absolutely key. The primary result of the helmet law is to discourage everyday utility cycling, the safe, slow, bike-share kind, so that we end up with the few fast cyclists – Vancouver’s 4-9% – whose behavior is more likely to lead to motor vehicle accidents.
The helmet law applies on the seawall, on the separated bike lanes, and on the calm bikeways around Vancouver. This is nuts. Rider behavior is what matters: the province must let police focus on that and not be distracted by hats.
Observing the helmet debate raging from across the coast, I find this comment to be an exemplar of one of the major oddities among it.
Shayla was pointing out an argument against the third point mentioned in this post, namely that helmets actually cause people to be more likely to be killed. (If you follow this logic to its end, you’ll see that it actually means that a helmet ban is in order to save lives)
Reverend interpreted this as meaning a support of the helmet law, when none was made at all in the initial comment, it was just adding information. As soon as another study showing the efficacy of helmets was pointed out, the parameters of the discussion were immediately changed to something irrelevant to the original post.
It’s interesting that some proponents of rebuking the helmet law are trying to garner support by downplaying the effectiveness of helmets. This has serious long-term consequences, akin to demonizing vaccines to purportedly save lives. The discussion does not necessarily need to be framed like this at all, and in the quest for repealing the helmet law some serious long-term damage can be done.
Pick your battles and think of the long-term consequences before demonizing something that can save lives (depending on what study you believe).
One WA city just ended a helmet law to lower legal liability: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/us/to-avert-liability-washington-town-drops-helmet-laws.html?_r=1
Both Ted Dixon and I would love Heather Deal, Gregor Robertson, Andrea Reimer, Shirley Bond or Christy Clark to take this line:
>>
“Of course you should wear a helmet,” she said in an interview in her office. “But this is a parents issue — parents need to be supervising their children.”
<<
This morning, I came across a motorcycle police officer at the intersection at 10th and Quebec, randomly ticketing cyclists for not wearing a helmet. This is the third such “helmet trap” I have heard about this week. I managed to avoid a ticket this time, but only because I was warned by someone coming the other direction.
I spoke to two distraught people who weren’t as lucky. They were enjoying a simple, safe, slow ride along a city bikeway. Something that benefits society in many ways. Why should we punish it? I wouldn’t be surprised if they left their bikes at home for a week. What exactly are we accomplishing with this law?
There’s currently a law in place that evryone should know about (whether or not you like it).
It’s a calculated risk if you decide to disobey it…
The same applies if I decide to drive over the speed limit or jaywalk
– I might say “shoot, got caught” – but I wouldn’t be “distraught”
Well, I wouldn’t be “distraught” either if I were to be caught helmetless in a police “helmet trap”.
Rather, I would be pissed to high hell that I was busted by some cop with nothing to do but stand around and enforce petty, useless laws. Perhaps as a result of this mis-use of police resources to enforce a totally stupid law, I would probably feel more cynical than distraught. Maybe I’d even be inspired to write a strong letter to my MLA or city councillor in regards to the repeal of such an idiotic law.
Just beacause it’s “the law” doesn’t mean we should instantly and automatically bow to it. In fact, we should recognize laws that we feel are wrong and unnecessary.
In the words of de Montesquieu: “Useless laws weaken the necessary laws”.
I feel like in Vancouver (and BC, and Canada even), we are subject to so much useless legislation and regulation that it actually creates incivility and crime as a result.