Jump to content

      



























Photo

Repeal bike helmet legislation!


  • Please log in to reply
317 replies to this topic

#1 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 06:06 PM

A recent post on my blog created a lot of debate on- and off-line.

Long story short, this is a very emotional debate, but I believe that the reasons for eliminating bike helmet laws are overwhelming.

In time, even the most staunch opposition has come around.

What do you think?

My argument in brief (see link above for more):

1. People are far more likely to cycle without helmet laws (in every example worldwide, including BC).

2. The individual and public health gains from more cycling far outweigh any potential safety gains from helmet laws.

3. Beyond health and safety, the social, economic, cultural, and environmental benefits of more cyclists/cycling far outweigh the potential benefits of helmet legislation.

4. The more people cycle, the safer it is: Greater presence, more awareness, more infrastructure, eventually policy, etc.

5. The actual safety benefits of helmets are disputed (but not part of my argument)

6. Bicycle accident rates increase with helmet use in some studies.

7. Risk of accident and serious head injury from cycling is not high, particularly compared to driving and other activities in which helmets are not required.


8. You can still wear one!

9. It violates people's personal freedom and beliefs (e.g., more plastic in landfills, etc.)

11. You will save way more tax dollars and lives by encouraging more active, healthy lifestyles.

I'm sure there's more (less wear on roads, less pollution, etc. etc. etc.).

Obviously, infrastructure and other policy should go hand-in-hand to promote a better, safer, more efficient cycling culture.

The post.

#2 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 06:31 PM

7. Risk of accident and serious head injury from cycling is not high, particularly compared to driving and other activities in which helmets are not required.


I sort of agree with that. We'd save way more lives if we made car drivers wear a helmet rather than bike riders.

#3 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:21 PM

Happy to have an option for no bike helmets to those willing to opt out of health care for head injuries received while cycling without a helmet.

#4 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:27 PM

Happy to have an option for no bike helmets to those willing to opt out of health care for head injuries received while cycling without a helmet.


That is illogical.

What about those that live sedentary lives, eat junk food, use tanning salons, smoke, drink too much, drive cars, play contact sports, do extreme sports, and so on?

#5 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:38 PM

I know too many people who would have died if it wasn't for their helmet, cycling isn't important enough for those risks. If you find helmets dorky, don't ride a bike.

Also a good 1/3 to half the people I see riding bikes don't have helmets. The people who don't want to wear them already don't. I seriously don't think helmet laws are preventing a significant amount of people from cycling. If repealing helmet laws would suddenly quadruple the numbers of people who rode to work I'd maybe buy it, but this whole topic smells like a pet-issue looked at with a myopic focus.

I wonder if we made seatbelt use a law if spawl would vanish due to so many people quitting driving...
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#6 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:48 PM

I know too many people who would have died if it wasn't for their helmet, cycling isn't important enough for those risks. If you find helmets dorky, don't ride a bike.

Also a good 1/3 to half the people I see riding bikes don't have helmets. The people who don't want to wear them already don't.


How many people do you know? What was the situation? Far, far, far more people suffer head injuries and die in car accidents (percentage & total) than cycling accidents, even in cities/countries with poor cycling infrastructure.

This is not about helmets being dorky. This is about creating a better city.

Vehicles erode cities. Simple as that.

Cycling is far more safer, efficient, equitable, economically-beneficial, environmentally-friendly, socially- and culturally-stimulating, beneficial for individual and public health, and conducive to other forms of transportation than driving.

Cycling begets cycling. Cars beget cars. Make your choice.

Read the full article, then form an opinion.

#7 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:50 PM

That is illogical.

What about those that live sedentary lives, eat junk food, use tanning salons, smoke, drink too much, drive cars, play contact sports, do extreme sports, and so on?


I wish it was the same for those that don't wear seatbelts and well to be honest I wouldn't be against some other things being automatic opt outs either.

People not wearing helmets on bikes makes me physically sick. Take a tour of a brain injury centre and tell me if having one less person with a brain injury is worth it. Trust me it is.

