Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Vancouver man challenges bike helmet law

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Vancouver man challenges bike helmet law

Old 08-24-11, 02:02 PM
  #76  
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by UberGeek
Do you have some data for that? I'd be interested to seeing it.



Where? I'd like to see it.
What's the point? You don't engage in honest discussion; you simply disdain studies you don't agree with, apparently (or cherry pick the parts you agree with only).
sudo bike is offline  
Old 08-24-11, 05:19 PM
  #77  
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
in addition to the link provided in the OP, here is some more coverage of the story

https://www.cbc.ca/earlyedition/columnists/highvelocity/

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
https://www.cbc.ca/bcalmanac/

lawyer David Gray on bike helmet law challenge
https://www.theprovince.com/health/Bi...829/story.html

“I’m trying to make things better for everyone,” he said. “I want to resist this being a story about me.
https://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

"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."
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vancouver-m...021921000.html

"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."
https://www.vancouversun.com/health/K...750/story.html

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.
https://www.straight.com/article-4023...s-docs-backing

A cycling physician says he “absolutely” supports a Vancouver resident’s charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
https://www.straight.com/article-4289...s-and-freedoms

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.
https://www.straight.com/article-4256...ontinues-court

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.”
I would guess more press will follow once the case returns to court. If the case moves along to the Supreme court, I'm sure there'll be more still

Last edited by closetbiker; 09-13-11 at 07:35 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-24-11, 08:25 PM
  #78  
bedazzled fingernails
 
Ultraspontane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RolandArthur
The cracked open 'skunions' are mostly on your side of the pond. Perhaps you should try a different approach.
It must be the helmets, right? Not because there is more developed bicycle infrastructure or that drivers have increased awareness towards cyclists because a greater percentage of the population rides? Never mind the studies that show that helmeted riders have a higher crash survivability rate than non helmeted riders....

Come on man, that is just derp...
Ultraspontane is offline  
Old 08-25-11, 07:21 AM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ultraspontane
Come on man, that is just derp...
Uh - I think that's his point. The approach of mandating helmets does not solve the head injury problem. But making the roads safer for cyclists does. This could be as simple as getting more people on bikes or as complex as rebuilding physical infrastructure. In other words, we should be looking across the pond to see what's ACTUALLY working ... and it ain't helmet laws.
larry_llama is offline  
Old 08-25-11, 10:52 AM
  #80  
Psycholist
 
radshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 514

Bikes: Devinci Amsterdam, Litespeed Teramo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.

I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.

Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.

Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.

Last edited by radshark; 08-25-11 at 12:28 PM.
radshark is offline  
Old 08-25-11, 03:01 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by radshark
Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
OK as long as we also refuse treatments to heart attack patients if they didn't ride their bikes to work...
larry_llama is offline  
Old 08-25-11, 04:30 PM
  #82  
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
Originally Posted by larry_llama
OK as long as we also refuse treatments to heart attack patients if they didn't ride their bikes to work...
perhaps the most popular and often repeated comment in the feedback forms on the stories of the challange has been, if the people on bikes want to ride without helmets they should be allowed provided they sign a waiver for costs of the care they would need if they were to receive a head injury.

Actually, this suggestion is already partially true. A cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and receives a head injury in a collision with a motor vehicle while not at fault in that collision, will not receive compensation for his/her head injury. Treatment yes, compensation, no.

Funny how very few comments make the point that people on bikes (even when they don't wear helmets) need less medical care than those who don't ride. Be as slovenly as you like, heart disease, stroke, diabetis, respritory disease; all is covered even if you actively contributed to your demise

Funny also how it's perfectly acceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit even when that extra speed can double the impact force if a crash were to happen. No calls for insurance to be invalidated in that scenario.

Many link helmets to seat belts too. Not only are the two completely different, the point is lost that cycling actively improves health while sitting in a car does not. Even if the two had an equal record of effectiveness, the contribution of the benefits of cycling would have to be factored into the risks of injury of riding without a helmet to come up with a realistic risk/benefit ratio.

I think the bottom line is, people think riding a bike doesn't save lives through improved health, people think riding a bike risks the life of anyone who rides it.

