View Single Post
Old 03-29-07, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
closetbiker's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked 18 Times in 6 Posts
... and speaking of denial, I just re-visited that study of deaths of cyclists in BC posted on the BHSI website ( and the denial there is in full force.

It's a study of bicycle rider deaths in 1986 to 1995 and recommended measures by the British Columbia Coroner and in the introduction they are plain n the studies purpose:

The report's first and perhaps most important recommendation was for legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

The report reviews coroners' reports on cycling deaths between 1986 and 1995 and summarizes their recommendations. It was requested by the Attorney General in response to the death of Nathan Gemiano in a cycling accident in Oak Bay.

It goes on in the introduction to say,

Personal tragedies and individual suffering resulting from cycling accidents are not factored into the statistics nor are the costs of these preventable deaths.

scores of children's deaths may be preventable each year. Indeed, such needless death causes all involved to reflect on what could have been done differently.

In Victoria, Nathan's death sparked an outcry among drivers and cyclists alike.

Since Nathan's death, his family has been asking the questions "why?" and "what are we doing about reducing these types of tragic consequences?"

The accident happened in the blink of an eye...Nathan was riding his bike...He was wearing a helmet... the truck and bicycle collided...Nathan's left bicycle handlebar came into contact with a 4" X 4" piece of wood being carried under the truck bed. This undoubtedly would force the handlebar into a hard right turn, overturning the bike and thrusting Nathan under the wheels of the truck. Nathan was fatally injured...Although the use of helmets is critical in reducing the number and severity of head injuries, ... Nathan's case illustrates the importance of "sharing the road" education and the unfortunate results when both cyclists and drivers fail to recognize clearly dangerous scenarios, where even a helmet will not provide enough protection to prevent death.

So, here we have an arm of the government writing a report primarily to support mandatory helmet legislation, using as it's feature case example, a story about a helmeted cyclist being killed and admitting that helmets have limitations that will not provide enough protection to prevent death.

Talk about denial.

This has to be a joke, right?

Last edited by closetbiker; 03-29-07 at 02:11 PM.
closetbiker is offline