Tired of talking about the Idaho Stop? Well then, there’s this:
.
… biking, it turns out, isn’t an especially dangerous form of transportation in terms of head trauma. And the benefits of helmets may be overstated. While they do protect your head during accidents, there’s some evidence that helmets make it more likely you’ll get in an accident in the first place. …
.
A recent study of 66,716 Canadian cyclists under the age of 18 looked at head injury rates in provinces with mandatory helmet laws and compared them to provinces without. The result? Head injury rates have fallen in both over the last 20 years.
Head-injury rates did drop slightly more in the helmet-law provinces, but the researchers’ model found that the difference could be entirely explained by unrelated factors — things like bike lanes and other improvements to the cycling infrastructure, along with bicycle safety campaigns.
Head injury rates in provinces with mandatory helmet laws (left) and without (right)
.
Lots more here, including “It’s possible that wearing a helmet could make accidents more likely …”
Make no mistake, as Vancouver continues to invest in and expand a physically separated bike network, there are going to be more and more people who feel perfectly safe cycling without Styrofoam.
My wife and I stopped wearing ours a couple of years ago, and we know quite a few intelligent, risk adverse adults who recently decided they no longer need theirs: either because of infrastructure, or the fact that they switched to a slower, more upright bicycle. In my opinion, it’s the sign of a comfortable, mature, normal cycling city, and the notion that the VPD should be chasing these folks down is absolutely insane.
Luckily, I’ve heard very little on social media regarding enforcement so far this year (knock on wood). It appears the biggest victim of our misguided provincial law has been that oft-delayed bikeshare of ours, whose launch has now been pushed back to 2015… Without it, we likely would have launched in 2009.
Spied em just once in the last year, camped out between Rupert Station and Boundary road on the CVG… A grade separated multi-use pathway, not even running beside a street!
I think it’s still shitty of them to hand out tickets to people on the roadways, but on a pathway?!? Short of the seawall, it’s probably the safest route in the city. Heck, safer than the seawall since it’s just commuters, no tourist hordes.
I was pretty tempted to just hang out at the station for awhile warning anyone going past to dismount through that section…
Any tickets on this section of the CVG shouldn be challenged. I don’t think the city’s map which defines the paths where helmets are required has not be updated to include this section of the CVG.
Chris, I am surprised that you opt to break the law by not wearing a helmet. Also, the little boy pictured in your “Manufacturing Controversy” article and blog is wearing a helmet, and I believe he is your son. Why do you put a helmet on him but not wear one yourself?
Exactly.
Here is a letter that I sent to Premier Christy Clarke in Sept. 2013 .. the answer was basically “too risky, no change”
==================
To: Hon. Christy Clark, Premier of BC
Hon. Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure
Cc: Maria Harris, Electoral Area A Rep
Hon. David Eby, MLA for Vancouver Point Grey
Vancouver Sun – OpEd Consideration
Duane Nickull, Conservative Candidate Vancouver Point Grey & Cycling Enthusiast
Jens von Bergman, Cycling Enthusiast
Kay Teschke, World Renowned Cycling Researcher & UBC Professor
Dear Ms. Clarke and Mr. Stone:
Vancouver has decided, like 500+ other cities, to introduce bike sharing. A noble idea, a useful one even that will reduce car use and might even contribute positively to alleged man-made global “warming”. The far bigger impact, frequently overlooked, is public health. The proposed bike-sharing program will be a financial disaster however, and poor public policy if it’s introduced with the (provincial) helmet law intact.
==> If the provincial helmet law was repealed, it would benefit public health and promote more bike-use incl. bike-sharing.
Amend British Columbia’s bike helmet law to allow adults to make their own choice based on their skills, bike path availability, speed, traffic density, etc. Personally, I wear a helmet when off-road biking with a mountain bike due to speed and dangerous terrain, but would prefer not to do so around Stanley Park’s paved path, along False Creek or around UBC.
In Australia, bike share programs have failed in both Melbourne and Brisbane due to bike helmet laws in those cities. Yet, the bike-hire scheme in the city of Sydney—where riders are not forced by law to wear helmets—has succeeded. In both Israel and Mexico laws have been changed prior to introducing bike share schemes. Former city councillor Peter Ladner has predicted the bike share program in Vancouver (and at UBC) will fail due to the provincial bike helmet law. Most other major cities like New York, Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto, and almost all European cities with a far deeper history of bike use allow bike share with no helmets.
More and more experts around the world are encouraging people to bike, and/or participate in bike-sharing plans, and this is causing more and more riders to question helmet laws in place (such as in B.C, Melbourne and Brisbane).
The New York Times has reported that in New York, where there were 21 cyclist fatalities last year, the transportation commissioner (Janette Sadik-Khan) is always photographed on a bike and wearing a helmet, but the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has rejected calls by the City Comptroller (John C. Liu) for a mandatory helmet law when New York’s 10,000-cycle bike-share program rolls out next year, for fear it will keep people from riding.
A similar situation prevails in British Columbia where bike-sharing programs are about to be launched in Vancouver and at UBC.
The B.C. bike helmet law should be amended since it is doing more harm than good: Allow adult to make their own individual choice, please !
Just ask UBC professor Kay Teschke [you can find an overview of her extensive cycling related research here at http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/ ] Her main arguments are essentially that biking’s benefits, as a society, outweigh their risks somewhere between 9:1 and 96:1, depending on assumptions used.
Wearing a helmet vs. not wearing a helmet has a very small overall effect on cyclers’ risk. Cycling, per trip taken, is not any more risky than driving or walking actually as per these statistics:
• Transit bus travellers (US): 0.4 per 100 million person-trips
• Drivers and passengers (BC): 10 per 100 million person-trips
• Pedestrians (BC): 15 per 100 million person-trips
• Cyclists (BC with helmet law): 14 per 100 million person-trips
• Cyclists (BC without helmet law): 19 per 100 million person-trips
• Motorcyclists (US): 537 per 100 million person-trips
Wearing a helmet will also have a health benefit for pedestrians or drivers, why single out cyclists? Perhaps we should make biking illegal altogether as it is just too dangerous with several people killed every year and many severely injured (despite helmet use).
==> Our societies have far too many rules and regulations. In British Columbia, the bike helmet law is one of them.
Helmet laws don’t aim to prevent injuries in the first place, they just aim at mitigating injuries once an accident occurs. A much better strategy is to invest in safe cycling infrastructure that prevents accidents in the first place, such as dedicated biking lanes, dedicated traffic signals or dedicated over- and underpasses. This is the route Europe went, and Vancouver is now attempting in building out its dedicated cycling infrastructure.
It was shown that helmet laws reduce cycling rates (e.g. Australia) and thus have a net negative public health effect. A more technical discussion is on Teschke’s site or here http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf
In Vancouver the helmet law adds substantial costs due to the helmet vending infrastructure, borne entirely by the tax payer. It also forces the city to have few large bike stations instead of many small bike stations as helmet vending machines are expensive and have a large footprint. Having many small stations spread out evenly would be much better for the bike share program and more amenable to businesses. Most businesses would love to have a small bike share station nearby, but they don’t like stations taking up half a block in front of their store, blocking access.
Many aspects have to be considered in this bike-bike helmet debate: public health, public expenditures, road safety, civil liberties, freedom of the individual, role of government, public deficits, taxation levels, and so forth.
Responsible adults should be able to make their own choice. A bike share program is hard to adapt in the first place, and with a helmet law in place, as in BC, it will fail and be a waste of tax payers’ money – unless the bike helmet law is repealed.
Yours kindly,
Thomas Beyer
Helmets are good: in a few types of crash in a few circumstances, a helmet might help prevent injury
Mandatory helmet laws are bad: they discourage bike riding, and so individuals and society at large are denied the large benefits of riding a bike.
There are much better ways to improve safety for people riding bikes.
