Western Canada - Helmet Ticket in Vancouver: The Campaign has begun.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/more.jsp?content=20090717_090445_6544
Of course the VPD hit the Burrard first in order to be seen to be doing something for all the Carnosaurs who are pissed at losing a lane.

good. helmets are crucial safety equipment.

First they're handing out helmet tickets, next your tv will watch you!

good. helmets are crucial safety equipment.

adequate daily consumption of vitamin c is crucial for healthy living. do you support the police handing out tickets to people who consume an insufficient number of oranges?

good. helmets are crucial safety equipment.
Perceived as crucial anyway.
They aren't gonna help your dome one whit when a Carnosaur hits you; but I do wear mine to protect against lighter impacts (which are possible).
Had friend get a ticket driving his cruiser on the path by first beach.
Guess the campaign is on hard-core.

First they're handing out helmet tickets, next your tv will watch you!
Plus, it will raise one up from a child...

good. helmets are crucial safety equipment.

Yeah, that epidemic of bicycle related head injuries is really taxing our public health care system. They should really just ban cycling due to the risk. I mean we need to make room for people who really need the system for their obesity related diabetes, drug addiction, heart disease, and all those people who aren't putting their own health at risk by horribly dangerous activities like biking.

There's a thread in the Advocacy and safety forum about this.

The thing I find odd is that, back in May the police held an education campaign and publicized that the fine for riding without a helmet would be $29, yet according to media reports, the police were giving out $100 fines.

I emailed the mayor asking about this. Vancouver city has a bylaw that sets the fine at $100, but to publicize one fine and charge another is not too good.

adequate daily consumption of vitamin c is crucial for healthy living. do you support the police handing out tickets to people who consume an insufficient number of oranges?

Don't you just love kindergarten logic. :rolleyes:
Seat belts is part of a crucial safety system in an accident. It has now become unlawful to drive cars without wearing seat belts.

yeah, but seat belts and bike helmets are hardly the same thing now are they?

I actually looked back at the debate of the day when they passed the legisaltion and it's sole purpose was to reduce death and serious injury. Not to mitigate or reduce injury in simple falls from bicycles.

Handing out tickets only discourages people from riding bikes, leaving fewer riders and more dangerous conditions for the remaining cyclists on the road. Hardly the intent of setting aside space on the road for cyclists at the expense of the motoring public.

Handing out tickets only discourages people from riding bikes, leaving fewer riders and more dangerous conditions for the remaining cyclists on the road. Hardly the intent of setting aside space on the road for cyclists at the expense of the motoring public.

You do know that even the most basic Wal Mart helmet has to pass the same safety tests from CPSC as the $100 Giro. If people can't afford $15 for a basic helmet, then I seriously think these folks should reconsider riding a bike around town. Maybe their brains aren't worth it then. mmmkay. :rolleyes:

Swarming the public streets with unsafe riders is counter productive. See the negative impact the Critical Mass recently in Vancouver generated. What they did on the streets is enough to make me feel ashamed to be a fellow cyclist. Safe riding by obeying the rules set the example and will pave the way for improve bicycle infrastructure. Not hooliganism and moronic law breakers that not only endangers themselves, but pedestrians and others around them.

Swarming the public streets with unsafe riders is counter productive. See the negative impact the Critical Mass recently in Vancouver generated. What they did on the streets is enough to make me feel ashamed to be a fellow cyclist. Safe riding by obeying the rules set the example and will pave the way for improve bicycle infrastructure. Not hooliganism and moronic law breakers that not only endangers themselves, but pedestrians and others around them.
Hooliganism? I was at the last CM ride and I didn't see any hooliganism. And the newspaper coverage of CM the day after the ride was quite positive -- maybe you missed the Saturday edition of the Sun?

At any rate, I'm not sure what CM has to do with not wearing a helmet, so my apologies for the off-topic post.

You do know that even the most basic Wal Mart helmet has to pass the same safety tests from CPSC as the $100 Giro. If people can't afford $15 for a basic helmet, then I seriously think these folks should reconsider riding a bike around town. Maybe their brains aren't worth it then. mmmkay. :rolleyes:

Not talking about the cost of a helmet. 2 things cause fewer people to ride with helmet laws; people don't like to wear them and aren't willing to brake the law, and it portrays cycling as a more dangerous activity than it actually is, making people scared to ride.

