Jump to content

      



























Photo

Repeal bike helmet legislation!


  • Please log in to reply
317 replies to this topic

#41 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 09:14 AM

Oh god they're on to me!!!!
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#42 rjag

rjag
  • Member
  • 6,363 posts
  • LocationSi vis pacem para bellum

Posted 26 May 2010 - 09:22 AM

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.


Sounds good in a perfect world, but what eveidence do you have that all these drivers wake up and say, "thats it I'm going to find an alternative method of getting to work"

Perhaps they find an alternative route instead.

I remember one study that was done a few years ago after the 2 month bus strike in Vancouver that showed there was improved traffic flow and little if any congestion and a significant reduction in vehicle/pedestrian accidents. I'll try and find it, I think it was posted on CKNW or CTV.

#43 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:25 AM

Between 1995 and 1997, four provinces of Canada introduced helmet legislation either for all cyclists or for those under 18 years of age. Later in 2002, Alberta also enforced helmet legislation for cyclists under 18 years of age.

Comparing provinces with helmet legislation to provinces without for the period 1994 to 1998 shows a relative net benefit for those without legislation. It appears helmet legislation has not provided the benefits expected, infringes civil liberties and has caused more harm than good.


From this assessment by Safer Cycling author, road safety instructor, and former British Cycling Federation coach Colin Clark

#44 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 01:47 PM

Sounds good in a perfect world, but what eveidence do you have that all these drivers wake up and say, "thats it I'm going to find an alternative method of getting to work"

Perhaps they find an alternative route instead.


As I said, some will find an alternative route, which can be a good thing -- dissipating traffic.

However, in every (which is many) case studies that I have read or heard about (sorry, no refs), active transportation increases.

This is the model used by Copenhagen for the past 50 years. This is what Jane Jacobs was able to demonstrate (with evidence) to overcome Robert Moses's car-oriented plans in Manhattan, multiple times. This is what Gehl architects have helped to demonstrate in Melbourne, Malmo, and other cities across the globe. This is what is happening in NYC right now.

#45 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 01:51 PM

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.


~20km/h is the rule of thumb in these 'cycle chic' cities. That'd be 30 mins for you. Most people live closer.

Take your jacket off?

#46 pseudotsuga

pseudotsuga
  • Member
  • 287 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:52 PM

If flat, straight Shelbourne had separated bike lanes, riding into town from Gordon Head at 20km/h would be a pleasure - helmet or no.

#47 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 05:58 PM

If flat, straight Shelbourne had separated bike lanes, riding into town from Gordon Head at 20km/h would be a pleasure - helmet or no.


I couldn't agree more.

You can see my thoughts here: Bettering Shelbourne, Part 3: Bike Lanes

I have been communicating a bit with the Shelbourne Corridor Action Plan people over this. Let's hope it happens.

#48 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 08:36 PM

Keep it up Evan. I would love to see Shelbourne two lanes with bike lanes.

The only challenge - and it is a big one - there will have to be in depth studies to calculate length of turning lanes, where turning lanes should exist, etc. It's not as simple as repainting lines. The way things lie on Shelbourne right now, planners leave all the work to the drivers and bicyclists. The driver has to be on guard because of right and mostly left turning vehicles ahead. Bicyclists have to be on constant guard of cars side swipes. It's a mess. But it's the cheapest method to ensure flow.

Two lanes require more hardware - medians, signs, paint. But mostly, I'm guessing, the costs will come with the planning.

Look at a left turn on any minor intersection of a future two-lane Shelbourne, for example. The lane needs to be long enough to accommodate vehicles held there during peak times, but the lane can't be too long. (Will the lane reductions increase such lanes?) I could go on. Basically, there's little room for error.

The key is precision in the planning.

Just something to consider.

#49 phx

phx
  • Member
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 09:51 PM

I remember one study that was done a few years ago after the 2 month bus strike in Vancouver that showed there was improved traffic flow and little if any congestion and a significant reduction in vehicle/pedestrian accidents.


I was living in Vancouver during the bus strike, and it was a once-in-a-lifetime treat. It was amazing how well traffic flowed without buses blocking the curb lanes.

#50 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:02 PM

Irresponsible?

A 3000lb environmentally-, visually-, and noise polluting oil-powered machine that


Yes, I hear you and agree. I commute by bike 4 days a week most of the year, and take the bus if its really terrible out. However, the car-loving public will not agree. They see the few bad cyclists running lights, riding on sidewalks, weaving erratically, and they think of all cyclists as crazy hooligans. Start saying you want to repeal the helmet law, you will get some of the opinions above - that we are part of a universal health care system and you can't take undue risks.

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


Sorry, I didn't read them all. The first one I saw on your link http://www.ctcyorksh...paigns/velo.htm was per hour:

Travel deaths/10^6 h serious hospitalizations/10^6 h.
bicyclists 0.41 2.2
car occupants 0.46 1.6
pedestrians 0.8 2.0
motorcyclists 7.5 18.0

#51 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,502 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 26 May 2010 - 10:42 PM

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


I'm with you on this one. Plus they don't usually let you take a bike through the drive-thrus and even if they did where would you put your coffee :confused:

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.