Ken, it is not the law that is bad; it is people who are bad if they choose not to follow the law or not to ride a bike because they refuse to wear a helmet.
You’re missing the bigger picture: I think it’s time for mandatory helmets for pedestrians! They’re injured at a similar rate and are more likely to die. When will politicians finally act to end the scourge of pedestrian-related head injuries? Won’t someone please think of the children?
what about this hoodie- or shawl-like airbag for bikers: doesn’t wreck your hair, looks stylish and deploys only in a crash: http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works/
Chris: Greg Eh has previously pointed to ‘Don’t Bike to Work Week’ as the official start of summer ticketing season. This time next month could see more going above the call on 10th or Hornby…
*beyond the call…
Thomas: if you need to wear a helmet, wear a proper helmet.
“Helmets ruin my hair” .. says my wife. So I can see why especially women like this airbag approach. A helmet is useless, until you need one. This airbag approach provides it. But even this nifty device isn’t even allowed in BC. The bike helmet law is silly. Let adult make their own choice, and many will chose to wear one, and many will not.
I would strongly recommend taking this study with a grain of salt. There was an interesting twitter conversation involving trained data analysts that suggests this study is bunk.
https://twitter.com/lee_re/status/467344679848411137
Additional links discussing how this article is an example of poor data journalism.
http://www.thefunctionalart.com/2014/05/some-data-journalism-is-just-datum.html
https://twitter.com/thejefflarson/statuses/467342630972817409
https://twitter.com/knowtheory/status/467365273658351616
More than anything these links demonstrate why twitter is such a poor mechanism for discussing anything remotely complicated, or rather, discussing anything remotely non-simple. These links were not useful.
I’m a little confused. The data cited in this article does not work in the favour of it’s premise. Plus… You guys know helmets are to protect your head from hitting concrete if you fall off your bike.. So are you saying that no one falls off bikes due to rain or operator error? Also, are you suggesting that places without a helmet law are not investing in bike infrastructure? (By stating that the larger decrease in head injuries in helmet law provinces was possibly due to new infrastructure and not helmets) Lastly, if the helmet law causes people to drive with less caution around cyclists (so I have been told) how do you explain the data that states head injury rates are lower in helmet law provinces. I thank you ahead of time for your replies.
jenables
Yes, helmets would protect cyclists if they slip and hit their heads on concrete. Many people don’t think this is reason enough to make helmets mandatory for adults as this kind of accident is rare. After all, helmets would also protect pedestrians if they slip and hit their heads. According to the figures, pedestrians are just as likely as cyclists to have head injuries and more likely to die from them. Yet no one would seriously suggest wearing a helmet before walking to the corner store. That sort of law would make walking seem needlessly dangerous and would strongly discourage casual walking – the same arguments apply to cycling.
Helmet laws don’t prevent investment in infrastructure. However the benefits of helmet laws are ambiguous while the benefits of infrastructure are clear and dramatic. If the goal really is to reduce injury rates, the way to do this isn’t by forcing everyone to wear helmets, it’s by investing in infrastructure. As a related factor, there really is safety in numbers – the more people use bikes, the safer they all are, so if helmets reduce the number of cyclists (as appears to be the case) then the net effect may actually be to make cycling less safe.
Re driving with less caution around helmets – I’ve seen some of these studies and I have little confidence in the results. There seem to be too much story-telling based on flimsy data. Wearing helmets may subtly change the behaviour of both the cyclist and the car drivers. Some report that cars pass closer to bikers with helmets, but perhaps the cyclist is feeling more confident and holding the lane differently. Regardless, this effect appears to be dwarfed by the much bigger impacts on safety of having more cyclists regardless of whether they have helmets (much of this comes because drivers are more used to bikes and treat them all with more caution).
Thank you Alex, great response. I would venture to say that the vast majority of pedestrian deaths from head injury are likely elderly people, who aren’t going to be riding a bicycle. Cycling falls are complicated by a few factors; speed, height and road placement. Since you are both on wheels (increasing both speed and height , but decreasing control -think roller blades/skates if you disagree) and in the road due to the speed you are traveling at, helmets are recommended to protect your brain. You could probably make a great argument for elderly pedestrians to be helmeted as if you check the data, they will make up the greatest proportion of pedestrian deaths from head injury.
I can agree that infrastructure can be safer except in regard to intersections. The false sense of security can lead to increased conflict at intersections, which is the same reason i disagree with the Idaho stop. Another is that we are subtly influenced by the behavior of others around us using the same mode of transportation – think of the car beside the car that jerks forward when they expect to have the green light and instead still has a red light as opposing traffic has an advanced green or the pedestrian that decides to cross against the signal when it is safe causing other pedestrians to follow suit. Increasing entitlement to disobey traffic laws that exist for safety would not make cyclists safer in Vancouver. On first ave in kits cyclists repeatedly run four way stop signs taking the turn of whoever was waiting and granting entitlement to do so, even if they are “supposed” to yield will not increase safety but it will increase animosity. I do understand momentum. However, cyclists seem to be the only group that cannot grasp that any type of movement throughout the city safely requires stopping at times. Keeping your eyes on the road ahead would be the other thing, this one is flouted most by pedestrians with phones and cyclists in racing regalia. Personally, I wish the police would enforce the law that states you must have bike lights at night over the helmet law. I would assume in my silver colored car at night without headlights that I was invisible to others, yet just yesterday I did not see one cyclist with lights on their bike on commercial from Frances (two blks south of Hastings) until the Grandview cut at nine thirty pm.
I wouldn’t expect that the vast majority of pedestrian deaths from head injuries are elderly people, I would expect that they are young people. If the head injuries were just due to falling, OK, but they are predominantly caused by collisions with motor vehicles, not the sidewalk. Head injuries are due to impacts with vehicle grills for small children, and with windshields for those victims who are taller. Impact speed is driven by vehicle speed, not pedestrian speed.
My friend was riding downhill on a city street in Auckland at considerable speed. He lifted up his front wheel to avoid an obstacle on the footpath and his tire came off. As a result of his bike coming apart he landed on his head and had serious facial injuries that require months of healing and surgery. The Helmet saved his life. No cars were involved. Pedestrians don’t slip and hit their heads at 30, 50 km/h.
Not everyone rides at this speed I know, but it happens.
“Pedestrians don’t slip and hit their heads at 30, 50 km/h.”
No one wins in the battle of duelling anecdotes so I won’t even join in. According to the study above, pedestrians do get injured & die from head trauma at comparable rates.
One reason why might be that these single-bike or single-pedestrian accidents are very rare and most likely the injuries involve a car. Because of the mass and speed of the car, anyone would need to wear motorbike helmets to provide adequate protection. The flimsy things cyclists wear are of cosmetic value in the vast majority of accidents. We can tell interesting, engaging stories about the exceptions but that’s a very bad guide for policy.
I can believe that there were lots of abrasions, however basic physics says that the vertical speed during a fall is no more at 50km/hr than a simple fall while walking. The helmet may have helped, but if it did, then it speaks more to the notion that there should be a helmet law for everyone all the time than support for a mandatory helmet law which only targets cyclists.
And, a friend of mine was riding down the 10th Avenue hill with parked cars in the curb lane, a motorist opened a car door, which my friend hit with his bicycle, sending my friend over his handlebars and face first into the pavement. His face was seriously bruised, cut and bloodied (including some broken teeth and a split lip), but his helmet saved his head from worse injury.
The only time I ever received a concussion after a fall from my bike was when I did not hit my head. Obviously, a helmet would not have made a difference.
Dallas is set to get rid of its mandatory helmet law for adults.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Dallas-Considers-Loosening-Bike-Helmet-Laws-260093131.html
Why? It’s a “major obstacle to expanding a pilot bike share program next year”.