I truly hope this trend does not catch on as it was hard being the only one that wore a helmet as a child and only now does it seem normal and I don't want to have to fight with my kids or worse.

#8 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 07:54 PM

I wish it was the same for those that don't wear seatbelts and well to be honest I wouldn't be against some other things being automatic opt outs either.

People not wearing helmets on bikes makes me physically sick. Take a tour of a brain injury centre and tell me if having one less person with a brain injury is worth it. Trust me it is.

I truly hope this trend does not catch on as it was hard being the only one that wore a helmet as a child and only now does it seem normal and I don't want to have to fight with my kids or worse.


1. Seatbelts save lives and don't affect drivership (too bad). Repealing helmet legislation saves lives and increases ridership (good!). Not a good comparison.

2. Take a tour of a brain injury centre and tell me if one less person with a brain injury is worth driving without a helmet. There's NO DIFFERENCE other than fear tactics and marketing.

3. Your kids can still wear helmets under my regime. So can you. So can everyone should they choose to.

#9 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:09 PM

I'd like to see some actual data that helmet laws effect bike ridership at all. You seem to be mixing up a "cars bad! Bikes are good!" argument with your "helmets are holding cycling back!" arguments.

I really don't see helmet laws effecting anyone's choice to ride bikes. Almost half the people I see on the road don't have helmets on and the law is barely enforced. If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't, no one's really stopping you.

It's like saying j-walking laws are the biggest thing holding back walkable cities and how if we got rid of j-walking laws it would save lives (because way less people would drive obviously!)

I'm really not seeing the connection. I'd love to live in a nearly car-free environment but I don't see how helmet laws factor into that at all.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#10 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,786 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:13 PM

"...my regime." Interesting.

Look I am a huge bike lover and despise car culture and it may just be my misspent youth talking but somehow I have a feeling you are some sort of car culture Stephen Colbert working for the American Automotive Policy Council and are trying to make cyclists look bad.

#11 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:30 PM

My $.02 would be to spend your time arguing for the repeal of PST/HST on bicycle purchases - make cycling cheaper, and more people will do it. Almost every serious cyclist I know wears a helmet whenever they ride....
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#12 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:30 PM

I'd like to see some actual data that helmet laws effect bike ridership at all. You seem to be mixing up a "cars bad! Bikes are good!" argument with your "helmets are holding cycling back!" arguments.

I really don't see helmet laws effecting anyone's choice to ride bikes. Almost half the people I see on the road don't have helmets on and the law is barely enforced. If you don't want to wear a helmet, don't, no one's really stopping you.

It's like saying j-walking laws are the biggest thing holding back walkable cities and how if we got rid of j-walking laws it would save lives (because way less people would drive obviously!)

I'm really not seeing the connection. I'd love to live in a nearly car-free environment but I don't see how helmet laws factor into that at all.


1. I have not posted data here, because my argument is posted here with stats, charts, and graphics.

Like I said, read it and then form an opinion.

Cycling dropped 25% in BC after helmet legislation was implemented. Read the post.

2. No confusion on my part. They are integrally related.

More cycling begets more cycling begets more cycling. Just as more cars begets more cars begets more cars.

3. Helmet laws are stopping a whole lot of people -- in Victoria, in BC, and in any other country with helmet legislation.


4. That's an interesting case you bring up. Street were originally designed for people (on foot). Driver's licenses were originally put in place (no reference, sorry, but it is the case) so that driver's would recognize that their use of the road was a right, not a privilege, unlike pedestrians.

Unfortunately, car culture has stretched our built environment so much that there very few places in Victoria that people don't feel the need to drive. And, cars now 'own' the road.

5. The connection is there. It's part of a bigger puzzle that includes policy and infrastructure. Both policy and infrastructure will come faster with more cyclists on the road. Repealing cycle helmet laws will put more cyclists on the road, guaranteed.

Read the post for references backing this up.

#13 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:34 PM

"...my regime." Interesting.

Look I am a huge bike lover and despise car culture and it may just be my misspent youth talking but somehow I have a feeling you are some sort of car culture Stephen Colbert working for the American Automotive Policy Council and are trying to make cyclists look bad.


