317 replies to this topic

[Evan]

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.

Great point, Baro. I definitely do and will keep this in mind when I present the issue and when replying to others.

However, I also think that opinion and controversy can often better stir healthy debate and so reach more people more effectively.

Did it work on you?

[sebberry]

The only reason we have this law is because people are too stupid to put helmets on in the first place.

I have observed that the cyclists without helmets are generally (but not always) the ones who disregard other safety considerations and ride in a manner which is only going to bring harm to themselves sooner or later.

Helmets are for the cyclist's own safety. Now I know your first response will be "but I should have say over that if nobody else's safety is at risk". Well.. go ahead. Take your helmet off. And while you're at it, ride against the flow of traffic at night with no lights on your bike.

Your numbers supposedly show that helmet laws discourage riding. I'm fine with that. I don't want to share the road with anyone who has that sort of attitude towards road safety.

You ask anyone who has suffered brain damage as a result of not wearing their helmet if they were glad they made that decision that day. If they can even remember it.

[Barra]

Hi, Evan-
On your Make Victoria Better blog you have a comment that helmet laws encourage a "blame the victim" mentality and that most bike related accidents are not caused by the cyclist.

I don't get the link between the two. The law does not "blame" the victim - it aims to reduce the level of injury that the victim experiences.

While I don't have any stats, I think it is probably true that most bike/car accidents are the motorists' fault. Personally I think who causes the accident is sort of irrelevant because my feeling - both as a cyclist and as a driver - is that the cyclist is most at risk. If I am facing an errant driver and I am in my car, I am protected from injury by both the shell of the car and by my seatbelt. As a cyclist, with the same errant driver coming at me, the only protection I have is my helmet. True, the helmet will not protect the rest of my body, that's why I've taken bike safety courses in order to learn defensive and safe biking.

I want cyclists to wear helmets both to protect themselves from injury, and as a tax payer, to minimize the health costs involved in fixing them. While all injuries are substantial to the person who has them, head injuries can be life long - serious head injuries can reduce a person's cognitive ability to the point where they can no longer maintain a job. Why would anyone want to put themselves in that position?

[Evan]

(Baro, this is me struggling not to go guns-a-blazin')

Sebberry, you provide a wonderful example of ignorant, reactionary thinking.

The only reason we have this law is because people are too stupid to put helmets on in the first place.

Are you too stupid to wear a helmet while driving?

Are you too stupid to wear a life jacket while swimming?

Are you too stupid to get enough regular exercise?

Are you too stupid to stay in the sun too long?

Are you too stupid to eat (and drink) healthily?

Maybe, we are all too stupid to have the foresight to construct better cities around more human-scaled, equitable, and efficient forms of transportation. Maybe.

I have observed that the cyclists without helmets are generally (but not always) the ones who disregard other safety considerations and ride in a manner which is only going to bring harm to themselves sooner or later.

The few cyclists that behave this way for the simple reason that cycling is discriminated in favour of private vehicular transportation. My goal is to make cycling mainstream, so that this type of behaviour is neither necessary nor condoned.

You could more convincingly say:

"I have observed that drivers generally are the ones that not only disregard safety considerations for themselves and others but also drive the 3000lb metal objects."

"I have also observed that these 3000lb metal objects generally do the maiming."

Helmets are for the cyclist's own safety. Now I know your first response will be "but I should have say over that if nobody else's safety is at risk". Well.. go ahead. Take your helmet off. And while you're at it, ride against the flow of traffic at night with no lights on your bike.

Uhhh... no, that's not my first response.

My first response is that people who cycle are not only assisting their own health and safety but the health and safety of other people -- something that cannot be said for any driver, anywhere, ever.

Besides, if that is your feeling, then you should be an advocate of driving helmets and wear one yourself.

As mentioned, cycling becomes safer with more participation, and so more awareness, and so more policy and infrastructure.

I am not saying not to wear a helmet. If you ride at night, then you should most definitely have a light.

But, really, these issues have little to do with the debate and everything to do with your personal biases.

Your numbers supposedly show that helmet laws discourage riding. I'm fine with that. I don't want to share the road with anyone who has that sort of attitude towards road safety.