I am shocked at the laissez-faire attitude of cyclists on this blog in regard to wearing bike helmets. Surely you can comprehend that some protection of your head is better than no protection at all. The evidence on this blog that cyclists will choose not to protect themselves without a mandatory helmet law and enforcement of that law is proof of the necessity of the law and its enforcement.
Surely you can comprehend that the risks of cycling don’t necessitate a *mandatory* helmet law. Or maybe you can’t… If your only argument is that some protection is better than no protection, you should be wearing a helmet at all times, no matter what your commuting preference is.
Most people can choose what safety gear makes sense for the risks they are taking. No law required. For example, when I go downhill skiing I wear a helmet; when I go I x-country skiing I don’t. When I go running at night I wear blinking lights; when I’m walking at night I don’t. When I go backcountry snowshoeing in Garibaldi I bring an avalanche beacon; but if I’m in Cypress I don’t. When I go kayaking in the ocean I wear a life jacket; but I rarely wear one when canoeing on a calm lake – it sits in the bottom of the canoe. All those choices are up to me and well within the law, but for some reason I can’t choose to bike without a helmet.
Missing the point Susan.
Nobody argues that some protection is better than none. The core argument is that adults should be allowed to decide for themselves what level of protection is appropriate for what activity.
As cycling is statistically quite a safe activity, there’s no reason to mandate helmets. If an adult feels they are better off wearing one, they are free to do so.
I think the easiest way to understand it is to frame it in this context: we could clearly reduce head injuries by requiring helmets be worn at all times while outdoors or using stairs. So why don’t we do that?
Canadianveggie and Mark, your arguments are illogical as they are based entirely on the premise that adults can and will make appropriate choices for themselves. We know well that this is simply not true, and if it were, we would not have any laws at all to protect citizens.
Do you walk? Do you wear a helmet while walking? If you read the article, you would have seen that the risk of a head injury for pedestrians is about the same as for cyclists or drivers, so why pick on cyclists? Furthermore, the risk of death is higher for pedestrians than for the other modes. Either everyone should wear a helmet all the time, or the mandatory helmet law for cyclists should be repealed.
Yes, I walk; yes, I drive; and yes, I ride a bike. I have never fallen or been in any accident of any kind when walking because I stay off the road. I have fallen many times on my bike, injuring my knees and legs, not my head as I wear a helmet. I have been in car accidents and never been hurt because I wear a seatbelt and am incased in the metal surroundings of the car. These modes of transportation are not the same, so to suggest wearing a helmet at all times is a gross generalization, flawed logic, and meaningless.
Look at the article. Do you dispute the research? If so, then show your research which disproves it. Other research shows that stairs are way more dangerous than bikes. Ditto for bathtubs. Do you ever cross a street? Intersections are very dangerous places for cyclists and pedestrians. Wear your helmet all the time!
“arnoschort,” yes, I concur: cyclists, “wear your helmet all the time!”
Governments should not protect citizens from all risks. Those that ride at high speed, or in dangerous terrain should be able to make a judgement call as to wearing a helmet or not. Many will wear one. But forcing anyone to always wear one, even on a leisurely drive around False Crekk or Stanley Psrk seawall is just ridiculous .
It will also make the bike share program an expensive failure like in Melbourne.
Thomas, prove that requiring cyclists to wear helmets “will also make the bike share program an expensive failure.”
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=melbourne+helmets+bike+share
The struggles of cities mixing bike share with helmet laws are well documented. Melbourne being the most cited case. To date, there isn’t one successful bike share program in a city with a mandatory adult helmet law. And there’s a growing list of cities who have ditched helmet laws specifically because of bike share, including Mexico City, all of Israel, and now Dallas is moving in that direction.
Canadianveggie, did you intend this article as proof? It is not. What is it about wearing a helmet that would discourage biking, and bike share? Why would people not want to increase their own safety?
Other people hold laissez-faire attitudes because they value freedom. It’s too true that people can make poor decisions, but plenty believe that those decisions are for them to make. Leaving it to the individual to decide how to live has been a fundamental precept of liberalism. There are those that believe that there is only one way to live because other ways lead to eternal damnation, but history has taught us that we will never agree on that way to live, and some things are best left to the individual to decide. Seatbelts and helmets don’t rise to that level, but are issues of state control versus individual freedom.
Since I’m something of a middle of the roader on freedom, I support seatbelt laws that take away people’s freedom to make bad decisions, but I don’t support the same diminishment of freedom for helmet laws. Reason: seatbelts do a lot of good so it is worth taking away people’s freedom for that, on the other hand helmets for adults aren’t shown to do that much. As the data above show, pedestrians have a higher rate of death from head injuries than cyclists. It might seem absurd to you to have a law compelling all pedestrians to wear a helmet because the type of accidents where a helmet might help are very rare. Basically the pedestrian has to be hit by a fast car so the head hits the hood or windshield or the pedestrian is thrown and lands head first on the pavement. But in fact, the bike accidents where helmets might help are also rare. Usually it is getting hit be a fast moving car or seriously losing control or the bike at speed. And into this mix must also go the data that show that physical activity is good for health, thus if helmets discourage cycling, they also might be harming health in other ways.
Some people on this thread have commented that helmets save lives. That is probably true for those people that do end up in a severe accident, and if people want to wear helmets to protect themselves, they ought to go for it. The question is not whether you can wear a helmet but whether you can force other people to wear a helmet. Cigarettes and alcohol are, by several orders of magnitude, more virulent enemies of the human race; however, efforts at banning them failed. People were unwilling to give up their freedom to do what they wanted to their own bodies even if it was harming them. No state so totalitarian to rid us of our vices has yet existed, and if it were to be invented, I doubt very many people would want to live there.
yvrlutyens,
Smoking is illegal in most public places, and alcohol use (as well as driving) has an age-limit to attempt to minimize misuse, injury and death. A helmet requirement for cyclists has the same moral premise. These limitations on individual freedom are not always successful, but they are successful in the vast majority of cases (ie. they are a necessary limitation for the common good), protecting not only the guilty of poor judgement but also the others as victims of friends’, relatives’ or strangers’ poor judgement. I would have no problem whatsoever with cyclists being free to choose to wear a helmet or not (ie. no helmet law) provided cyclists be held 100% responsible for any and all injuries incurred from not wearing one (including when there is a collision with a motorist). John Stuart Mill contended that individual freedom trumps all else except if one’s actions cause harm to others.
I take it that your position is that any injury due to not wearing a helmet ought to be the responsibility of the cyclist even in situations where the accident itself was not the fault of the cyclist. (If the accident was the fault of the cyclist, the cyclist is responsible for the injuries in any case.) Likewise this reasoning would apply to pedestrians hit by cars. Any injury suffered by the pedestrian due to not wearing a helmet ought to he responsibility of the pedestrian even in situations where the accident itself was not the fault of the pedestrian. Such a position would be internally consistent; although, I would not be able to support it myself as it puts all the responsibility for reducing head injuries on the party whose head is in danger and none on the other parties that may be endangering the head.
That absolute enforcement attitude has been so helpful in, say, the war on drugs.
Frank, what “absollute enforcement attitude” are you implying in regard to drugs? There has not been any such thing.
I do like how the angriest and most hateful anti-bicycle people are so concerned about the wellbeing of those who do ride.
Never give adequate passing distance, cut people off, throw objects, yell obscenities, honk horns, drive inches away from the rear wheel, risk human lives to save seconds of time, always take the time to post anecdotes about the two wheeled terrors on internet comments, and always, always, ALWAYS be sure vote against building safer cycling infrastructure… But by god better be sure they wear styrofoam and plastic hats so they don’t hurt themselves.
Surely it’s just good-natured concern for their fellow man, and not at all anything to do with wanting to make cycling less convenient or enjoyable (even by a tiny measure) out of petty spite. No sir.
