Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Nanny-state helmet law hurts cycling efforts

    Nanny-state helmet law hurts cycling efforts
    Derek Moscato
    26 April 2010 08:00

    Brad Kilburn can’t be thrilled to be an outlaw in British Columbia. But the avid cyclist has become exactly that since last year.

    Kilburn, you see, no longer wears a helmet while riding his bike.

    The Richmond resident, who has commuted to work by bicycle for the last 26 years, has come to the realization that mandatory helmet laws are actually bad for cyclists and Metro Vancouver’s cycling environment.

    “It’s too bad well-intentioned individuals have harmed cycling advocacy by forcing riders to wear helmets,” he told me. Kilburn also maintains the same law is hampering Vancouver’s attempt to set up a bike sharing program.

    He’s not alone in his assessment of helmet laws as more hindrance than help. In 2007, Saskatoon’s city council rejected a bylaw that would require bikers to wear helmets. One councillor wisely cited Canada’s obesity epidemic as a reason to distance the city from punitive measures that would discourage folks to get on a two-wheeler.

    This is not to say that cyclists shouldn’t wear helmets. Most should — especially children, and those who ride in heavy traffic. But forcing riders to wear head protection in every circumstance has had the effect of killing any spontaneity and enjoyment from cycling.

    Not only do helmets give some riders a false sense of security, they also send a message to motorists that cyclists are somehow better protected — and less vulnerable — in the case of a collision.

    Sadly, the law is symptomatic of the nanny-state mentality that is so pervasive today.

    Last September, Colin Clarke, a bike safety expert and former coach with the British Cycling Federation, published a detailed report entitled “Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada.”

    According to his report, “helmet law effects in Canada appear to have resulted in the public being fined, subject to police involvement, loss of cycling health benefits and a reduction in civil liberties, as well as additional accidents and longer hospital stays for head injury.”

    Canada, his research concludes, should emulate the cycling culture of the Netherlands, where helmet laws are unnecessary because of “good cycling facilities or wide on-road cycle lanes that avoid high speed and heavy vehicle traffic.”

    Sadly, the sensibility that exists in Holland and even Saskatoon has yet to prevail in B.C. And that means cyclists like Kilburn will have to continue riding on the wrong side of the local law.
    http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/co...y-hurt-cycling

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Sun Valley, Nevada
    My Bikes
    88 GT All-Terra Timberline w/Biopace 43 crankset and new Shimano 7 spd cassette. No suspension but the tires and my limbs<g>
    Posts
    249
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Apparently Advocacy and Safety is becoming an ironic moniker on this website...it should be the helmet bashers thread.

    If helmets are bad for cycling, but 'allowed' by spinach haters, why do you deign to cave in and 'approve' of helmets in '...MOST...' situations, and then go on to state that those 'most' situations are CHILDREN and, what's that? HEAVY TRAFFIC??!!
    You spinach haters can't even see how tenuous a grasp your line of thought is. If helmets CAUSE increased injuries and that STYROFOAM shells are useless in crashes, why in all the bicycle gods names would you even consider supporting their use in HEAVY TRAFFIC?

    Rhetorical question for anyone who has 2 brain cells to rub together. Helmet Bashers will proceed to try to justify their illogic.

    Leo H.
    Sun Valley, NV

    Let's see, just how many posts before closetbiker trolls by....

  3. #3
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    OK, we got Leo on the line, reel 'em in, boys!


  4. #4
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    brads kind of anti- "wide on road bikelanes" as well as anti-helmet.

    he's a throw them to the motorized lions advocate.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,793
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At the risk of sounding foolish, WTF is a spinach hater?

  6. #6
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DX-MAN View Post
    WTF is a spinach hater?
    someone who doesn't like Popeye?


  7. #7
    zac
    zac is offline
    Just ride zac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Lowell, MA
    My Bikes
    I just ride them, they own me.
    Posts
    874
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    brads kind of anti- "wide on road bikelanes" as well as anti-helmet.

    he's a throw them to the motorized lions advocate.
    I don't think that Brad is anti-helmet, as much as he is anti-mandatory helmet law.

    I tend to agree with him.

    Do I think helmets serve a safety purpose? Yes.
    Do I think the state should mandate their use? No.

    As for adults, I think it is up to them.
    As for minors, I think it is up to their parents/guardians.

    If you are competing in an organized sport/event, it is up to the Organizers to determine the safety equipment necessary, and/or up to the particular sport's Rules & Regulations governing the conduct of the sport.

    Do I wear a helmet? Most of the time.

    zac

  8. #8
    Young Fred jediphobic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Norman, OK
    Posts
    285
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    Do I think helmets serve a safety purpose? Yes.
    Do I think the state should mandate their use? No.


    Do I wear a helmet? Most of the time.
    Me too.

