Recognition to The Sun (reporter Kevin Griffin, in particular) for its coverage of this story: Police push for tougher helmet laws:
Cyclists who don’t wear helmets should face stiffer fines and possibly even seizure of their bicycles in an effort to change their behaviour, according to the chair of the Police Chiefs Traffic Safety Committee.
Jamie Graham, chief constable of the Victoria Police Department, said his committee has delivered written recommendations to the provincial superintendent of motor vehicles calling on the government to increase the current fine of $29. The recommendations did not include the amount the fine should be raised to, he said.
And then – included in the same story – there’s some context that puts in question the rationale for Graham’s position:
A study published earlier this summer in the journal of the British Medical Association examined 66,000 hospital admissions for cycling-related head injuries between 1994 and 2008 in Canada. It found there was no evidence mandatory bike helmet laws prevent head injuries.
The study looked at injury rates between provinces with and without mandatory helmet laws and found that injuries dropped in both jurisdictions, although more steeply in provinces with mandatory laws.
Author Jessica Dennis concluded that there was no independent link between helmet laws and a drop in hospital admissions.
Here’s that BMJ research report: Helmet legislation and admissions to hospital for cycling related head injuries in Canadian provinces and territories: interrupted time series analysis.
The abstract:
From 1994 to 2008, we observed a substantial and consistent decrease in the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries across Canada. Reductions were greatest in provinces with helmet legislation.
Rates of admissions for head injuries, however, were decreasing before the implementation of provincial helmet legislation and did not seem to change in response to legislation.
While helmets reduce head injuries and their use should be encouraged, this study suggests that, in the Canadian context of provincial and municipal safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce the number of hospital admissions for head injuries is uncertain to some extent, but seems to have been minimal.…
It is utterly repugnant for a man whose job is to protect the public, to be picking and choosing who receives care under Canada’s universal health system. Graham must resign immediately.
Jamie Graham represents the very worst heavy-handed, petty, and mean-spirited tendencies of Canadian policing. His suggestion in other media that cyclists should have their bike seized following ‘three strikes’ of no-helmets would be equivalent to an automobile being seized if any passengers are caught without a seat belt three times. Could you imagine how that would be received? He is preying on the vulnerable and those he feels he can bully. You can practically feel the contempt emanating from his bones. It goes to show how lucky we are to have Jim Chu steering the boat at the VPD these days.
As long as Chu and the VPD insist on ticketing helmetless cyclists I’m not going to be sending any plaudits their way.
My take on helmets, a brutally divisive topic in cycling circles, is based on HUB’s position.
Helmets are good; in a few types of crash, in a few circumstances, they might save you a head injury.
Mandatory helmet laws are bad: they discourage people from cycling, so that they do not reap the significant health and other benefits of cycling. Neither does our society as a whole.
There are much better ways of keeping cyclists safe: education for all road users, infrastructure.
Exactly.
Let adults make their own choice. Apparently wearing a helmet is only required on roads, but not on sidewalks or the seawall. Who knew ?
Even if we accepted that not wearing a helmet were as dangerous for your health as, say, smoking, it still shouldn’t be outlawed.
People can gauge their own risk appetite.