I’m confused who you are referring to and how you would know their behavior on the road?
Interesting you chose to reply to that one. 😉
Mark, it seems to me that people who are “concerned about the wellbeing of those who do ride” contradicts your claim that the same people are “the most hateful anti-bike people.” How do you reconcile your claim?
Susan – I’m talking about your zero tolerance attitude WRT to helmets and all things to do with enforcement of bicycle laws (see earlier postings on the Idaho stop). The so-called war on drugs is a failed enterprise, despite the zero tolerance position of those who enacted and continue to support it. It is a pretty good analogy for this discussion as well, IMHO. I’m personally very happy that the police here have not adopted such a strict helmet enforcement position, at least so far.
Frank, I fail to see how you can claim that there is a “zero tolerance position” in regard to drugs when Vancouver has supported safe-injection sites in the city. Care to explain how zero tolerance equates with safe-injection site policy? Moreover, I fail to see what is analogous about the drug war and cycling.
Susan you are focusing on the small benefit of wearing a helmet in reducing head injuries while cycling, while ignoring that helmet laws have discouraged cycling. More cyclists makes it safer for all cyclists. We know that the benefits of cycling (cardio, general fitness, etc) in terms of lengthening lifespans far outweighs the lifespan reduction related to cycling accidents. We have the stats on both the reduction in cycling participation, and the health benefits. So you are saying that you don’t care about extending people’s lives and promoting fitness, it is just about head injuries. That is illogical.
Before anyone starts in on the hat hair argument, I think that the reduction in cycling associated with helmet laws isn’t due to the inconvenience of a helmet as much as it is the fear of injury that helmet laws promulgate. It is like bike lanes. They don’t just have to be safe, they have to help make bicyclists feel safe.
And as long as we are on anecdotal accidents, I have been in one major one on a bike. 30 km/hr. The helmet I was wearing had a scratch so I replaced it. Other injuries didn’t involve the head. The other cyclist injured at the same time (accident caused by a third party) had no impact to the helmet, and no head injury. She did have three surgeries though, and months of rehab. We both still wear helmets, always. But we don’t expect much from them.
Here is a very good comprehensive report, Canada wide, using data from hospitals from 1995 to 2004. I have shortened the link for you, it will dl a pdf.
http://bit.ly/1k6GNYK
I’m very sorry, but the data suggest otherwise. And yes Jeff, falls by young kids do make up a large proportion, eclipsed only by elderly people.
Jen, that report is for all head injuries, not just pedestrians on roadways. Unless we want to discuss having seniors wear helmets all day everywhere, we should come back down to the topic at hand.
If you want to use the fall injury rate from that report we would need to factor it down, perhaps by the ratio of waking hours divided by hours spent walking on the roadway and sidewalk.
I did note that on page 8, the head injury rate for cyclists was highest in BC compared to the Ontario baseline. That is inconvenient, given that we are the one with the mandatory bicycle helmet law.
Here is a more recent injury report. There are some breakdowns of peds vs cyclists vs motor vehicle occupants. Shows how relatively safe cycling is.
http://www.parachutecanada.org/downloads/research/reports/InjuryInReview2012_EN.pdf
We are also the most mountainous. I’d start there. I maintain that of pedestrian falls, (in regard to any type injury including head injury) the vast majority are the elderly and children. I don’t think it is fair to extrapolate everyone should wear a helmet because of this, yet that is the best argument people can come up with for not wearing a helmet? I actually like the freedom argument much better- at least it is not spreading misinformation that helmets don’t do anything and they are actually dangerous…
I agree that of pedestrian falls, most will be the elderly and children. I just don’t agree that falls are the predominant injury mode for pedestrians, unless we count falls after they have been hit by a motor vehicle.
I didn’t say helmets did nothing, I wear one because I think they have the potential to do something. It is a mandatory helmet law that does nothing IMO.
Jeff, where is the evidence to prove that helmets do not increase cyclist safety (ie. protecting the head from injury)?
Susan, I’d start here
No reductions in serious injuries
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1013.html
No evidence that helmets save lives
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html
Those linked pages have a lot more info if you would like to review them.
Sorry Jeff I had to reply to my comment to reply to you below (or is it above?) Is all the above data based on motor vehicle collisions? I didn’t think it was – I interpreted it more strictly to the mode share an example would be someone slipped on ice in the crosswalk resulting in a head injury.
Jen, I am not sure which data set you are referring to. Is it one of the following three?
The original discussion was about transportation injuries, whether MV occupants, cyclists, or those walking. The walkers could have slipped and hit their head (which you suggested was the predominant cause of all those head injuries) or they could have been hit by a motor vehicle (which I suggested was the predominant cause).
You provided a report about head injuries, not specific to transportation, and applied it to the transportation discussion. You said it showed that most injuries of the elderly were due to falls. I am sure they are, but how many of them are when walking for transportation, ie sidewalks, crosswalks, etc and how many are in the kitchen or bathroom?
I provided a report about road and transport safety, which I think is closer to the original topic, and which gives some breakdowns of injuries to peds vs cyclists vs MV occupants. It isn’t restricted to MV crashes. MVs remain the leading cause, however.
Jeff,
Please do not put words in my mouth; I do not do that to you. At no point have I said that “[I] don’t care about extending people’s lives and promoting fitness.” What utter nonsense. You are well aware from other blogs that I was an extremely active participant in advocating for the bike route of closed Point Grey Road. I am also a recreational cyclist specifically for the health benefits of cycling. Moreover, I have expressed that some of my concern for wanting cyclists to wear helmets is to protect them from head injury. I wear a helmet when cycling and would not cycle without one. The helmet in no way impedes my cycling and is some protection unquestionably against head injury, which is why it is worn in most contact sports. Why would requiring cyclists to wear a helmet reduce cycling? I fail to see the logic.
Susan, I apologize. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
A better way of phrasing it would be that given the data we have, the effect of your focus on helmet laws would be to not give the appropriate weight to the benefits of health improvements associated with cycling, thus resulting in a societal cost instead of a societal benefit.
We don’t have to suppose that helmet laws may reduce cycling, we have the data to know that they have done so, including in BC. As noted above, I think it is largely related to making cycling seem dangerous, but that is an opinion and not historical record, as the reduced participation rate is.
Jeff, you are making the issue an either-or proposal; it is not. This is not a matter of wear a helmet and you lose the health benefits of cycling versus don’t wear a helmet and you gain the health benefits of cycling. This is not a cost versus benefit argument since cyclists can both wear helmets and cycle for the health benefits. Indeed, wearing the helmet is for the purpose of protecting oneself against injury; that is a health benefit, not a cost.
I am not making it an either or, the helmet law did that. We have to move past just considering the individual to considering the broader population. As an individual, I can achieve both benefits, and do so. But we know that if forced to wear a helmet, the broader population collectively reduces its cycling participation rate. The law makes it an either or. The best case perhaps would be no law, and everyone wearing a helmet. But given a choice between a mandatory helmet law and higher cycling participation rates, society would be better off with more cycling even net of the risk and consequences of cycling head injuries, which fortunately have a very low risk.
Look at the history of cycling mode share before and after mandatory helmet laws around he world, and here. Those jurisdictions which are changing their misguided bicycle helmet laws have done just that.
Susan, here are some stats for you on the reductions in cycling related to mandatory helmet laws. We have data, so we should use it IMO
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html
Jeffrey…. It would be nice to see you post a link from a more impartial source 😉
Jen, if you want to take issue with the peer reviewed reports and papers I provided a link to, you should provide contrary evidence or reports from similarly reputable sources.
Challenge the data, and the conclusions, not the presenter.
It appears that some helmet law supporters aren’t aware of the body of evidence that exists.