Man, I lost so many good buddies to cycling related head injuries back when I was a kid and no one wore helmets when cycling.

There are some things I love about living in Alberta, No helmet law (even though I wear one) and no PST and soon to be HST(suckas)

... If people can't afford $15 for a basic helmet, then I seriously think these folks should reconsider riding a bike around town...

OK, it's easy to see where you sit in regards to the helmet debate. I'm not sure if that matters.

It is a law, but the law is clearly rejected when you see a cyclist without a lid. This is not uncommon as there are many laws people (and the police) turn a blind eye to. About half the cyclists ride without a lid. I wonder how many motorists ignore the speed limit? Half? More than half? Do you think there are any cars crossing this bridge that are driving under 60 kmh?

Anyways, the point is, police announced the fines that were going to handed out when they caught someone riding without a helmet would be $29. When the police started handing them out (according to media reports) they were $100. Do you think this is right?

As they say... law is made to be broken? So I don't see your point. Police is an enforcer of policies and laws. So bikers, motorists and pedestrians can break the law all day. But be prepared to pay to play. If i speed in a school zone, when caught I have no excuse. Or if caught without wearing a seatbelt, then one must be prepared to face lawful charges.
Anyhow I wear my helmet because to me, my brain matters. To some i can see does not. YMMV.



Hooliganism? I was at the last CM ride and I didn't see any hooliganism. And the newspaper coverage of CM the day after the ride was quite positive -- maybe you missed the Saturday edition of the Sun?


BTW, there's a counter Critical Mass event called Critical Manners. Now that is a movement I can support. Do a search. Even a left-wing media like CBC had a segment critiquing Critical Mass.

the point is, the police said the fine was $29 and they gave out $100 fines.

an additional point can be made about drivers speeding and not being ticketed for their offense.

It's been shown that speed affects the death rate

from:http://www.momentumplanet.com/blog/ronrich/lower-neighbourhood-speed-limits-reason-few-square-inches

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3818227162_3a06254359.jpg

I am not contending the amt of fine. I am contending with the fact that riders do not see the safety aspect of wearing helmets which has now become part of the law for cyclists. And are now making a fuss for being ticketed.
Don't know what is your point about speeding.
I can easily pull stats on bicycle injury based on helmet wearing vs. non. But that would be too easy. ;)

I don't think too many are making a fuss about being ticketed. After all, the police ran a well publicized campaign through the media that they were going to be handing out tickets for offences.

I'm commenting that they're handing out ticket at more than 3times the fine that they said they would. Imagine if you were paying property taxes based on the appraised value of your property at 4% and when the bill came due, the bill was based on 12% of the appraised value. Would you say, "Well, I own the property, so I guess I should just pay the tax"?

The point of bringing up speeding is that police are picking some laws to enforce while ignoring other laws being broken that are causing much more harm

BTW, there's a counter Critical Mass event called Critical Manners. Now that is a movement I can support. Do a search. Even a left-wing media like CBC had a segment critiquing Critical Mass.
fwiw: I think the Critical Manners movement is ridiculous and can't be a success because the organizer figures the best way to get exposure is to be invisible. Sorry, but something is seriously wrong with that logic.

At any rate, this discussion is about the fines being implemented for not wearing a helmet -- if you want to discuss Critical Mass or Critical Manners, or the wearing or not wearing of helmets, I'd be happy to do so if you start a discussion specific to that topic rather than trying to derail this one.

I don't think too many are making a fuss about being ticketed. After all, the police ran a well publicized campaign through the media that they were going to be handing out tickets for offences.

I'm commenting that they're handing out ticket at more than 3times the fine that they said they would. Imagine if you were paying property taxes based on the appraised value of your property at 4% and when the bill came due, the bill was based on 12% of the appraised value. Would you say, "Well, I own the property, so I guess I should just pay the tax"?



In that case, then I see your point.