    Mandatory helmet laws have apparently failed at their only legitimate purpose, which is to reduce medical costs to the state. That alone should be enough to call them into serious question.
    2012 Eastern Chief - 2010 Raleigh Record Ace - 2010 Surly Big Dummy - 2009 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo e Koo - 2009 Trek Allant

  9. #9
    Senior Member Seattle Forrest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    9,871
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I think a better title would have been "Helmet laws hurt cycling efforts" and that the article would have done better to focus on claims that helmet laws result in "additional accidents and longer hospital stays for head injury", instead of appealing to emotions.

    Bike advocacy articles that talk about how things should be in an ideal world, based on emotional impact and with no context or facts, aren't really any better than the pro-car mirror image. You know, "Bicycles belong on the sidewalk, shouldn't be on the road, must yield when I want them to, and shouldn't exist in the first place." Everyone has an opinion on how things should be.

    Since you brought it up, how do helmet laws cause longer hospital stays for head injuries?

  10. #10
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bekologist View Post
    brads kind of anti- "wide on road bikelanes" as well as anti-helmet.

    he's a throw them to the motorized lions advocate.
    Beks got his own way of looking at things. Apparently, he's sure he knows more about what I think, than I do.

    There's only one person on the planet who may know me better than I know myself. After living together for 32 years, my wife catches me if I'm not being who I am. My mother knew me well too, but she passed, so that leaves my wife. Not Bek.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 04-28-10 at 04:28 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  11. #11
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by zac View Post
    I don't think that Brad is anti-helmet, as much as he is anti-mandatory helmet law.
    You got that right zac. Bek seems to forget I wore a helmet for over 20 years and instructed others to do so as well.

    Here's my head, appropriately (to some) attired (as originally documented by the press):




    The only thing I would add would be the theme of the third version of the continuing helmets cramp my style thread. That those who choose to ride without helmets, should be respected for their choice.
    Last edited by closetbiker; 04-28-10 at 04:07 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  12. #12
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo H. View Post
    Let's see, just how many posts before closetbiker trolls by....
    I guess it was 9.

    Really though. A newspaper article posted from a major metropolitan area which has some of the highest rates of trips by bicycle in North America that features me as it's central example on a forum that I have been active member for years and it's about my pet peeve? How could I not respond?

    It might be also a worthy note to mention the article was posted on one of the worlds leading cycling advocacy websites, http://www.copenhagenize.com.

    That's pretty cool, don'tcha think?
    Last edited by closetbiker; 04-28-10 at 06:58 PM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  13. #13
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
    I think a better title would have been "Helmet laws hurt cycling efforts"
    My wife thought that too. She doesn't like the issue being relegated to the nanny-law argument.

    The print version of the paper has a different headline with the same body of text. It says, Head-Scratching Law

    I think all three headlines don't matter much. I think the point is still the same.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  14. #14
    Delusions of Grandeur Dzrtrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Texas
    My Bikes
    '92 Specialized Crossroads, '79 Schwinn Varsity, '72 Schwinn Speedster
    Posts
    208
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well I'm not a spinach hater...a little lemon, some white beans....makes for a great meal.

    I wear a helmet... I think it is a wise idea no matter the situation, a little gravel and a slow speed can cause irreparable damage to your noggin, it's happened.

    IMHO, a government getting involved with a persons right to choose can become even more irreparable...If their reasons have to do with insurance and health then it would be only a matter of time before they get involved in other areas..no butter (not a problem), sugar, no red meat (not a problem), no alcohol...etc. More than likely this government could care less if someone wore a helmet or not...it was prolly something passed in order to move forward in another agenda that has no relation. again just my opinion.

  15. #15
    babylon by bike Standalone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Haven, CT, USA
    My Bikes
    Road, Cargo, Tandem, Etc.
    Posts
    2,768
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest View Post
    Bike advocacy articles that talk about how things should be in an ideal world, based on emotional impact and with no context or facts, aren't really any better than the pro-car mirror image. You know, "Bicycles belong on the sidewalk, shouldn't be on the road, must yield when I want them to, and shouldn't exist in the first place." Everyone has an opinion on how things should be.
    well put. thanks for posting this.
    The bicycle, the bicycle surely, should always be the vehicle of novelists and poets. Christopher Morley

  16. #16
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Experience here has revealed, even if many are in favor of helmet use, not many are in favor of helmet laws.

    Here's a question. Does anyone here think I am doing the right thing?

    Is going without a helmet in a mandatory helmet law province the right thing to do? Do you see this as taking a stand against an unjust, or unreasonable law, or am I just, (as Derek says) an outlaw?
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  17. #17
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    it's civil disobedience at the most basic level

  18. #18
    Senior Member Shadowex3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    ѺϡϟᐝᓿᕔᙰᔒѪᓁҸѨҨ
    My Bikes
    Kuwahara Aries
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A similarly fallacious return argument would be: "So will you be giving up seatbelts and disabling your airbags as well or are you going to continue with your false sense of security and increased danger caused by the general feelings of protectedness floating around?"