Unfortunately a lot of the links on that site I’m not able to view because I don’t have a subscription to bmj. However on a topic like this I believe it best to look at sources which do not have a vested interest in one outcome or the other. Given that you can find data that shows helmets save lives, or data that says there was a slight drop in head injuries after helmet laws but that doesn’t mean it was the helmets and people making the supposition that helmets are bad because they decrease cycling and cycling is good, I’d go with the largest data set of hospital admissions coming from an impartial source I could.which is why I posted what I did. As I said above, I’m more interested in seeing enforcement of lights than helmets but I think it is folly for anyone to state they do nothing.
I didn’t see much argument above for the premise that helmets do nothing. The discussion is that helmet laws do nothing, and may even do harm.
What is the vested interest that you accuse the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation of having? They are presenting evidence. Their papers are peer reviewed. They have an editorial board. The problem may just be that what they are presenting doesn’t line up with common perceptions. That doesn’t mean they have a vested interest, just that it will be an uphill slog.
Jeff,
A bicycle helmet is a form of insurance. We may not like to pay for insurance or follow the requirements to obtain that insurance, but it protects us in case we need it. If we do not want to follow the rules for that insurance of pay for it, then we must be held solely responsible in the event of damage to our uninsursed property or person. I cannot imagine why anyone would refuse to ride a bicycle simply because he/she has to wear a helmet, but if someone chooses not to ride a bike because that person does not want to follow the law, that person should not be on a bike because he/she is irresponsible. So be it if helmet laws decrease the number of individuals who choose to ride a bike; that is their choice.
A helmet can be considered a form of insurance. But the issue isn’t helmets, it is a mandatory helmet law. If insurance had a great cost than benefit (as do helmet laws, not helmets), we likely wouldn’t buy much of it.
Statistics showing the benefits of bicycle helmet use: http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm
There are lots of statistics on the benefits of helmets. Some are higher, some are lower, some are negative. Now, if those statistics show the cost of not wearing a helmet, how do you account for the cost of people choosing not to bicycle? The most conservative cost benefit calculation I linked above was about 20 times the benefits over the costs, even including head injuries from not wearing helmets (which were relatively low).
I don’t really want to argue whether helmets are a good idea. I wear one, so I guess I think it is a good idea. I fully support an education campaign to encourage people to use them if they want to. But first we need to get the mandatory helmet law repealed.
Jeff, the stats you have provided do not indicate a direct correlation between the helmet law and reduced cyclist numbers. This explains the illogic of your contention that a law requiring someone to wear a helmet results in decreased cycling. The stats you have supplied simply confirm that you are in error in this assertion. Indeed, in the article accompanying the stats, some contributing factors to the decrease in numbers of cyclists are identified as the degree to which cycling is or is not promoted, the manner in which it is promoted, societal trends toward or against cycling, and people’s changing perceptions toward cycling as a dangerous activity. The fact that the decreasing numbers are largely for children and teens suggests that parents want to protect their children from harm, or charges against the parents if the children break the law by not wearing a helmet, and a helmet law may make parents reconsider the danger of cycling such that some parents may discourage their children from cycling as too dangerous. I do not have children, but if I did, my child would be wearing a helmet or would not be cycling.
Not a direct correlation, but an observation of what happened in practice. I suppose we could alternately conclude that on the day that helmet laws were implemented, it started raining and never stopped and that was the cause of the reduced cycling in those jurisdictions. But when such reductions happen more than once, across many jurisdictions, they becomes statistically significant.
arnoschort on May 21, 2014 at 5:34 pm
I can believe that there were lots of abrasions, however basic physics says that the vertical speed during a fall is no more at 50km/hr than a simple fall while walking. The helmet may have helped, but if it did, then it speaks more to the notion that there should be a helmet law for everyone all the time than support for a mandatory helmet law which only targets cyclists.
I’m sorry arno but something about this seems off to me. Shouldn’t velocity (hehe) factor into the force you hit the ground with?
Only the vertical component of the velocity.
Which is why bicycle helmets are only designed to absorb an impact from a very low velocity.
But that does not apply if you hit something that is not the ground such as a windshield, or even a curb? The vested interest is not having to obey a helmet law. Same vested interest applies to the Idaho stop. Sorry to reply to two separate things in one comment. What do you say about the decrease in head injuries since the implementation of helmet law? I’m not challenging you, I’m genuinely curious. Do you write it off as insignificant? To the idea that seeing helmets stop people from cycling (a pretty ridiculous assertion to make) do you feel guilty for wearing one and possibly stopping others from cycling? (Don’t) In addition, do you not agree that people driving may not all be unhealthy? What if they are driving to the gym lol..
Jen: Well, if you are going to group questions the answer is going to be longer. Sorry about that. 😉
If you hit something that is perpendicular, like a brick wall, head first, then correct, your forward velocity matters. In practice, what many cyclists and pedestrians hit is motor vehicles, or more correctly, motor vehicles hit them. So the speed of the cyclist or pedestrian isn’t as important as the speed of the motor vehicle. And helmets are only designed to function at very low speeds anyway (the foam crushes to absorb the impact). Above that speed they break, and provide no impact protection. It is a false sense of security.
Why is not having to wear a helmet a vested interest? Is a collection of papers from an independent research group null and void because you assume the authors don’t want to wear helmets? That seems ridiculous. Wouldn’t rational people want to do what is in their best interest, like stay alive? It would be a vested interest if they were being paid to stop helmet laws. I think a real vested interest is the motor vehicle insurance industry, who show up in Susan’s link. They have a financial gain from bicycle helmet laws. They want to minimize payouts on behalf of motorists they represent, and they can use not wearing a helmet as a reason not to pay up whether or not it is a real benefit. They also don’t pay the other societal costs of having a helmet law since they are insuring motorists, not society. Now there is a vested interest. Why would we trust them?
Specifically wrt Canada, what I say is that there isn’t a decrease in head injuries when a control group is included. I provided a link to that study, above. If you are curious you really should read it, it answers your questions. Yes, over many years, head injuries for cyclists declined slightly. But for pedestrians (who used the same roads, faced the same motor vehicle collision risks, etc) and were thus used as a control group, head injuries declined much faster. And if you factor in the reduced number of cyclists after helmet laws were enacted in some provinces, the rate of injury was much worse, though the absolute number of injuries didn’t change much. So, we don’t have a decrease in head injuries. We have inconvenient data, it doesn’t agree with what many presumed to be logical. That means we should stop and think about what we thought was true. And we should stop calling things ridiculous when they are staring us in the face.
To you perhaps it is ridiculous that having to wear a helmet, or hearing that cycling is so dangerous that you require a helmet to be safe, would stop you from cycling. But here is the problem. Society already voted with their pedals. Large numbers of them stopped riding, up to 50% in some jurisdictions. Why they did it really doesn’t matter much. They did it. There is that pesky data again. Follow the data trail. Read the reports.
Loads of documents and studies on biking accidents, and bike helmets here: http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/documents/ .. Essentially showing that a bike helmet law reduces the overall biking of folks thus causing more public health costs than the few additional injuries caused by not wearing one.
You cannot force people to ride a bike. The last time I checked, in a democratic country, we still have the freedom to choose our mode of transportation. If that means that fewer people will choose bikes because for some crazy reason they do want want to wear a helmet to protect their heads, so be it: fewer peope will ride bikes. I do not have a problem with that.
Understood. But from a public health, overall cost point of view bikes will be used less if a bike helmet law is in place, thus higher healthcare cost due to a less fit population, thus: bike helmet laws cost BC more than it saves !
That is in a nutshell the result of Prof. Teschke’s studies linked above
Thomas, you simply do not have the data to support yours and Jeff’s conclusion that a bike helmet law results in a net increase to healthcare costs. The facts are that there are numerous factors involved in healthcare cost increases and decreases, and helmet law likely has little or nothing to do with those costs. I may ride or not ride a bike (whether there is or is not a helmet law), and I may or may not work out in a gym, do yoga, jog, row, play tennis, or do other activities to stay fit and healthy. There is simply no direct correlation (statistically significant or otherwise) between helmet law and healthcare costs.