I usually break out into a sweat walking up a few flights of stairs on a hot summer day, I'd need my own private shower at work if I rode.

I'll take the air conditioned car ;)


I have no problem with helmet laws. I used to ride my bike a lot (don't have one now) and always wore a helmet even without the law.

As for the "they mess up my hair" excuse, I thought shaggy, bed-head styles were in?

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#52 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:13 AM

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


Sweaty depends on your exertion level. Probably also depends on the amount of person-person time you need to have. A lot of people make do with a fresh shirt and underwear and a quick towel off in the washroom.

As for exhausted? I have a pretty sedentary job, so the bike ride in the AM serves to wake me up. I feel worse on the days I drive or take the bus than I do the days I ride. Maybe wouldn't be true if I wasn't otherwise in shape, but you get over being out of shape pretty quick. When I moved back to Victoria, the climb up Foul Bay to Henderson almost killed me for the first couple of weeks, now I don't even notice it.

#53 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:16 AM

As for the "they mess up my hair" excuse, I thought shaggy, bed-head styles were in?



http://www.haveuhear...stin-Bieber.jpg

#54 B.Bridge

B.Bridge
  • Member
  • 108 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 11:16 AM

I agree that the helmet law should be repealed. I've ridden in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Brittany, etc - all with a naked head along with tens of thousands of others, on busy and quiet roads with no bike lanes, trails, bike lanes, etc. I believe the BC helmet law was well-meaning, but unnecessary.

#55 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:04 PM

Yes, I hear you and agree. I commute by bike 4 days a week most of the year, and take the bus if its really terrible out. However, the car-loving public will not agree. They see the few bad cyclists running lights, riding on sidewalks, weaving erratically, and they think of all cyclists as crazy hooligans. Start saying you want to repeal the helmet law, you will get some of the opinions above - that we are part of a universal health care system and you can't take undue risks.


Couldn't agree more.

And, yes, don't take undue risk: just rot on your couch and in your car.

Sorry, I didn't read them all. The first one I saw on your link http://www.ctcyorksh...paigns/velo.htm was per hour:

Travel deaths/10^6 h serious hospitalizations/10^6 h.
bicyclists 0.41 2.2
car occupants 0.46 1.6
pedestrians 0.8 2.0
motorcyclists 7.5 18.0


Oops. You are very right about that one. I happened to have just read that one, again, this morning and thought of this thread.

#56 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 27 May 2010 - 07:11 PM

I agree that the helmet law should be repealed. I've ridden in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Brittany, etc - all with a naked head along with tens of thousands of others, on busy and quiet roads with no bike lanes, trails, bike lanes, etc. I believe the BC helmet law was well-meaning, but unnecessary.


Yup.

#57 victorian fan

victorian fan
  • Member
  • 1,923 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 07:46 AM

The cyclist was not at fault, was following the rules of the road and had the right of way at that intersection.

“Thankfully, the cyclist was wearing his cycling helmet correctly,” she added. “The impact broke his helmet but saved his head from injury. This is definitely a case for helmets saving lives.”


http://www.bclocalne...s/93462834.html

#58 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 08:16 AM

http://www.bclocalne...s/93462834.html


The cyclist was not at fault, was following the rules of the road and had the right of way at that intersection.

“Thankfully, the cyclist was wearing his cycling helmet correctly,” she added. “The impact broke his helmet but saved his head from injury. This is definitely a case for helmets saving lives.”


Nobody is suggesting that helmets don't save lives and prevent serious injuries. We just think that you can't use that argument for helmet laws without admitting that helmets would save lives if we all wore them inside vehicles too, or wore them at all times outside of the home.

#59 Evan

Evan

    People not cars

  • Member
  • 70 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 09:20 AM

Such anecdotal, "helmet saved my life" stories make up the most compelling argument for mandatory helmet laws, because they tap into our emotions.

See this little comment exchange on my website for my response to a nurse (emergency) who has seen such 'evidence' first hand:

http://www.makevicto...t.html#comments

#60 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 10:07 AM

I think if you presented your argument more calmly and diplomatically along the lines of "helmets are great safety devices but they aren't as important as people think, here's some stats and evidence that show a large percentage of people won't ride a bike due to fear of this law. Let's remove fines for not wearing a helmet but continue to strongly recommend helmets and educate about bike safety while at the same time creating an environment more attractive and safe for cycling" rather than coming in guns blazing about how HELMETS KILL due to being a cause of sprawl and auto-centric life and if you support helmet laws you support auto-related death and sprawl!!

The angry fanatic who knows the truth (even if he's right) will always be dismissed by a lot of people just from their tone. I know this first hand when trying to deal with a lot of Victoria Nimby's. You can't just yell dramatic facts and figures at them, and the more frustrated you get with them the less likely they are to listen.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

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