There’s been lots of coverage in major outlets on the question of compulsory bike helmets – notably in the New York Times.
Here’s a good piece from Atlantic Cities with links to other sources:
This past weekend, the New York Times explored the apparent Catch-22 surrounding the use of bicycle helmets. It goes something like this: Helmets discourage non-cyclists from getting on bikes. Fewer bikes on the streets mean less safe conditions for cyclists (think safety in numbers).
If street conditions are more dangerous and helmets save lives, then cyclists should wear helmets. But this may also discourage more people from riding, which will make conditions even less safe on the streets and thus further necessitate the need for helmets, and so on.
Case in point: Helmets are less popular in the cities around the world which tout the most successful bike share programs. The programs that do require helmets appear to have less success.
Given that ICBC reimburses MSP and the medical system for injuries from motor vehicle accidents, who is going to pay the medical bills for cyclists who break the laws of the road and injure themselves while not wearing a helmet. The recent revelation of lower revenue from gasoline taxes should signal that cyclists should pay for insurance or some type of road tax for all the bike lanes and road improvements.
Critical thinking will play a key role in resolving this. A friend recently purchased a second car to maximize his savings from cross border gas shopping. Further compromising funding for Big Bikes through TransLink.
Cyclists don’t “injure themselves” by getting hit by a car anymore than someone “injures themselves” by getting assaulted while not wearing a helmet.
And who is going to pay for cyclists head injuries? MSP, obviously. They are after all the same people who pay the much higher costs for all the obesity-related diseases, which more cycling facilities can help reduce the cost of.