“I do not have a problem with that”
I do have a problem with that. If fewer people ride bikes we forgo the health benefits and potential reduced health care costs. I help pay those costs through my taxes. If fewer people ride bikes we will likely build more roads; in Vancouver we don’t have the space to do so downtown, and they cost a lot. It is a lot cheaper to build bike routes than car routes. If fewer people ride bikes then I and all the others still riding are less safe when riding, since we know about the effect of safety in numbers.
I don’t want to force anyone to ride a bike. I want to make it possible for people who want to ride a bike, to do so more easily. That includes making them feel safe, giving them a space to ride, and providing training for those that want it. Every person on a bike that comes out of a car leaves more space on the road for those who must or simply want to use a car.
I don’t think people should ride bikes just because bikes are cool. There are reasons to promote active transportation from an economic perspective. Society will save money and people will live longer as a result. Giving all that up because others don’t conform to a single ideal of what a cyclist should wear on their head seems defeatist to me.
Jeff, in response to your comment, here is my blog that I just posted to Thomas above: “Thomas, you simply do not have the data to support yours and Jeff’s conclusion that a bike helmet law results in a net increase to healthcare costs. The facts are that there are numerous factors involved in healthcare cost increases and decreases, and helmet law likely has little or nothing to do with those costs. I may ride or not ride a bike (whether there is or is not a helmet law), and I may or may not work out in a gym, do yoga, jog, row, play tennis, or do other activities to stay fit and healthy. There is simply no direct correlation (statistically significant or otherwise) between helmet law and healthcare costs.”
Jeff, you have still not answered my question: why would a cyclist not want to wear a helmet?
I did answer your question, above. I can’t answer for all society, since I do wear a helmet for its limited benefits.
My own best guess is that in practice mandatory helmet laws make cycling appear to be a dangerous activity, and that discourages people from cycling.
Jeff, that is not the only reason, according to the article you linked here. There are numerous contributing factors to the decline in cycling in a particular area at any one time.
There are lots of reasons, I am sure. I am not clear on which one is the predominant reason, nor do I think it matters much. Some may use the hat hair argument. Others with an engineering background point out that with a helmet your head is larger, and therefore is a larger target, ie more likely to hit something. Others with a medical background point to the increase in rotational injuries to the neck (not the head) caused by the larger diameter of the head/helmet. Others point out that cycling is less risky than driving, for head injuries, even with airbags and seatbelts and padded dashboards, so they don’t see the logic. I don’t know. We do know that with a helmet law, BC has a higher portion of head injuries from cycling than other provinces, so what we are doing doesn’t appear to be working.
The truth is that when helmet laws have been enacted, bicycle use has dropped. The figure for BC was 28% if I recall correctly. In Australia the figures ranged up to 50%. If we use a conservative 20 times multiplier for the health benefits of cycling net of injuries and consequential lifespan reductions (supported by many of the studies I linked above, and some figures range to many times that) then even a 5% drop in use would result in a net cost to society. Do we want to absorb that cost because we think our jurisdiction has it right (with mandatory helmet laws) and the bulk of the rest of the world where there are no mandatory helmet laws just hasn’t figured it out yet?
Obviously, the “hat hair” objection is irrelevant. Also, the number of head injuries in any one province cannot has not, because it cannot, be linked to helmet laws. Obviously, road conditions, traffic volumes, enforcement, weather conditions, road configurations, etc. differ from province to province and area to area, directly affecting the number of cycling accidents and the number of head injuries. Helmets, or helmet laws, likely have nothing to do with the difference in number of head injuries between BC and other provinces. Indeed, if you claim that having helmet laws in BC decreases the number of cyclists on the road, the decrease should result in a lowered number of head injuries for cyclists in BC.
The hat hair argument is not at all irrelevant. It isn’t a very good reason at all to me personally, but it seems to be to some. And if those people stop cycling for that reason, they have stopped. That is the issue, that they stopped, not why.
I think if we are going to look at studies, we should use whole population studies, not just an analysis of those who were killed and whether or not they were wearing a helmet. If you want to look at just that portion of bicyclists, ie the dead ones, you need to include how many were wearing a helmet in the first place. By way of illustration, if 90% don’t wear a helmet, and of those who died, 90% weren’t wearing a helmet, that isn’t an argument for more helmets as your link claimed. The authors of the insurance study you linked didn’t present any data that suggested helmets worked. They carefully stated that helmets have been estimated to reduce risk. And they didn’t consider the downside, ie reduce cycling participation rates.
If you want to get into a more detailed analysis of what the effect has been of helmet use (use, not laws) then I provided a link to several peer reviewed studies in a post above.
“Long-term analyses of fatalities in Canada (Burdett, Can), New Zealand (Burdett, NZ) and USA (Kunich, 2002; Rodgers, 1988) show no helmet benefit; indeed, one study (Rodgers, 1988) suggests helmeted cyclists are more likely to be killed. Although fatality rates have generally declined, cyclists have fared no better than pedestrians. In Great Britain, too, there has been no discernible improvement in fatality trends relative to pedestrians as helmets have become more common (BHRF, 1071; Hewson, 2005).”
All those studies are linked here:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html
The Canadian study, using Transport Canada statistics over 35 years, reads:
“An examination of data covering the period 1975 – 2010 from Transport Canada [1,2], a federal government agency, shows that Canada is replicating the experiences of Australia and the US, where no effect of increased helmet use among cyclists can be detected from prevailing fatality trends”
The full report is on that link above. You will find that your concerns about road conditions, traffic volumes, enforcement, weather conditions, road configurations, differences from province to province, amongst others, are addressed through the use of a control group, in this case pedestrians (who had no such helmet use, but faced the same issues listed here).
Again, Jeff, you cannot equate reduced cycling rates with increased health costs unless you assume (which is not proven) that if people don’t ride bikes, they don’t do anything else to stay fit. That is simply not true, as you know.
Because it is inconvenient, because it wrecks your hair ( women use this argument) and because a bike rental program will fail with bike helmet law in place.
Susan – even if we grant you that helmets have benefits, I’m still missing the step where you say that this means it should be mandatory. Surely there must be a balance or some other factors at play.
Case in point: race car drivers wear helmets and 5-point restraint harnesses. Would you support mandatory helmets and 5-point restraints for all car drivers and all passengers? What if that would essentially mean the end of all public transit?
If you wouldn’t support that law, then you must be using some values other than the simplistic “if it’s safer, it should be mandatory”. Which values would those be?
If you do support that law, can you think of any examples where a “safety” law might cross the line, for instance mandatory motorbike helmets for all pedestrians or even banning all cars (because of the number of bystanders they kill every year)? At some point you must say that there are bigger values & goals, that we can’t impose safety on everyone. And even narrow attempts to protect individuals may harm us as a society.
I’m not surprised that we don’t all agree on everything. I’m really just asking because after all this back and forth, I sense a lot of your passion and interest but I still don’t know why you’re making these arguments. But maybe I’m a little slow 🙂
Maybe BC ought to take a cue from most jurisdictions in the world, incl. bike riding Europe where most nations do NOT require bike helmets.
People can still decide to wear one if they so chose, based on their own ability, the route they take or the envisioned speed.
We cannot over-regulate, as indeed one could argue for wearing a helmet while walking or certainly running, airbags on every car, helmets even in a car with shoulder 5 point seat belts, 20 km/h everywhere for cars where there are pedestrians, swimming only with an inflatable life vest etc.