WCoastPeddler, there are already lots of comments on the Vancouver CMass issue. This was brought up in respond to a poster about gaining more road use by cyclist with or without helmets. I don't need another discussion on this so-called bicycle advocacy circus event that only leads to negative image on other law abiding riders. Metro, CBC, Global TV etc.... take your pick.

Hey pal, you're the one who keeps bringing up CM and Critical Manners. I've said twice now that if you want to discuss it to start another thread and stop derailing this one.

fwiw: I think the Critical Manners movement is ridiculous and can't be a success because the organizer figures the best way to get exposure is to be invisible. Sorry, but something is seriously wrong with that logic...

I agree. Seems to me the point of a protest is to kick up a fuss so you get noticed.

It also seems to me the reaction to the fuss is proportional to how much you are in step with the protests point. I didn't see too many people getting too upset about massive Earth Day marches despite the disruption having a larger impact than CM.

Motorists don't mind ignoring traffic laws when everyone else drives in the same way, but a guy on a bike that slows a motorist down? Bad news.

Hey pal, you're the one who keeps bringing up CM and Critical Manners. I've said twice now that if you want to discuss it to start another thread and stop derailing this one.


You are the one that respond to it. It was brought as an example. :rolleyes:


I agree. Seems to me the point of a protest is to kick up a fuss so you get noticed.

It also seems to me the reaction to the fuss is proportional to how much you are in step with the protests point. I didn't see too many people getting too upset about massive Earth Day marches despite the disruption having a larger impact than CM.

Motorists don't mind ignoring traffic laws when everyone else drives in the same way, but a guy on a bike that slows a motorist down? Bad news.

psst... westcoastfella doesn't like this to derail the topic. Start a new thread to discuss the matter. Oh wait, you agree with him. So that's OK then I suppose.

psst... westcoastfella doesn't like this to derail the topic. Start a new thread to discuss the matter. Oh wait, you agree with him. So that's OK then I suppose.

I just brought it up as an aside.

I don't need another discussion on this so-called bicycle advocacy circus event that only leads to negative image on other law abiding riders. Metro, CBC, Global TV etc.... take your pick.

of course you don't, your mind is made up and neither reasoning nor facts shall sway it.

^ Please start a new thread to discuss and not derail this thread.... some folks get really antsy about this. ;) Shh....

Don't you just love kindergarten logic. :rolleyes:
Seat belts is part of a crucial safety system in an accident. It has now become unlawful to drive cars without wearing seat belts.

I just love kindergarten logic.

Here's a hint: Just because something is a law, doens't mean it makes any sense.

Here's a thought: I propose that DRIVER SIDE seat belts and airbags be banned (passeger safety devices are fine), that cars be required to be made of tin foil, without driver side doors, and with a folding lawn chair for a driver seat.

Maybe more drivers would bother to pay attention if their OWN life depended on it.

fwiw: I think the Critical Manners movement is ridiculous and can't be a success because the organizer figures the best way to get exposure is to be invisible. Sorry, but something is seriously wrong with that logic.

At any rate, this discussion is about the fines being implemented for not wearing a helmet -- if you want to discuss Critical Mass or Critical Manners, or the wearing or not wearing of helmets, I'd be happy to do so if you start a discussion specific to that topic rather than trying to derail this one.
Couple of things: The first "Manners" ride was not invisible.
With 100+ Riders going up lanes, and making LEGALLY ALLOWED left turns etc.: We were seen.
It's hard NOT to notice a whole scad of folks riding in the bike lane (even wtih the group being broken-up by traffic lights; we still were in large "pods" of 10+ riders...).
I am a Crtical Mass participant as well; but I officially OUT of the ride the moment it heads onto the Lions Gate Bridge.
PS. If I am not mistaken: Bicycle Helmet stats indicate that the damn things do little except DISCOURAGE "newbies" from riding.
If a car hits me: That piece of plastic on my head will do little to save me.
The ONLY area I see helmets helping is in head-blows caused by falls...

There was a fair bit of media coverage of the ride before it happened.

Since it happened I only saw one small picture with a caption in The Province showing the ride.

"not much fanfare at all! Exactly what we hoped for!" said event organizers.

I thought the point of protest was to get noticed.

I thought the point of protest was to get noticed.
That's what I thought too. Otherwise, what difference will it make?

