Brad, I suppose that wasn't "the" only purpose, I would assume (and yes I am aware of the consequences) that injury prevention was probably also another expressed purpose of your MHL. Don't get me wrong, I understand your passion and I fully support your battle against the law, but I cannot imagine that helmet use has had no difference in some injury prevention. This is perhaps a metric that cannot be directly measured other than by statistical analysis. And perhaps not even then, as not every bump, scrape or cut is treated at an emergency room.
I think it is pretty clear that helmet use offers minimal, real protection in catastrophic bicycle/motor vehicle contact incidents. (Indeed, I somewhat intrigued over the idea that helmet use fosters a false sense of security and feeling of invulnerability that may indeed lead to even more careless riding.)
zac
Since I wrote a column about this last year (
Bike helmet laws don't work), my paper had to be sure what I wrote was correct.
I also was interested in what was said because at the time, while I knew a law was being debated, I didn't really care too much if a law was passed. I already wore a helmet so didn't think it mattered to me but I did think it may be informative to see what would happen if everybody was made to wear helmets. It certainly was.
I looked up the Hansard transcript to read what was said in legislature and bookmarked it, but the bookmark seems to have disappeared. I'm sure I could find it with a search but I also printed the sessions dealing with the legislation so I could reference them while writing my column.
You are indeed correct. The initial words on the initial reading to the legislature were,
The purpose of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Act is to reduce accidental deaths and prevent permanent severe head injuries to cyclists...
Later on in the debate the MLAs said,
...Most deaths could be prevented by wearing approved bicycle helmets
The second reading of the bill opened with a similar refrain:
This bill contains legislation that is designed to save lives and make our roads safer...
again, later on in the debate the MLAs said,
...It is a proven fact that head injuries drop dramatically when victims are wearing helmets... We are confident we can achieve high compliance, because the connection between helmets and safety is undeniable... [the] bill directly impacts on the saving of lives...The evidence is overwhelming that legislation will save lives...
The third reading was an affair of definition and refining legalities. There wasn't a debate on third reading. After the fine tuning, it was passed into law.
I don't deny that a helmet can afford a certain measure of protection, but it seems the amount of protection provided is so trivial or superficial that it doesn't show up in analysis.
I don't think there would be too many people who would support legislation that prevents simple bumps and bruises, but there would be many that would support legislation to save lives. I think the MLAs were genuine in their intention to save lives but they just didn't understand the limitations of a bicycle helmet or what happened when Australia and New Zealand passed their helmet laws.
I also think it likely that the government passed legislation in an attempt to reduce the costs of treating injuries. They even included in the legislation language the reduces any award to cyclist for a head injury if the cyclist was not wearing a helmet. If an at fault driver injures the head of a cyclist, the driver has reduced responsibility. (This is an interesting legal predicament. Manufacturers are waived from responsibility in the event of injury, but an injured cyclist must bear responsibility for the failure of the product that has been exempted from responsibility)
What the government didn't know was that the decline in ridership most likely cost the citizens more in health care dollars than the savings they were trying to achieve through legislation. They'd never admit they made a mistake of course and to repeal the helmet law would run counter to the messages that a helmet equal safety. To repeal the law would mean to many to encourage "dangerous behavior".
As it is the practice now is to not enforce the law except when the cyclist is breaking some other law with behavior that most often leads to a collision. e.g. riding trough a red on the wrong side of the street, etc., etc.