British Columbia has had a mandatory helmet law since 1996. Ron Van Der Eerden strongly believes that such a law does more harm than good, for a variety of reasons. That's why he's challenging it in court this week.

His view is strongly supported by many in the cycling world, where helmet laws are the source of heated debate

lawyer David Gray on bike helmet law challenge

“I’m trying to make things better for everyone,” he said. “I want to resist this being a story about me.

"for every brain we potentially may save with a helmet, we may be losing another one in an accident that wouldn't have happened if we didn't enact the law."

"Can you imagine if the government came out tomorrow and said, 'You know what? We are going to legislate helmets for everybody that is in a motor vehicle. It would be a much much higher cost savings to the public health care system,'" he said.

"But instead they pick on the 0.5 per cent head injuries that come from cyclists."

there is conflicting research as to the effectiveness of bike helmets in preventing cyclist fatalities. One report says there is no discernible difference in the number of deaths with or without a helmet. Other reports do not differentiate between deaths caused by head or neck injuries, and considering a helmet does almost nothing to protect a cyclists' neck, jaw and face, it is really difficult to determine the overall benefit of wearing a helmet all the time.

A cycling physician says he “absolutely” supports a Vancouver resident’s charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

At the end of the day, Van der Eerden is attempting to achieve a political remedy through the courts. It is not the role of the judges in British Columbia to substitute judicial opinions for legislative ones. The helmet law challenge, while thought provoking, is poorly conceived, and the attention it has generated is disproportionate to its legal merit.

Justice has been delayed for a local cyclist representing himself in a charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

“They went all day [August 12] and then they realized, ‘Well, this is running out of time; they are going to need more time,’ and it also came up that it could be that we’re completely in the wrong court. Which is interesting because, well, this is where they put me, you know?”

“I think it actually went quite well,” van der Eerden added of his day in court. “It’s disappointing that this is another kind of bureaucratic, legal thing that isn’t getting me where I ultimately want to be. But in terms of the way the court process worked that day, and the way the two expert witnesses were called—one from either side—and [the fact that] I had all day, or two-and-a-half hours or more, to tear apart their case. And I thought that was pretty good, if the court allows me to get there.”