Even this airbag is illegal today, and far more practical and even slightly safer than a bike helmet: http://gizmodo.com/is-an-airbag-for-your-head-really-safer-than-a-bike-hel-1557666518
Alex T, race car drivers are travelling at excessive speeds. Hence, the likelihood of crashes and serious ones is increased by their speeds. It is, thus, appropriate that extra security measures be required for race car drivers that are not required for the urban motorists, who is required to follow posted speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc. to protect against dangerous accidents. No, I do not believe that urban motorists should have to wear helmets or have the same security requirements as race car drivers since the risk is not the same. I have already in this blog expressed the value of helmets being mandatory: individual freedom trumps all else unless that freedom imposes limits (harm) on others. I have no problem with cyclists opting not to wear helmets provided that they are held entirely responsible for their head injuries in an accident, including an accident that involves a motorist. No one other than the cyclist should be held accountable for the irresponsibility of the cyclist.
Susan – I don’t understand what you’re talking about when you say people should be responsible for their own injuries. Is that something that’s applied in other contexts or is it some form of vindictive punishment for those you feel don’t behave the way you expect? But it sounds like I misunderstood your position and that despite the seemingly endless back-and-forth, you really don’t support mandatory bike helmet laws. Sounds like a good place to leave it, at least for me 🙂
Alex T, I think I have been absolutely clear that I DO support mandatory bike helmet laws. And, yes, if someone does not take recommended and available precautions to protect himself/herself from injury, that person should be responsible for injuries resulting directly from that chosen lack of responsibility.
Do you apply that rule to those who smoke, drink, and are obese? Are you proposing taking away medical coverage?
Susan – You said that you had no problem with cyclists opting to not wear helmets, I guess that confused me. Sorry, maybe I read too fast.
Are you saying that not wearing a helmet somehow harms others? That seems like a tenuous connection to me, can you elaborate?
Jeff, medical coverage is insurance, just like a bicycle helmet. I pay for my medical insurance, so if I do damage to my health, it is my responsibility as covered under the insurance I purchase. Medical insurance is also mandatory. If you want to protect your head, pruchase and wear the mandatory helmet. If you don’t wear a helmet, pay the consequences yourself too.
[Susan], [road racing cyclists] are travelling at excessive speeds. Hence, the likelihood of crashes and serious ones is increased by their speeds. It is, thus, appropriate that extra security measures be required for [road racing cyclists] that are not required for the urban [bicycle rider], who is required to follow posted speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights, etc. to protect against dangerous accidents. No, I do not believe that urban [bicycle riders] should have to wear helmets or have the same security requirements as [road racing cyclists] since the risk is not the same. I have already in this blog expressed the value of helmets being mandatory: individual freedom trumps all else unless that freedom imposes limits (harm) on others. I have no problem with [drivers and pedestrians] opting not to wear helmets provided that they are held entirely responsible for their head injuries in an accident, including an accident that involves a [cyclist]. No one other than the [driver or pedestrian] should be held accountable for the irresponsibility of the [driver or pedestrian].
B, the problem with your false analogy is that it is not just “road racing cyclists” who are in danger of head injury, but ALL cyclists because they have no other protection besides a helmet. That is why cycling IS potentially a dangerous activity; ALL cyclists are vulnerable. This is not the case for ALL drivers, who have the benefit of the metal casing of the car and mandatory seatbelts to protect them in the event of a collision provided that they are not going at excessive speeds. Racing car travellers are travelling at excessive speeds, so their risk of injury is increased, which is why they should and do wear helmets.
Jeff, “safety in numbers” and “it is a lot cheaper to build bike routes than car routes” have nothing whatsoever to do with helmets or helmet laws. I get it that you want bike routes everywhere and want cars off the roads, but those are personal preferences of yours. We could debate whether those preferences are realistic or not on a different blog if you want, but these issues are unrelated to the issue of the helmet law for cyclists.
They do, in fact, since we have seen a correlation between mandatory helmet laws and decreased cycling participation rates.
I don’t want bike routes everywhere. How would I drive my car? I want the opportunity for those who want to cycle, to do so. I want to take away barriers to cycling, not mandate it. My personal preferences have little to do with anything.
Then prove that wearing helmets, without any other contributing factors, results in increased medical costs. You can’t.
It doesn’t, as has been said many times. Helmet laws do, not wearing helmets. Please don’t keep confusing the two, they are separate things.
Frank says it is time to quit now 😉
Jeff, prove that helmet laws without any other contributing factors result in increased medical costs. You can’t.
Jeff, are you suggesting that people “who want to cycle, [cannot] do so,” do not have “the opportunity” because they are required to wear a helmet? That is utter nonsense. No one is denied the opportunity to ride a bike.
Are you two quite through? Please have a coffee or beer together and leave rest of us out of your endless tit for tat.
Frank, Hegelian dialectics postulate that the adversarial approach of opposing viewpoints yields truth. It is not “endless tit for tat” unless one argues for sport rather than the discovery of truth. However, I am content to agree to disagree since Jeff is.
Jeff is trying to convince lost souls that their irrational belief are just that: irrational belief.
It is hard to argue with people placing belief ahead of science, and not even trying to understand that other people can think differently: that is the definition of fanaticism
so the lost souls expect Jeff to demonstrate some secondary points, like prove
beyond any doubt that an helmet law is “not increasing medical expense” when it should be the reverse: The supporters of the bike helmet law should demonstrate beyond any doubt the social benefit of such a law.
Alas for them, Jeff has provided numerous link to a corpus of peer reviewed research paper, demonstrating that a bike helmet law provide no positive effect whatsoever, and some research tend to demonstrate that it has even a negative social outcome.
Those results are well known, and that is the reason why jurisdictions having a bike helmet law are find an a depressing minority and some like Israel are repealed their….
Jeff having a discussion with Susan, is like a Darwinist having a discussion with a creationist:
He just helped people to know Susan better…
Not a bad summary Voony.
I am not arguing with Susan for sport. I am attempting to illustrate several gaps in logic by both Jen and Susan. I have no hope to try and change the convictions of either Jen or Susan, it is more for the benefit of other readers who may want to click the links, and learn something about the unintended effects of mandatory helmet laws.
Jeff, you “have no hope” because you have no evidence. Voony’s summary is both inaccurate and mean-spirited. Let me know when you have some viable evidence to back up your claims against the bike helmet law. In the meantime, wear your helmet in good health.
I provided links to the evidence above, Susan, and you chose to ignore it, change the subject, and deflect. You appear to be reading the headlines, since you are quoting them, but not the studies themselves. That is why I don’t expect to change your mind, you aren’t evaluating and discussing the evidence in front of you. Others may choose to read and evaluate it.
Jeff, as I have already stated to you above in this blog, your “evidence,” by its own disclaimers, which clearly I have read in detail to be able to comment on them, is not evidence that helmet laws reduce cycling — your claim. Factors such as location, age, gender and experience in cycling, social trends toward or against cycling, infrastructure that encourages or discourages cycling, licensing laws, rules of the road, perceptions of parents towards the dangers of cycling, the geography of an area that encourages or discourages cycling, increases and decreases in motorists versus cyclists, etc. ALL influence a reduction or increase in cycling. Helmet laws alone are but one contributing factor and may have no effect on the number of cyclists at all. Further, if helmet laws cause some people not to cycle because of the frivolous concern about having “hat hair” or the accurate perception that cycling is dangerous because of the lack of protection such that at least a helmet is required as some protection, people have that right to choose not to cycle. Why do you want to push/force people to cycle by denying them the human right to choose their safe method of transportation? You falsely claim that they are denied the “opportunity” to cycle because they have to wear a helmet by law. By your claim, removing that law would cause people to believe that cycling is safer than with the law (and the helmet). You have supplied no evidence to prove that cycling without the helmet law and without the helmet is safer than the alternative. Why do you want to mislead people and risk them injuring themselves on a bike?