They do not supposedly show this. They do show this.

Uhh... Who has the bad attitude towards road safety? The guy riding the 30lb human-powered machine at 20km/h or the guy driving the 3000lb petrol-powered machine at 50km/h?

You ask anyone who has suffered brain damage as a result of not wearing their helmet if they were glad they made that decision that day. If they can even remember it.

Cycling does not injure or kill people. Mostly, cars and drivers do.

Helmets do not reduce cycling injury or death rates. Instead, increased participation, education, policy, and infrastructure do.

People suffer serious brain damage from -- well -- living. Cycling is not dangerous relative to many other activities or conditions that cause brain damage -- and do not require helmets.

When cycle participation is even decently high, the rate of injury and death for cyclists is less than that for drivers and pedestrian -- per KM and per hour -- which utterly debunks your thinking.

Not to mention the public health, economic, social, built environment, etc. benefits of more cycling -- as opposed to driving, which has the opposite effect in each case.

[Holden West]

I have observed that the cyclists without helmets are generally (but not always) the ones who disregard other safety considerations and ride in a manner which is only going to bring harm to themselves sooner or later.

Interesting, because I often see hipsters on vintage bikes without helmets. Street people often wear them I suppose because they can pick a used one up for free or next to nothing and they do not need another excuse for the cops to hassle them. So I'm not 100% certain your theory is correct.

[sebberry]

While I am sure it is the car driver who legally causes most of the car/bike collisions, cyclists need to ride more defensively if they want to go on a rampage complaining about how they're never being seen and always being hit.

I try to give cyclists as much room as possible on the road. I'll usually be the first to make a lane change if there is a bike up ahead and watch as the three cars in front of me struggle to move over and out of the cyclist's way in time.

But there are those times that a cyclist insists that he/she has the right of way despite not waiting their turn at stop lights. I was turning right off my road the other day and the cyclist who was behind me decided to squeeze in beside me and make the right turn before me. He didn't have a helmet. My comment out loud to myself in the car was "and you wonder why you get hit"

I regularly see cyclists begin to move through an intersection on a red light as the crossing traffic is coming to a stop for a yellow light.

Stop putting yourselves in harm's way and then whining when you get hit.

[sebberry]

Evan, it is pretty clear that this issue is mostly about your personal bias against car transportation.

And for the record, yes, if I am swimming in a dangerous place like the ocean, I will put on a life jacket. If I am in a pool, probably not.

Helmet in the car? It will do little to protect me in the majority of collisions where seatbelts and airbags will serve me just fine. If I engage in autocross, then a helmet is required.

[VicHockeyFan]

And for the record, yes, if I am swimming in a dangerous place like the ocean, I will put on a life jacket. If I am in a pool, probably not.

Good call.

Place of drowning in Hawaii, 1993-97.



Why do more females die in bath-tubs? Or more importantly, why does anyone drown in a bath-tub. I guess small kids do. I wonder what the "other" is.

[victorian fan]

Ask any emergency room doctor or anyone who has worked in the field of brain injury rehabilitation what they think of bike helmets.

[VicHockeyFan]

Ask any emergency room doctor or anyone who has worked in the field of brain injury rehabilitation what they think of bike helmets.

I think many of you are missing the point. I, much more so than Evan, think bike helmets are great, that they save lives and injury. I think you should wear one if you want to, and no one should interfere with your decision to do so.

Ask any emergency room doctor or anyone who has worked in the field of brain injury rehabilitation what they think of sky-diving injuries. They will agree that sky-diving injuries are never good. But they don't think we should outlaw sky-diving.

[sebberry]

My responses in bold

The few cyclists that behave this way for the simple reason that cycling is discriminated in favour of private vehicular transportation. My goal is to make cycling mainstream, so that this type of behaviour is neither necessary nor condoned.

I don't discriminate against cyclists. At most I find them to be a surface nuisance.


You could more convincingly say:

"I have observed that drivers generally are the ones that not only disregard safety considerations for themselves and others but also drive the 3000lb metal objects."

"I have also observed that these 3000lb metal objects generally do the maiming."

Perhaps vehicles do the maming, but why was the cyclist in the path of the vehicle in the first place?


As mentioned, cycling becomes safer with more participation, and so more awareness, and so more policy and infrastructure.

Specifically, what part of "more cyclists" directly equates to "safer, fewer collisions"


Uhh... Who has the bad attitude towards road safety? The guy riding the 30lb human-powered machine at 20km/h or the guy driving the 3000lb petrol-powered machine at 50km/h?

Doesn't matter how big your vehicle is, it's how you use it. You can be a perfectly safe driver and you can be a downright dangerous cyclist. Your bias against the car is showing through again.


Cycling does not injure or kill people. Mostly, cars and drivers do.

This is simply what I like to call "right of weight". Should we ban busses and trains on basis that their sheer weight and size is more likely to cause greater harm to car drivers in the event of a collision?


Helmets do not reduce cycling injury or death rates. Instead, increased participation, education, policy, and infrastructure do.

Helmets certainly do reduce injury and death rates in riders who are involved in collisions.


People suffer serious brain damage from -- well -- living. Cycling is not dangerous relative to many other activities or conditions that cause brain damage -- and do not require helmets.

Such regulations are being considered in other sports, and certainly any professionally sanctioned event requires considerably more safety equipment than what most participants would normally use on their own.


When cycle participation is even decently high, the rate of injury and death for cyclists is less than that for drivers and pedestrian -- per KM and per hour -- which utterly debunks your thinking.

Probably because drivers are more consious of their presence and are conditioned to drive more defensively around cyclists.

[sebberry]

I think may of you are missing the point. I, much more so than Evan, think bike helmets are great, that they save lives and injury. I think you should wear one if you want to, and no one should interfere with your decision to do so.

If you're the one who is on the hook for paying the medical expenses (BC Government) then I think you have the right to decide if people need to wear helmets.

[VicHockeyFan]

If you're the one who is on the hook for paying the medical expenses (BC Government) then I think you have the right to decide if people need to wear helmets.

Should I also have the right to decide what and how much you eat then, too? Because I will have to pay for your medical care if you eat poorly.

[sebberry]

Should I also have the right to decide what and how much you eat then, too? Because I will have to pay for your medical care if you eat poorly.

I'll take my trans fats with a side of bacon please. Oh wait, the government has already banned them.

[VicHockeyFan]

Why helmet laws for bikes and not for skateboards, roller skates, and jogging? Ask any emergency room doctor or anyone who has worked in the field of brain injury rehabilitation what they think of jogger/car interactions. They will agree that they are never good for the jogger.

[victorian fan]

Please wear your helmet.

Love, Mom

[aastra]

Ask any emergency room doctor or anyone who has worked in the field of brain injury rehabilitation what they think of jogger/car interactions. They will agree that they are never good for the jogger.

They're especially bad if the driver of the car is also a jogger.

[Evan]

Hi, Evan-
On your Make Victoria Better blog you have a comment that helmet laws encourage a "blame the victim" mentality and that most bike related accidents are not caused by the cyclist.

I don't get the link between the two. The law does not "blame" the victim - it aims to reduce the level of injury that the victim experiences.

Hi Barra. Great points, all around.

Well, I am mostly referring to our societies (as proof on this forum) tendency to blame a -- for example -- helmetless cyclist's death on the fact that they were not wearing a helmet, rather than on the fact that a car hit them, and the helmet may or may not have had any effect (none in most vehicle-meets-cyclist collisions).

Or, in the case of Sebberry, "what were they doing there in the first place?"

However, many European countries also have much more clear cut laws on the issue, whereby this following hierarchy of accountability exists:

pedestrians > bicycles > motorcycle/scooters > cars > trucks

Whereby, essentially, the bigger you are, the more you are held accountable in an accident. In almost every case, the bigger vehicle is held at fault, regardless of the actions of the smaller mode.

Even more so, part of that law says that drivers should expect and be ready for the unexpected from cyclists and pedestrians.

While I don't have any stats, I think it is probably true that most bike/car accidents are the motorists' fault. Personally I think who causes the accident is sort of irrelevant because my feeling - both as a cyclist and as a driver - is that the cyclist is most at risk. If I am facing an errant driver and I am in my car, I am protected from injury by both the shell of the car and by my seatbelt. As a cyclist, with the same errant driver coming at me, the only protection I have is my helmet.