Under our law the police can seize the bicycle of anyone convicted of riding without a helmet. No helmet, no bike. It is better not to ride at all, than ride a bike without a helmet.

Last edited by closetbiker; 08-26-11 at 07:44 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-25-11, 04:33 PM
  #83  
Single-serving poster
 
electrik's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by 1nterceptor
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...elmet-law.html


"Ron van der Eerden argues that being forced to wear a helmet by the Motor Vehicle Act violates his rights concerning life, liberty and security.

He cites studies that show wearing a helmet can cause more harm than good.

"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."
He is going to lose, supreme court just finished ruling on another case. What a waste of money.
electrik is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 01:34 AM
  #84  
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by radshark
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.

I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.

Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.

Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
You should wear a helmet just in case you fall on that slippery slope.

Seriously: If there is so much questioning around helmets (which there obviously is), is it really a good idea to make penalties for not wearing them? While I still disagree with it, cigarettes would be one thing: They are pretty unquestionably linked to lung cancer. Seat belts? Almost unquestionably save lives. Bike helmets? Pretty questionable; there's ample evidence they don't do as much as claimed, and there's also studies showing they do. I think you're drawing a false comparison.
sudo bike is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 12:38 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
RolandArthur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ultraspontane
It must be the helmets, right? Not because there is more developed bicycle infrastructure or that drivers have increased awareness towards cyclists because a greater percentage of the population rides? Never mind the studies that show that helmeted riders have a higher crash survivability rate than non helmeted riders....

Come on man, that is just derp...
Earlier in this thread I tried to explain why Europe has less cycling deaths. Perhaps you should read my earlier posts? People are riding their bikes here because they don't have to bother with excessive and unnecessary safety precautions like helmets.

Less @ssholes mandating rules for cyclists to follow = more cyclists (~40% of <5km rides commuters in Dutch cities use a bike) = more funding = more safety for cyclists.

It's very easy
RolandArthur is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 02:38 PM
  #86  
Single-serving poster
 
electrik's Avatar
 
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
Originally Posted by RolandArthur
Earlier in this thread I tried to explain why Europe has less cycling deaths. Perhaps you should read my earlier posts? People are riding their bikes here because they don't have to bother with excessive and unnecessary safety precautions like helmets.

Less @ssholes mandating rules for cyclists to follow = more cyclists (~40% of <5km rides commuters in Dutch cities use a bike) = more funding = more safety for cyclists.

It's very easy
Quit it with the Dutch colonialism. I know it is harsh lesson but not everywhere has same the planning, geography and culture.
electrik is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 03:48 PM
  #87  
Senior Member
 
RolandArthur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by electrik
Quit it with the Dutch colonialism. I know it is harsh lesson but not everywhere has same the planning, geography and culture.
And instead of listening to someone from a country where the safety is better and still improving you choose to blame the "planning, geography and culture" you are responsible for (Canada is a democracy, right?). That really helped your cause.
RolandArthur is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 04:17 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
RolandArthur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Link please.
I made an elaborate argument for this statement earlier in this thread, please consider that your "link".
RolandArthur is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 04:47 PM
  #89  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Those residents of Vancouver who care should be using this to fight the MHL politically, striking while the iron is hot, while this other fellow is in the news taking it through judicial channels.

https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.

Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.

Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 08-26-11, 07:01 PM
  #90  
Psycholist
 
radshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 514

Bikes: Devinci Amsterdam, Litespeed Teramo

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by sudo bike
You should wear a helmet just in case you fall on that slippery slope.
I like slippery slopes. What the heck do you think Canadians play hockey on. Ironically many of us play pick-up with no helmets at the local outdoor rinks... no laws against that.

Originally Posted by sudo bike
Seriously: If there is so much questioning around helmets (which there obviously is), is it really a good idea to make penalties for not wearing them?
There isn't so much questioning. Yes there is a court case but this issue is not even close to being on the cycling community's radar in Canada. I'd say we are more worried about cycling infrastructure and a legal system that dismisses cagers killing multiple people on rural stretches of road. Maybe when we win some of those battles and get to a safer state of affairs we'll turn our attention to helmets and how they cramp our style and ruin our hair-dos.