That's what I thought too. Otherwise, what difference will it make?

it will allow the participants to maintain their moral high ground when they trash talk critical mass on the internet and give them a convenient fiction to believe that they are making some sort of "advocacy" progress. basically, it looks like nothing more than an exercise in ego inflation for the organizers.

it will allow the participants to maintain their moral high ground when they trash talk critical mass on the internet and give them a convenient fiction to believe that they are making some sort of "advocacy" progress. basically, it looks like nothing more than an exercise in ego inflation for the organizers.
This is the worst problem I am obeserving:
Posts, or word-of-mouth assumptions such as yours are NOT in any way reflecting actual fact.
All they do is drive wedges between different groups within the GREATER Cycling Community.
I have NOT seen anything from the Manners people "Bashing" CM (and I have reviewed all the blogs, Facebook, and the website.
The only "bashing" is being directed from the MEDIA etc. Not the Manners organisers themselves.
As stated: I ride in CM, AND I participated in the Manners ride in order to lend support to a group that isn't attepting a "Moral High Ground"; but is offering an alternative to people of a different mind-set from those that participate in CM.
I see the Manners ride being made-up of folks who for several reasons do not see CM as right for them.
Call them "straight", or "Law abiding", or "Square" or whatever: The group was made up of folks that don't feel that they have the type of makeup that fits well/feels comfortable in CM.
I will pass no judgements on those that have differing opinions on how the greater goal is accomplished.
They got out there and RODE. Which is the most important aspect here.
I am an advocate of getting AS MANY rides on the streets as possible.
If the Manners ride gets riders out there: I'm for it.

Here's hoping the rumour that the Helmet Law is being examined for a repeal is true.
Ridership needs to go up. Not stagnate because of a barely useful piece of plastic on the head.

I don't see what the big deal is - $29 for the fine, $71 for the pollyticians reelection fundsssss....

Why do some of you care if I wear a helmet or not? Seriously.

Without a properly worn bike helmet, you are more likely to suffer greater head injuries than if you were wearing a helmet. This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.

That's right ... your health care premiums are a direct result of helmetless cyclists.

Without a properly worn bike helmet, you are more likely to suffer greater head injuries than if you were wearing a helmet. This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.

It's a common tactic to use the costs of health care for treating injuries to argue for helmet use, but if you fall for that, you really need to put things in perspective.

In spite of the inherent risks of riding a bicycle, someone who rides a bike on a regular basis lives a longer and healthier life than someone who does not.

Cyclists require less medical care than the average person. Cyclists lower the cost of health care. Cyclists subsidize the motoring publics expensive, sedentary lifestyle.

It's a common tactic to use the costs of health care for treating injuries to argue for helmet use, but if you fall for that, you really need to put things in perspective.

In spite of the inherent risks of riding a bicycle, someone who rides a bike on a regular basis lives a longer and healthier life than someone who does not.

Cyclists require less medical care than the average person. Cyclists lower the cost of health care. Cyclists subsidize the motoring publics expensive, sedentary lifestyle.

Bingo.

Just look at the stats from Australia, after madatory helmet law in Western Australia (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html), it's kind of a mixed bag and especially not the panacea some people seem to think helmets are.

Without a properly worn bike helmet, you are more likely to suffer greater head injuries than if you were wearing a helmet.
What you don't mention is that this (may) only apply if the person gets in an accident or mishap. Do you have statistics to indicate that one is more inclined to get in an accident or have a mishap if they are not wearing a helmet?



This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
See above.



However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
More ignorance.

Here's hoping the rumour that the Helmet Law is being examined for a repeal is true.
Ridership needs to go up. Not stagnate because of a barely useful piece of plastic on the head.

Sweet, I hadn't heard this rumour... tell us more...

Sweet, I hadn't heard this rumour... tell us more...
Gregor and his cronies are looking at introducing a "Bike Share" program in Vancouver/GVRD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system
Much like the BIXI program in Montreal.
One of the biggest potential roadblocks to such a program is the Helmet Law itself. For what should be obvious reasons.
It has also been indicated that City Council is looking realistically at the REAL statistics regarding helmets, and realising that they do not do much of anything other that reduce ridership.

