Jump to content

      



























Photo

Repeal bike helmet legislation!


  • Please log in to reply
317 replies to this topic

#21 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,088 posts

Posted 25 May 2010 - 10:42 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...


.....or a hockey helmet.

#22 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:38 AM

...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...


Look at the shock, dismay and outrage people express now when you use your phone while driving. Before Jan 1st or whenever the law went into place, we did it for the preceding 15 years and nobody freaked.

#23 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:47 AM

I agree with many of your sentiments Evan, but I end up asking myself if the helmeting law is really the #1 thing keeping people off bikes? Bike use has gone up in recent years after the helmet law was introduced. Of course there is no causation there, but it does indicate to me that wearing a helmet isn't a big deal to a lot of people.

Maybe it was a big deal in NSW in 1990, but have a look at the hairstyles then and you'll see why!

#24 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:49 AM

Look at the shock, dismay and outrage people express now when you use your phone while driving. Before Jan 1st or whenever the law went into place, we did it for the preceding 15 years and nobody freaked.


Pffffttt.... If I had $1 for the number of times I've cursed out a driver yakking on the phone....

#25 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:03 AM

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.


The percentage of people that wear helmets now has nothing to do with anything, really. These are people that are 'serious' cyclists that will cycle (with helmets) regardless of legislation. Good for them. If they wish, they can continue to wear helmets.

However, in order for it to not be a subculture, we need more than 30-50 year old men cycling to work. We need the entire population: males and females; young and old. Everyone. This will never happen with enforced helmets.

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.


Some bicycle-friendly cities, like Copenhagen, are rich with bicycle infrastructure. Others are not as much. However, in each case, cycling is an accepted part of the culture, yes.

Was it always that way? No.

Copenhagen had horrible traffic problems, just like every other city, post-WWII. However, starting in the 60s, the city began making it incrementally more difficult for drivers (infrastructure, policy) and incrementally more convenient for cyclists (infrastructure, policy) and pedestrians. Ta da! Bicycle culture. There's nothing inherent in European culture that created this.

Many of your graphics and statistics are taken from places where cycling is an accepted part of the culture.... Start using North American #'s and I'd bet that things change.



BCs cycle participation dropped by 25% post-legislation. Many of the stats are taken from Canada, the US, Australia, and the UK, all of which have similar cycle lack-of-cultures as Canada. There's no flaw, here. None of my points will change.

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.


On those main commuter streets, such as on Norrebrogage in Copenhagen, there are excellent bicycle infrastructure, including physically-separated lanes. True.

Were those bike lanes always there? No.

We have an ever-increasing bicycle network in Victoria. I want more. Policy and infrastructure should go hand-in-hand. For example, I am pushing for Shelbourne to become a major bicycle route via physically-separated lanes.

There is a whole lot of road-sharing with cars in those countries. However, policy and numbers make the difference. Removing helmet laws helps supply the numbers. Policy needs to come, as well.

In Germany, Copenhagen, the Netherlands, etc., there is a hierarchy that places most (if not all) of the blame for traffic conflicts on the mode lower down the hierarchy.

Pedestrians > Cyclists > motorcycles/scooters > cars > trucks

So, a cyclist would be responsible in a collision with a pedestrian. A driver would be responsible in a collision with a cyclist. Makes sense.

Makes a heck of a lot more sense than strapping a couple inches of foam on your head and putting your safety out of other people's hands.


p.s., Wearing a helmet may cause drivers to be less careful around you and cause you to be less safe on the road. Food for thought.

#26 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:05 AM

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 never know. Helmet legislation is going to hurt Vancouver's attempt to increase cycle modal share and implement things such as bike-sharing programs.

If Vancouver wants it, then we will get it.

Helmet laws were just repealed in Mexico (not a good comparison country) and are being fought over in many other countries, as we speak (Australia, Israel, etc.).

#27 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:12 AM

I agree with many of your sentiments Evan, but I end up asking myself if the helmeting law is really the #1 thing keeping people off bikes? Bike use has gone up in recent years after the helmet law was introduced. Of course there is no causation there, but it does indicate to me that wearing a helmet isn't a big deal to a lot of people.

Maybe it was a big deal in NSW in 1990, but have a look at the hairstyles then and you'll see why!


Good points.

Cycling does, has, and will increase with better infrastructure and better policies. No doubt about that. Look at Portland.

However, the increases are relatively minor in comparison to the decreases post-helmet legislation -- worldwide, including BC.