    But in reality I'd rather just simplify the issue. The effects of helmets are readily quantifiable by existing scientific methods. Either they do genuinely protect you more than any unquantifiable modifier such as a "feeling of security" might endanger you from having it and should be worn, or they don't and thus there's no point to wearing them to begin with.

    There's a little room for specifics with regards to situations where they're better or worse but otherwise this is not a debate about feelings and other unquantifiable and often fallacious arguments, it's a simple and straightforward case of how well an object physically protects your HardnSquishy.
    Last edited by Shadowex3; 04-29-10 at 12:31 AM.

  19. #19
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,829
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowex3 View Post
    But in reality I'd rather just simplify the issue. The effects of helmets are readily quantifiable by existing scientific methods. Either they do genuinely protect you more than any unquantifiable modifier such as a "feeling of security" might endanger you from having it and should be worn, or they don't and thus there's no point to wearing them to begin with.
    In reality, credible risk analysis of real world cycling risk (analysis that includes both event probability and injury severity) will readily identify the LACK of effect of helmet wear on reducing the cyclist population's injury risk. This should not be a surprise since by design bicycle helmets are not built to significantly reduce such risk.

    Don't be dazzled by the emotional rants of the proselytizers and promoters, the only legitimate rationale for an MHL as a public risk countermeasure (worth the cost of implementation) is evidence of risk reduction for the public. The "scientific" evidence for any such positive "effect" on the public is seriously chimeric.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    Experience here has revealed, even if many are in favor of helmet use, not many are in favor of helmet laws.

    Here's a question. Does anyone here think I am doing the right thing?

    Is going without a helmet in a mandatory helmet law province the right thing to do? Do you see this as taking a stand against an unjust, or unreasonable law, or am I just, (as Derek says) an outlaw?
    Personally, I appreciate your efforts.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    1,621
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Leo H. View Post
    [...]
    If helmets are bad for cycling, but 'allowed' by spinach haters, why do you deign to cave in and 'approve' of helmets in '...MOST...' situations, and then go on to state that those 'most' situations are CHILDREN and, what's that? HEAVY TRAFFIC??!!
    You spinach haters can't even see how tenuous a grasp your line of thought is. If helmets CAUSE increased injuries and that STYROFOAM shells are useless in crashes, why in all the bicycle gods names would you even consider supporting their use in HEAVY TRAFFIC?

    [...]
    Indeed it could be argued that bike helmets are <i>least</i> useful in 'heavy traffic.' They explicitly are not designed to protect in collisions with motor vehicles, and it's in traffic situations where the helmet is most problematic in terms of risk compensation. It makes just as much sense to say "leave your helmet at home if you're riding in heavy traffic, but always wear it for short jaunts on the bike path."

  22. #22
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya View Post
    it's civil disobedience at the most basic level
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertHurst View Post
    Personally, I appreciate your efforts.
    I appreciate the support.

    When I decided to go without it was to protest. I wanted to add to the numbers of people riding bikes that just don't buy into this law. The helmetless have grown and have about reached the levels of helmetless pre-law.

    The cops don't seem to enforce the law, but it seems when they do it's part of a temporary campaign and it's carried out in areas that make it safe and easy for them to pull over cyclists. That means they pull them over on slow, safe, and separated bike paths. The areas that cyclists are least likely to be hurt the most.

    As Robert mentioned (and Moscato got wrong) helmets are least useful in heavy traffic and that may be the next focus in my annual helmet column this year. The misconception that bike helmets are made for protection in collisions with motor vehicles.

    Helmets may indeed help in simple falls that usually result in superficial injury, but that's not why our law was passed. Our law was passed specifically to save lives and reduce serious head injuries. It wasn't passed to reduce or mitigate minor injury, that would have never sold. It was sold because people made the link between TRTs Seattle Harborview report on children having simple falls with no vehicle involvement and cyclists killed by vehicles. A fallacious association to be sure, but one that sold a story.

    * Oh, and as a side note. There are just as many deaths to cyclists wearing helmets as not since our law was passed. The number of dead has not dropped *
    Last edited by closetbiker; 04-29-10 at 10:16 AM.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  23. #23
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,829
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by closetbiker View Post
    [SNIP] It was sold because people made the link between TRTs Seattle Harborview report on children having simple falls with no vehicle involvement and cyclists killed by vehicles. A fallacious association to be sure, but one that sold a story.
    Sold a lot of helmets too; mission accomplished for those on the Bell helmet payroll.

  24. #24
    Senior Member closetbiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    9,596
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Snell profited too. I believe they were paid a fee per helmet sold for their certification.

    As their certification was de rigueur at the time, they profited from sales beyond Bells.
    "My two favourite things in life are libraries and bicycles. They both move people forward without wasting anything" -Peter Golkin
    [SIGPIC]http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27[/SIGPIC]

  25. #25
    Sophomoric Member Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dancing in Lansing
    Posts
    20,458
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think you're doing the right thing, closetbiker. Especially since you're working hard to get the word out.


    "Think Outside the Cage"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •