Increasing calls for mandatory national helmet-laws in Canada
#1
Single-serving poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Increasing calls for mandatory national helmet-laws in Canada
Hot on the heels of this study: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...4/219.abstract
"Clearly, helmet legislation works and clearly it reduces serious head injuries and facial lacerations."
"A lot of people don’t wear them, and they seem to be the biggest daredevils. In the end, when they get hurt, all of society pays for them."
I think you get the drift...
Conclusions: Canadian youth and adults are significantly more likely to wear helmets as the comprehensiveness of helmet legislation increases. Helmet legislation is not associated with changes in ridership.
"A lot of people don’t wear them, and they seem to be the biggest daredevils. In the end, when they get hurt, all of society pays for them."
I think you get the drift...
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times
in
6,054 Posts
I guess they don't read A&S. If they had, they would know that cycling isn't dangerous at all until helmets are involved, or that you can just never have an accident instead of wearing a helmet.
#3
Go Leafs
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
1) I wear a helmet because I want to.
2) My friend doesn't wear a helmet because he does not want to.
We both have brains that we use to make up our minds.
Government simply needs to stay out of that decision making process and I don't give a rip what the study says.
This type of nonsense has nothing to do with safety and everything to do about control!!
2) My friend doesn't wear a helmet because he does not want to.
We both have brains that we use to make up our minds.
Government simply needs to stay out of that decision making process and I don't give a rip what the study says.
This type of nonsense has nothing to do with safety and everything to do about control!!
#4
Single-serving poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Indeed, personally I am not in favour of a mandatory helmet law because it is a panacea. On the flip side, people need to realize helmets can increase safety and stop using the fact that helmet laws are mostly panacea as proof helmets can't increase the individual's safety. Often that increase in personal safety is offset by a lack of commitment by public and government to provide safe places to cycle, making the overall situation increasingly dangerous. IMO infrastructure and providing a place for us to cycle is what can increase cyclist safety and raise cycling numbers, that is harder to develop(as you can see by Toronto's Councillors horrid remarks).
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times
in
6,054 Posts
Some people like to think "Big Brother shouldn't be able to force me to wear a seat belt; it's the highway patrol's job to scrape my remains off the pavement." And probably a lot more people feel differently about the role of laws and government and individual decision making, which is why "there should be a law" is such a popular phrase.
#6
Go Leafs
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
We all have lines drawn in the sand where we think that Gov't has overstepped and they are all over the map. My line has a lot to do with "how does this law for me, affect someone else". Forcing me to wear a helmet does not protect anyone else in any way so therefore it is something that should not be done.
I am quite capable of taking care of myself.
I am, however, not totally opposed to gov't providing some information on the subject.
I am quite capable of taking care of myself.
I am, however, not totally opposed to gov't providing some information on the subject.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edgewater, CO
Posts: 3,214
Bikes: Tons
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would love to get a hold of the full text of the study.
If what the study says is entirely true, I still would never support MHLs.
If what the study says is entirely true, I still would never support MHLs.
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,645 Times
in
6,054 Posts
We all have lines drawn in the sand where we think that Gov't has overstepped and they are all over the map. My line has a lot to do with "how does this law for me, affect someone else". Forcing me to wear a helmet does not protect anyone else in any way so therefore it is something that should not be done.
If we all get to pick and choose which laws apply to us ( or only which don't because the gov't has overstepped ), then what's the point of having laws at all? You don't like the one about wearing a helmet, I don't like the one about having to stop for red lights, and lots of car drivers don't like the one about having to pass us with three feet. Each of us saying "I am quite capable of taking care of myself."
The mouse-over text for this one says: "Sometimes I'm terrified to realize how many options other people have."
PS - I don't wear a helmet most of the time, either. But I don't hold any illusions that I'm a freedom fighter for it, upholding some abstract concept of liberty against The Matrix. I'm just violating a by-law.
#9
Single-serving poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
We all have lines drawn in the sand where we think that Gov't has overstepped and they are all over the map. My line has a lot to do with "how does this law for me, affect someone else". Forcing me to wear a helmet does not protect anyone else in any way so therefore it is something that should not be done.