I couldn't agree more. My 'personal bias' against cars, as Sebberry says is irrelevant (yet justified?) for this (among many other) very reason.

I want cyclists to wear helmets both to protect themselves from injury, and as a tax payer, to minimize the health costs involved in fixing them. While all injuries are substantial to the person who has them, head injuries can be life long - serious head injuries can reduce a person's cognitive ability to the point where they can no longer maintain a job. Why would anyone want to put themselves in that position?

You will save exponentially more tax dollars by supporting the elimination of helmet legislation, regardless of what you think of helmets, themselves.

Serious head injuries can do that and be catastrophic for families and children. True. However, this case can be made for driving, being a pedestrian, and many other activities in this world.

You will save far, far more life years and even serious injury from increasing cycling participation. So, if that's what you want, then you should support this.

[Bingo]

Perhaps this debate can be settled with a friendly duel. Bicycles at 100 paces. One rider with a helmut, one without. The duel of "chicken" begins by getting up to top speed with the result being a head on collision.

[Evan]

Sebberry, I find it interesting that you are so in favour of mandatory helmet legislation yet your signature says "Road safety through education, not enforcement." That's ironic.

I don't discriminate against cyclists. At most I find them to be a surface nuisance.

Is that because they free up your roads or let you breathe cleaner air?

Perhaps vehicles do the maming, but why was the cyclist in the path of the vehicle in the first place?

Ahhh.... Is that even a real question?

Despite your perceptions, in nearly every case, the driver has been at fault for, for example, not seeing the cyclist while turning right (i.e., a right hook). So, why was the cyclist there? I don't know: To go to work? To get groceries?

Specifically, what part of "more cyclists" directly equates to "safer, fewer collisions"

Well, if you like linear thinking, then you could view it as: more cyclists = less drivers. Less drivers = less cars = reduced risk of conflict between cars and cyclists.

If you are capable of non-linear thinking, then you could also see it as

a) a greater presence in the given moment (e.g., 5 cyclists using a bike lane or lane are a lot easier to be aware of and see than 1);

b) a greater presence in general (e.g., cycling ever-present in Victoria; so, when you are driving, you are more likely to consider the possibility of encountering cyclists);

c) more cyclists = more influence for cyclists = more policy, education, and infrastructure serving cyclists = safer cycling.

Is that specific enough?

Doesn't matter how big your vehicle is, it's how you use it. You can be a perfectly safe driver and you can be a downright dangerous cyclist. Your bias against the car is showing through again.

It matters.

First, you can never be a 'perfectly safe' driver or cyclists. Accidents happen.

The difference:

A split-second, freak accident (e.g., hydroplaning) in a car can kill or severely injure you, any passengers, other drivers and passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, and do thousands of dollars of damage to others' cars or property.

Same thing. Cyclist. Worst case, you can kill or severely injure yourself. Beyond that, you might dent the hood of a car or bruise a pedestrians shin.

It matters.

This is simply what I like to call "right of weight". Should we ban busses and trains on basis that their sheer weight and size is more likely to cause greater harm to car drivers in the event of a collision?

No. But we should be aware of such things.

P.s., When did I say we should ban cars, buses, or trains?

Trains run on tracks and are a different breed of machine, entirely.

Bus drivers go through much stricter driving programs. And, buses serve a more equitable and 'healthy' social service to our cities.

Most cars are driven by a single occupant, just like bikes, so that is a better comparison.

Helmets certainly do reduce injury and death rates in riders who are involved in collisions.

This has nothing to do with my case and don't particularly want to debate this, but can you show me non-anecotal proof of this?

Such regulations are being considered in other sports, and certainly any professionally sanctioned event requires considerably more safety equipment than what most participants would normally use on their own.

Again, my aim is for cycling to be part of life, not a sport. If you are cycling for sort, then I would recommend a helmet.

Though, it's worth noting that wearing safety equipment in sport has been associated with more risk-taking behaviour.

Probably because drivers are more consious of their presence and are conditioned to drive more defensively around cyclists.

Exactly.