Originally Posted by sudo bike
I think you're drawing a false comparison.
Not really. If those paying for health care (general population) think helmets should be worn then its not. Scientific/statistically proof doesn't enter the equation. Law makers can and will pass laws, rules and form public policy based on public perception without conclusive scientific studies. Want proof? We already have bike helmet laws

Besides - if you push hard enough for scientific proof law makers might up the ante and insist on DOT approved helmets. Just imagine your hair-do after cycling an hour in a sweaty 10lb motorcycle helmet. It would probably look like Squiggy's:



While this could be an improvement for some, I think most would rather focus on infrastructure and enforcement issues than rock the boat about helmets.
radshark is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 02:36 AM
  #91  
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
There isn't so much questioning. Yes there is a court case but this issue is not even close to being on the cycling community's radar in Canada. I'd say we are more worried about cycling infrastructure and a legal system that dismisses cagers killing multiple people on rural stretches of road. Maybe when we win some of those battles and get to a safer state of affairs we'll turn our attention to helmets and how they cramp our style and ruin our hair-dos.
I meant "questioning" as in "questioning their effect", not social attention.

Not really. If those paying for health care (general population) think helmets should be worn then its not. Scientific/statistically proof doesn't enter the equation. Law makers can and will pass laws, rules and form public policy based on public perception without conclusive scientific studies. Want proof? We already have bike helmet laws
Oh, I have no doubt lawmakers and uninformed public will work to pass stupid laws; from that standpoint, you're completely correct. But your post seemed to say we should have penalties for those who choose not to wear helmets by making them exempt from coverage or making them sign a waiver. I'm pointing out that's a silly idea, and while I think the whole concept is silly and defeats the purpose of insurance, it's especially silly for helmets, which have shaky evidence at best that prove effectiveness, unlike smokes. I was simply refuting your point, and saying we should not have a penalty for those who choose not to wear a helmet, since there's not much verifiable proof they are significantly more unsafe. Practically, society will do any bat**** insane thing it wants to... I just don't have to support it.

Besides - if you push hard enough for scientific proof law makers might up the ante and insist on DOT approved helmets. Just imagine your hair-do after cycling an hour in a sweaty 10lb motorcycle helmet. It would probably look like Squiggy's:
Judging by other areas, we'd see a huge drop in cycling.

That alone is a good reason to push against it, IMO.

While this could be an improvement for some, I think most would rather focus on infrastructure and enforcement issues than rock the boat about helmets.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I see nothing wrong with educating people about what helmets are and are not capable of (rather than living thinking a magic hat will save them from a 2 ton hunk of steel), along with promoting infrastructure and increasing riding in general. Both can be done... at the same time even. Look, Ma, no hands!
sudo bike is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 06:17 AM
  #92  
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
Originally Posted by radshark
... this issue is not even close to being on the cycling community's radar in Canada...
I don't how you could be more wrong. There are very few cycling advocates that support this law, even if they encourage helmet use.

Think about what cycling advocacy is. It's about fair treatment of people riding bikes, and encouraging people to ride a bike. Helmet laws work against both points

Originally Posted by radshark
... If those paying for health care (general population) think helmets should be worn then its not....
and it's conclusive that people who ride bikes (even without helmets) live longer and require less health care than those who don't. people who suggest cyclists are a drain on the public purse are ignorant of the facts

Originally Posted by radshark
... Scientific/statistically proof doesn't enter the equation. Law makers can and will pass laws, rules and form public policy based on public perception without conclusive scientific studies. Want proof? We already have bike helmet laws
and that's what this challenge is about, holding a law up to light and showing it is causing the province to be worse off. Health care costs have risen and cyclists are less safe.

A politician can pass any law that is popular, the charter holds those laws to task, so an unjust law can be struck down

Last edited by closetbiker; 09-01-11 at 06:03 AM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 07:22 AM
  #93  
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
and it's conclusive that people who ride bikes (even without helmets) live longer and require less health care than those who don't. people who suggest cyclists are a drain on the public purse are ignorant of the facts
To me, it's akin to saying "Let's make people who drive and don't ride bikes pay for their own health care, since they are willfully partaking in a more unhealthy activity, causing a drain on the system". It's a really slippery slope, that one, regardless of if it's true or not. And kind of defeats the purpose of insurance anyway...