Nope, no satire in this case. Regime was me simply being ironic about the horrors of a helmetless population



I have a website dedicated to making Victoria and other cities better. This is something I wholeheartedly support.

#14 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:37 PM

My $.02 would be to spend your time arguing for the repeal of PST/HST on bicycle purchases - make cycling cheaper, and more people will do it.



Way ahead of you: New HST is not good enough.

Making cycling cheaper is important. Unfortunately, cutting a few dollars on equipment will not do much for us. That said, charging the same tax on cycling equipment as on junk food is incredibly regressive.

Almost every serious cyclist I know wears a helmet whenever they ride....

Perfect! I am glad you said this.

This is exactly my case. We do not have a cycling culture in Victoria -- we have a cycling subculture. You must be a 'serious cyclist' to ride regularly.

That is exactly our problem: Cycling is an extreme sport, whereas it should be part of everyday life.



#15 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:40 PM

Note the carnage and obesity problems:

Video here

I am off to bed (in Ontario right now). Cheers.

#16 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:43 PM

I wish it was the same for those that don't wear seatbelts and well to be honest I wouldn't be against some other things being automatic opt outs either.

People not wearing helmets on bikes makes me physically sick. Take a tour of a brain injury centre and tell me if having one less person with a brain injury is worth it. Trust me it is.

I truly hope this trend does not catch on as it was hard being the only one that wore a helmet as a child and only now does it seem normal and I don't want to have to fight with my kids or worse.


Then by your reasoning, G-man, we should all wear four-point harnesses and helmets in our cars, and walking, or skating, or running, waterskiing...

We'd have thousands of less head injuries and hundreds less deaths each year if we dropped the road speed limit to 15kmh. Isn't that then worth it?

#17 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 08:50 PM



#18 North Shore

North Shore
  • Member
  • 2,169 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 09:03 PM

Evan, agreed that we cyclists are seen as a sub-culture. When I mentioned 'serious cyclists', I was actually thinking about my two neighbours who commute downtown pretty much daily - both of them helmeted. In fact, if you were to stand by the Mackenzie 'entrance' to the Galloping Goose on any given morning, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of commuters were helmeted. In one of the other threads you posted a pic of dozens of Euros cycling to work - all of them helmetless. The interesting thing there is the fact that they are all on a designated bike path (painted blue?) I would suspect that they don't perceive themselves as being at much risk of a serious crash involving a car because of safety in numbers and the fact that there is an accepted cycle culture there. In Victoria, not so much. And there, I feel, is the flaw in your arguments in your post. Many of your graphics and statistics are taken from places where cycling is an accepted part of the culture. Cars, in fact, don't share the road with bikes - the bikes have their own lane. Here we have to actually share the lane - much more risky, IMHO. Start using North American #'s and I'd bet that things change.
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?

#19 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 82,943 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:08 PM

In fact, if you were to stand by the Mackenzie 'entrance' to the Galloping Goose on any given morning, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of commuters were helmeted.

Many of whom, including myself, wear a helmet because the police enforce helmet laws and not because they want to wear a helmet.

Many of your graphics and statistics are taken from places where cycling is an accepted part of the culture. Cars, in fact, don't share the road with bikes - the bikes have their own lane.

Cycling is indeed more dangerous here. In Berlin cyclists rarely wear helmets and there are literally thousands cruising along busy roads. However, the notion that there are dedicated cycling lanes everywhere in cities like that is false -- I only saw one dedicated cycling street and I spent a lot of time out and about.

Of course in Europe cycling is a more accepted form of transport and as such drivers have a different attitude towards cyclists (even though many cyclists fail to practice safe cycling when in heavy traffic).

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#20 pseudotsuga

pseudotsuga
  • Member
  • 287 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:38 PM

I pretty much agree with your comments Evan, but I think that there is little chance of repealing the law. Wearing a helmet is great & I do so most of the time...but I don't understand the shock and dismay that people express if you don't wear a helmet when zipping down to the store. The logic isn't there.
I guess it is just such a visible thing - kind of like parking or building height...

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users