Not to appeal to fear, but there are some benefits outside of your own personal benefit. Don't ask me of which column is more value, i haven't decided.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Leeds UK
Posts: 2,085
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
3 Posts
I wonder if this "Wear a helmet or you will DIE" approach will encourage more people to take part in this healthy, life-enhancing activity?
#11
Go Leafs
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 348
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I will be in Toronto this weekend and I am bringing my bike so I will be able to judge for myself if there is a vast difference in the way people treat cyclists.
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Enitre paper available for free on the journal's web site
#13
Senior Member
There are always going to be some people who will never give up their quest to impose what they think is best on others.
This has been posted on the HCS (part 3) thread and this was my response:
Manitoba examined the issue in 2005 when the govt set up a task force that included representatives of all parties. The task force concluded the cons of a helmet law outweighed the pros so recommended there be no law for children.
to say, "It's atrocious that in 2010, every province does not have some sort of helmet legislation" is to be completely ignorant of the reasons the majority of provinces have rejected helmet laws.
to say, "Clearly, helmet legislation works and clearly it reduces serious head injuries and facial lacerations" is to reveal yourself as being more than simply ignorant. It shows you don't have a clear grasp on the issue.
They may have been better off to consider the injury and fatality rates between provinces with and without helmet laws. Provinces with helmet laws and larger percentages of people wearing helmets have no better record than non-helmet law provinces. In fact, non-helmet law provinces have lower rates of injury and fatality than helmet law provinces (a 6 year period on either side of the passing of a law revealed a reduction of 20.4% reduction, vs. a reduction of 29.5% in non-helmet law provinces. An examination of hospital admissions reveals that admissions fell by 10 per cent over a 12-month period for provinces with helmet laws, while provinces without helmet laws saw a reduction of 22 per cent.)
The figure of a 73% wearing rate in NS is a little suspect as well. Stats Can recently published a study that place BC as the highest usage rate in the country at 60%.
To say, "provincial helmet legislation does not cause people to cycle less" is to dismiss an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal uncovering a 62% drop in cycling the year immediately following the enforcement of the Province of Nova Scotia's helmet law. It also dismisses BCs 28% drop in cycling following its law being passed and enforced.
All in all, pretty shoddy work done by an undergrad that ignores much work done on the issue by experts in the field. The information the conclusions are based on are from a simple survey involving people who are not experts.
Not very credible, but newsworthy.
This has been posted on the HCS (part 3) thread and this was my response:
Manitoba examined the issue in 2005 when the govt set up a task force that included representatives of all parties. The task force concluded the cons of a helmet law outweighed the pros so recommended there be no law for children.
to say, "It's atrocious that in 2010, every province does not have some sort of helmet legislation" is to be completely ignorant of the reasons the majority of provinces have rejected helmet laws.
to say, "Clearly, helmet legislation works and clearly it reduces serious head injuries and facial lacerations" is to reveal yourself as being more than simply ignorant. It shows you don't have a clear grasp on the issue.
They may have been better off to consider the injury and fatality rates between provinces with and without helmet laws. Provinces with helmet laws and larger percentages of people wearing helmets have no better record than non-helmet law provinces. In fact, non-helmet law provinces have lower rates of injury and fatality than helmet law provinces (a 6 year period on either side of the passing of a law revealed a reduction of 20.4% reduction, vs. a reduction of 29.5% in non-helmet law provinces. An examination of hospital admissions reveals that admissions fell by 10 per cent over a 12-month period for provinces with helmet laws, while provinces without helmet laws saw a reduction of 22 per cent.)
The figure of a 73% wearing rate in NS is a little suspect as well. Stats Can recently published a study that place BC as the highest usage rate in the country at 60%.
To say, "provincial helmet legislation does not cause people to cycle less" is to dismiss an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal uncovering a 62% drop in cycling the year immediately following the enforcement of the Province of Nova Scotia's helmet law. It also dismisses BCs 28% drop in cycling following its law being passed and enforced.
All in all, pretty shoddy work done by an undergrad that ignores much work done on the issue by experts in the field. The information the conclusions are based on are from a simple survey involving people who are not experts.
Not very credible, but newsworthy.
Last edited by closetbiker; 08-12-10 at 08:29 AM.