I doubt very much that our helmet law will be repealed, but there is more and more influential people noticing that it hasn't worked out like they all hoped it would.

One of the major stumbling blocks to the proposed bike share program is our helmet law. No one wants the program to fail if they invest money into it but all indications are that it would fail if riders would be required to wear helmets. At this point, the project has stalled, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see it stalled further. Originally, it was hoped it would be in place for the 2010 games, but at earliest, it would come in after them but most likely wouldn't be for some time yet, if at all.

For the most part cops in Vancouver turn a blind eye to helmetless cyclists unless they are commiting some other offence that can lead to a collision. If you do get a fine, it's just $29

I found a video on youtube about a proposed bike share program in Melbourne and how they have to deal with their helmet law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fF9l0ooic&feature=player_embedded#

The local authority in charge of the system, Translink, has presented their reports on the implementation of the system. In the 3rd section of the report, there is a section (6.5) that deals with helmets.

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Cycling/Public%20Bicycle%20System%20Investigation/Public%20Bicycle%20System%20Investigation%20Part%204%20-%20Business%20Strategy.ashx

It says (in part)


6.5 Helmets

Safety for cyclists relates strongly to the number of people cycling and the expectation of motorists
encountering cyclists. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a
motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across
communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.

The European Cyclists' Federation believes that, instead of making it compulsory for cyclists to wear
helmets, the authorities should concentrate on preventing accidents. Promoting the wearing of
helmets by cyclists is not an effective way of improving safety for cyclists. Their conclusion: Road
safety for cyclists can only be improved by removing the danger at its source: by calming the traffic

The Netherlands has adopted a similar approach to cyclist safety - its approach is to segregate
cyclists from fast-moving and dense motor traffic. Where this is either impossible or not desirable,
motor speeds will be limited to 30 kph. The Dutch already have a good record for improving safety:
cyclist fatalities fell more than half in the 26 years to 1996, while both bicycle and car use grew - and
the number of cyclists wearing helmets is still close to zero.

Prior to introducing legislation in Australia, cycling was reported to be growing by as much as 10%
per year in some areas. After legislation, surveys showed a 36% drop in the numbers riding. This
effectively reduces safety for the majority of those still cycling. If cycling had continued to grow at
only 5% per year over the past 15 years, the numbers riding would have doubled.

Please refer to section 8.3 of Volume 1 for a detailed discussion on the issue of helmets and their
impact on cycling safety.

Helmet use is mandatory for bicycle riders in British Columbia. However, this is not the case in
Europe and all of the operators interviewed for this study expressed the opinion that mandatory
helmet use would reduce utilization of a public bike system. One of the key elements of a successful
PBS is ability to serve spontaneous trips as quickly as possible.

A policy of mandatory helmet use is expected to reduce PBS ridership since it makes usage less
convenient. Loaning helmets via a network of vendors or via some kind of automated dispenser
raises hygiene issues, sizing issues (one size does not fit all), liability issues due to unreported
defective helmets, and tracking issues.

With respect to the duty of care that the provider of a PBS would have in terms of helmet provision,
TransLink’s legal department felt that, as with the legal dimensions when renting a car, it is the
obligation of the user to ensure they are wearing a helmet if there is a legal requirement to do so.
TransLink would have to remind system users of this obligation, but TransLink’s in-house counsel
did not feel that it would be necessary to supply the helmet. Counsel noted it would be useful to
include the requirement as part of the conditions of use. It is recommended that a second opinion
on this issue be obtained from external counsel.

Taking into account all of the above, provided that external counsel concurs with the opinion
received from TransLink’s in-house counsel, it is recommended that the conditions of use for the
Vancouver public bike system state that a helmet must be worn and that it is the responsibility of
the individual user to provide one. The RFP should include a requirement for the operator of the system
to develop a network of helmet rental locations similar to the fare dealer network. Longer term, it is
recommended that an exemption be sought from mandatory helmet use for PBS users, similar to
the one granted for pedicabs. It may be more effective to start this process after the system has
been launched and the concept is better understood.

Personally, I think the helmet issue may kill the system, but I hope, if the program does start up, that police will turn a blind eye to users of the system who choose to go without a helmet.