I regularly talk to people who say that they would cycle or cycle more if it were not for helmet legislation. It does often come down to messing up their hair -- even for guys. 'Serious cyclists' may scoff at this, but that's reality and that's what we're working with, here.

Reminders:

You can still wear a helmet!
Driving is more dangerous for your skull than cycling.

#28 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 06:24 AM

Driving is more dangerous for your skull than cycling.


Perhaps per hour, but I'd be very surprised if that were true per km. I didn't read all your lit, but what I skimmed seemed to be per hour comparisons, which I don't think are very germane. If I commute and it takes 10 minutes to drive my car, and 30 to ride my bike, I triple my chances of death on the bike.

I've fallen off my bike, seriously a few times, for no better reason than I hit a bad patch of road. I've only ever been involved in one auto accident (not the driver). Bikes are inherently unstable, and falling is part of bike riding. Wearing a helmet just seems like a smart precaution. I guess I'm ambivalent as to whether it is mandated or not. However, fair or not, the non-biking public is not going to take too kindly to cyclists trying to repeal this law. It will be portrayed as more irresponsibility.

#29 piltdownman

piltdownman
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:07 AM

In my experience a large number of cyclists don't bother to follow any laws, and the police don't enforce them, so I fail to see how repealing the law would change anything. I personally would love to see the police crack down on the idiots who don't understand what sidewalks are, don't grasp the concept of one way streets and never wear helmet.

Until cyclists get off their high horse and respect the rights and safety of everyone else on the road they might as well be terrorists to me.

#30 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:22 AM

Perhaps per hour, but I'd be very surprised if that were true per km. I didn't read all your lit, but what I skimmed seemed to be per hour comparisons, which I don't think are very germane. If I commute and it takes 10 minutes to drive my car, and 30 to ride my bike, I triple my chances of death on the bike.


I don't recall any per hour stats. They are all per KM, as far as I know.

Regardless, in Victoria, cycling is not safe enough, yet. However, it's a lot safer than many activities that do not require a helmet.



I've fallen off my bike, seriously a few times, for no better reason than I hit a bad patch of road. I've only ever been involved in one auto accident (not the driver). Bikes are inherently unstable, and falling is part of bike riding. Wearing a helmet just seems like a smart precaution.


Did you hit your head? Were you riding at speeds and in a way that justified wearing a helmet? Were you riding faster or on a particular route because you were wearing a helmet? Could you have still worn a helmet post-legislation?

Falling happens. Car crashes happen. Sport injuries happen. Sunburns happen. Choking happens. Drowning happens. Lung disease happens. Cancer happens. Gardening injuries happen. Death happens. Life happens.

A lot more money and a lot more death, disease, injury, and suffering happens from other (single) causes. Cycling is easy to target and does not affect major corporations ability to make money. Enacting other laws would.

Do we want more helmets or more cycling?

I guess I'm ambivalent as to whether it is mandated or not. However, fair or not, the non-biking public is not going to take too kindly to cyclists trying to repeal this law. It will be portrayed as more irresponsibility.


Irresponsible?

A 3000lb environmentally-, visually-, and noise polluting oil-powered machine that destroys our natural and built environment and will annihilate any fleshy object in its way while traveling at even moderate speeds.

It takes up exponentially more space, per person, clogs the roads, facilitates the need for massive swaths of land dedicated to its storage while not in use, and eliminates the human-scale of our cities.

It kills exponentially more people per year -- not only those choosing to drive, but also those walking, cycling, or minding their own business nearby. Additionally, it also kills even more people indirectly through air and noise pollution.

It degrades and expands our built environment such that we live in a largely sedentary world in which an active lifestyle requires serious thought, planning, and dedication. So much so, that the leading cause of death is chronic disease, which would be cut by more than half by simply riding your bike daily.

Not to mention that it is inequitable. Many people cannot afford to drive, do not want to drive, cannot drive -- particularly the young, the old, and minorities.

I could go on.

What is irresponsible?

#31 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:30 AM

It does often come down to messing up their hair -- even for guys


Good grief!
I find that shocking.

#32 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:33 AM

In my experience a large number of cyclists don't bother to follow any laws, and the police don't enforce them, so I fail to see how repealing the law would change anything. I personally would love to see the police crack down on the idiots who don't understand what sidewalks are, don't grasp the concept of one way streets and never wear helmet.

Until cyclists get off their high horse and respect the rights and safety of everyone else on the road they might as well be terrorists to me.