You are continuing to ignore evidence, Susan. Your entire post is based on the false assumption that cycling is dangerous. The first graph on this thread shows more deaths per hour from driving and walking, and more head injury deaths due to walking. I gave you lots of similar evidence. Yet you persist in this theme that cycling is dangerous, and then build your other arguments off of that false assumption.
Australian data provides a good correlation between the implementation of helmet laws and reduction in cycling, particularly because state laws were introduced at different times, and the effect can be seen on graphs with a common x axis time scale. If you want to say that it was due to other causes, then show your evidence of other causes.
People aren’t denied a choice to cycle by helmet laws. They are denied a choice by the lack of safe infrastructure. And it is hard to justify that infrastructure when participation is reduced by a bad law.
There is lots of evidence that cycling is safer with more bikes on the road.
Jeff, I am not making any “assumption”; it is a fact that riding a bike is dangerous. There is no false premise, and my conclusions are based on that sound premise. You have admitted the danger of cyclineg yourself, at least in part, when you blame unsafe infrastructure for cyclists. If you claim that the infrastructure is unsafe, then you are acknowledging the danger of cycling where infrastructure is unsafe. Understand? Feel free to contend for improved infrastructure for bikes to improve bike safety, but that issue is separate from bike helmets or bike helmet laws. Participation is not reduced by a bad law; participation is reduced by individual choice. You should be advocating for and promoting the benefits of wearing helmets in support of the law if you believe that participation is limited by that law. Further, you are arguing a red herring when you provide studies that may or may not show that cycling has fewer head injuries than driving or walking such that you conclude falsely that cycling is not dangerous since there may or may not be evidence suggesting that cycling is less dangerous than walking or driving. Firstly, less dangerous does not mean not danerous. Secondly, what were the causes of head injury when walking? Age, such as unstable seniors or toddlers, who are less likely to ride bikes and so are not a comparable when comparing the head injuries of cyclists versus pedestrians. The speed of drivers, which is much faster than cyclists can travel and so is not a comparable when comparing head injuries of cyclists versus pedestrians. Indeed, fewer head injuries for cyclists in some studies is likely due to the cyclists wearing helmets, or the low speed, smooth road conditions, lack of conflicting traffic, experience of the cyclists, etc. You have not accounted for all of these contributing factors that will affect study results.
Voony, you have stooped to a new low by name-calling. Too bad that you do not have any viable argument to offer. Better luck next time.
I think the problem is one of scale. Jeff and Susan are likely both right. As an individual in an accident a bike helmet will likely reduce your risk of injury and there are studies to show this. But the reverse is also true in juristictions without helmet laws behaviour of cyclists as a group is different resulting in net sociatal gains….and there are studies that show this too.
Rico, yes, your analysis of the comments is sound.
Rico, I agree that helmets can help to reduce your risk of injury in an accident. To your second point, I would say that behaviours of cyclists are different in jurisdictions with and without helmet laws, and that is what drives the societal gains in jurisdictions without helmet laws.
Susan has seemed to agree with the second point in her comment above.
We can obtain the societal gains by repealing the helmet law, and then strive for the individual gains via education, not legislation. Best of both worlds.
Jeff, a much safer approach is to educate would-be cyclists on the benefits of protecting one’s head when cycling by wearing a helmet, thereby justifying a helmet law and protecting citizens. It is not logical to put people at risk of head injury by throwing out the helmet law (you said, “I agree that helmets can help to reduce your risk of injury in an accident”) simply to increase cycling participation when that increased participation can be obtained by safer means. In short, your unsafe means do not justify the ends.
Yes, falling on my head hurts and YES falling on my head with a helmet hurts less or doesn’t hurt at all or however you want to name it BUT it still should be my personal choice to wear a helmet instead of having a law like that dictating me which by the way makes me automatically an ‘offender’ if I choose to ride with my ‘bare’ head ! I am very confident in making the decision on my own of either accepting the risk or not and taking care of my wellbeing. Given that it is MY own risk to wear a helmet or not – that shouldn’t be an external decision based on a statistic. Reading most of the comments above I am pretty sure that the writers and most of the other people will either wear a helmet or not based on their conscious decision as they do probably now.
If you feel safer wearing a helmet than wear one if not, than don’t.
One more thing which might be even more interesting – This law, all those comments above and reading other articles as well are based on fear, the worst case scenario of having an accident which is actually subconsciously programming your mind and manifesting an accident (!) instead of manifesting a safe and enjoyable ride on your bicycle wherever you go and whenever you use your bicycle !
As previously stated in this blog “hd”, if the risk were indeed all yours, I would agree to let you make that decision to wear a helmet or not. However, the risk is inflicted on others, such as motorists, if an accident occurs with a cyclist who is not wearing a helmet; the motorist is usually held responsible for injuries, including head injuries, to the cyclist regardless of whether or not the cyclist is wearing a helmet. Thus, a cyclist not wearing a helmet is limiting the freedom of others by inflicting harm on them potentially. This is wrong. Personal freedom should be boundless as long as it does not harm others (John Stuart Mill).
That’s absurd. It’s practically insane. It’s definitely delusional. It’s not merely blaming the victim, it’s actually saying that the perpetrator of a crime is being victimized because the people he hurt should have taken better steps to avoid being victimized.
You might as well say that people who don’t wear bullet-proof vests are harming mass shooters because the shooter would be held responsible for the injuries of his victims, and these injuries would be much less if they wore the vests. Just think of those poor, suffering mass shooters who are in jail, and all because some spiteful people refused to properly protect themselves. They need to take some responsibility for being shot! We should lock up the victims and make them pay for the emotional damage they inflicted upon the poor mass shooter.
And then to step on a soapbox and pompously quote JSM at us, as if this was in any way helping your case? Wow. This may be the most transparently ludicrous, self-serving arguments I’ve ever heard.
It is a fact that suicide “victims” are guilty of their own murders.
“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.”
– Charles de Montesquieu
Definition of a “useless law”?
A law that is:
1) based on a faulty premise (i.e. cycling is dangerous. While downhill mountain biking and road cycling may require a helmet, urban utility cycling is an extremely low-risk activity.);
2) of questionable efficacy (it’s debatable that there is any net benefit to public health and safety brought about by a helmet law. Is there any proof that it has reduced head injuries? Or, has it stymied the growth of cycling as transportation and therefore reduced any improvement in health and fitness, environment, and safety-in-numbers brought about by increasing cycling mode-share?);
3) and is ultimately unenforceable (the helmet law is applied randomly, 85% of fines go unpaid, and anecdotally, it seems there are still many people riding their bikes without a helmet.)
Yes, but it makes politicians feel safe. Imagine a political group advocating for abolishing it. Then 2 weeks later someone dies with a head injury. Immediately the opposing party will say “This death could have been prevented had party X not abolished it.”
It makes more than just politicians feel safe, and physicians will tell you why, if you would care to ask.
Seems to me you are crossing back to supporting helmets (which may make people feel safe), rather than helmet laws. You are mixing up subjects again. No one has advocated for abolishing helmets, IIRC.
Please cite the source of this definition.
Source: me.
Unfortunately, you have a point.
But why not some sort of compromise? For example, mandatory helmets on roads with a speed limit of greater than 60 km/h. Or mandatory helmets for everyone under 18. Or scrap the mandatory helmet law altogether and focus on education or perhaps financial incentives for helmet purchases.
I don’t understand why we should put up with an obviously dysfunctional status quo when there are other possibilities. But I suppose that’s the way things are done at the provincial level in BC.
Matthew, “dysfunctional status quo” is life in general, not bike helmet laws specifically. Focussing on selective minutia is an overt bias.
Speak for yourself. Dysfunctional status-quo maybe describe the state of your life and if you’re happy with it, then so be it.
Some of us, on the other hand, strive for something better.
The bike helmet law fits the general nanny state attitude prevalent in BC. Very few other countries or provinces have bike helmet laws .. for a reason.