No offense, but this is a great example of ignorance and lack of foresight.

Cycling is currently a subculture. It is not treated equally -- socially, politically, or in terms of infrastructure -- in comparison to cars. Not even close. Cycling is discriminated against.

What's the natural reaction to discrimination? Rebellion. Don't blame the cyclists, blame the ****ty built environment and policy that they are trying to survive in.

'Might as well be terrorist'! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Wow. Good point: Drivers never break laws and cause harm to others.

Are you the porch of your trailer park with a shotgun, right now?

#33 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:35 AM

Good grief!
I find that shocking.


Shocking as it is, it's not going to change.

I just had this discussion with a relative.

He rides regularly, but he found himself riding less and less when he a) returned to school, and b) had work meetings. Why? Because, he didn't want funny, messed-up helmet-hair for those occasions.

Not that shocking.

#34 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 07:50 AM

What's going to happen to your hair when it's raining or windy?
I guess you won't ride your bike those days.

#35 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:01 AM

I wouldn't ride to work as I don't want to be a sweaty exhausted mess upon arriving.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#36 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:03 AM

Let's talk about positive feedback.

"In the case of positive feedback, an action produces a reaction which in turn intensifies the condition responsible for the first action. This intensifies the need for repeating the first action, which in turn intensifies the reaction, and so on, ad infinitum. It is something like the grip of a habit-forming addiction." (Ref)

Car-oriented perspectives (actions, and policies) perpetuate themselves.

Problem: A road is clogged with traffic.

Solution: Add a lane.

Result: Car-oriented positive feedback.

Traffic is relieved for a month or so and then returns. Why? More lanes lead to more convenient. More convenient driving leads to more people driving. As more people drive, not only do less people use alternative modes but other modes become less safe, less convenient, and less viable. And so, more people drive. Wider roads are built. Driving becomes more convenient. Repeat.

LA is the poster boy of this mentality.

More here.

Human-oriented perspectives (actions, and policies) perpetuate themselves.

Problem: A road is clogged with traffic.

Solution: Remove a vehicular lane and add bike lanes.

Result: Human-oriented positive feedback.

Traffic is a disaster for a few weeks. Then, although some people will find other routes, the majority will find other methods of transport. Cycling becomes more convenient and safe. More people cycle. Cycling becomes safer. Even more people cycle. More cycling infrastructure comes. Cycling becomes more convenient and efficient. Repeat. Same goes for transit and walking.

This requires forethought and a willingness to take one step backwards in order to take perpetual steps forward. This is in contrast to band-aid solutions that simply cover up the symptom(s) of a greater problem.

#37 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:11 AM

What's going to happen to your hair when it's raining or windy?
I guess you won't ride your bike those days.


Some people will choose not to ride on those days. True. However, wet and particularly wind-blown hair is a lot better than helmet-head to most if not all people.

I wouldn't ride to work as I don't want to be a sweaty exhausted mess upon arriving.


Fair enough. But, you might want to consider riding at a more leisurely pace, wearing natural, breathable fabrics; taking a layer off; becoming stronger/fitter; and maybe even sweating a little.

#38 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:21 AM

I wouldn't ride to work as I don't want to be a sweaty exhausted mess upon arriving.


Who are you, Lance Armstrong? Take it easy, ride at your own pace. You arrive at work no more tired or sweaty than you would walking. In fact, in the heat of a summer day you actually arrive less sweaty than you would in an overheated car.

What I can't figure out are the 'rebels' who wear a helmet but refuse to buckle it up in order to stick it to The Man. Or those that wear it tilted up so far their entire forehead is exposed, making it virtually useless. What's the point?

I agree, if we were to use rational thought exclusively, car drivers and passengers would wear helmets.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#39 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:39 AM

Who are you, Lance Armstrong? Take it easy, ride at your own pace. You arrive at work no more tired or sweaty than you would walking.


I used to ride downtown from Gordon Head, which is about 10k - and I was drenched (but that was because I used to race myself...best time was under 14.5 minutes, incidentally). But if I were to do it at a pace where I wouldn't sweat, it would take me probably closer to an hour. Thank goodness I've had the good benefit of working at places with adequate shower/changing facilities.

#40 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:50 AM

And it's been proven that normal "excercise" sweat doesn't really have an immediate odor. It's nervous sweat that has the funky bacteria--the sweat produced when your boss catches you typing on VibrantVictoria when that big project is due.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

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.
 



1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users