Last edited by sudo bike; 08-27-11 at 07:30 AM.
sudo bike is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 07:27 AM
  #94  
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
Originally Posted by mconlonx
Those residents of Vancouver who care should be using this to fight the MHL politically, striking while the iron is hot, while this other fellow is in the news taking it through judicial channels.

https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.

Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.

Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
while it's always good to educate people on the problems with helmet laws, it's important to remember this is a provincial law and only the provincial legislators can change it.

After decades of selling the public on the idea that cycling is dangerous, and helmets are the cure, developing support to throw out the law is a politically dicey one and an issue most elected officials will not commit to. This is why the publicity that surrounds this challenge is important. The public needs to learn certain facts that run in the face of the impressions they've been sold.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 11:42 AM
  #95  
Senior Member
 
mconlonx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,558
Mentioned: 47 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7148 Post(s)
Liked 134 Times in 92 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
while it's always good to educate people on the problems with helmet laws, it's important to remember this is a provincial law and only the provincial legislators can change it.

After decades of selling the public on the idea that cycling is dangerous, and helmets are the cure, developing support to throw out the law is a politically dicey one and an issue most elected officials will not commit to. This is why the publicity that surrounds this challenge is important. The public needs to learn certain facts that run in the face of the impressions they've been sold.
City could make a point of the issue by passing a law which flies in the face of provincial law...

Who's your representative in provincial parliment?

Have you established any line of communication with them? Worth forwarding info about the lawsuit and, as I mentioned before, either see if they'd be on board with rescinding the law, or maybe even better, support extending the law to all road users. Especially motor vehicle operators and passengers, seeing as how they form the basis of most head injuries paid by the public in Canada...

This is a political battle, you need to take the issue up in the political arena.
mconlonx is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 12:09 PM
  #96  
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
The City of Vancouver has an interest in a successful run of their new PBS system which is due to be up and running next spring, but municiple law is trumped by provincial law; the CoV can't enact a municiple by-law to rid vancouver of the helmet law.

I've talked not only to city officials, but also to my provincial representative, soliciter general, minister of Transport, and the Premier of my province about the law. So far, no traction, but I talked to the director of the PBS system and he's working on an exemption for PBS users based on a business precident and the record of pedi-cab operators who have an exemption. (in the 15 years since our MHL came into effect, there hasn't been a single head injury to any passenger or operator of a pedi-cab)

The superior safety record of PBS systems around the world will help too. Because each time a PSB is used and recorded, and every accident/incident is noted, it is easliy shown that injuries on PSBs are extremely rare. The record of PSBs show them to be very safe and the injuries that helmets are meant to prevent, almost never happen. NO need, no helmet.

Last edited by closetbiker; 08-27-11 at 12:17 PM.
closetbiker is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 12:45 PM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
trustnoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 520

Bikes: 2011 Colnago World Cup, 2012 Eddy Merckx AMX-2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by radshark
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.

...

Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
.
yes, helmet laws differ from province to province usually falling under something titled the "Highway Traffic Act" for what ever province you are in.

Maybe the provincial health care system should not pay for any treatment where the mechanism of injury was preventable. Tad-ah, I just reduced the healthcare budget by 95%.

At the very least, my plan gets more people riding as the majority of the health care profession would no longer be able to afford cars due to recent layoffs.

My heart weeps for all those potentially homeless Cervelos.

Really, If you think changing a helmet law in provincial legislation is hard try changing the definition of the Canada Health Act.

The vast majority of Canadian provincial traffic acts do not extend the helmet law to adults, quite frankly this is IMO reasonable.

Most acts include mandatory helmet laws for minors which although I disagree with it, is reasonable and no one will vigorously argue against it though personally I would like to see it reduced to an age where parents no longer have constant supervision over their children and they are bright enough to make decisions on their own, for example 13 years of age.

Impounding bikes for non compliance is unreasonable. Motor vehicles get impounded for far more serious offenses such as DUI's and street racing. Impounding a vehicle for non seat-belt use or tire wear wouldn't fly.

Really, arguments aside, I what I really want to do is punch in the face everyone who says: "well, health care shouldn't pay for head injuries if the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet."

What we need in North America is more people riding bikes. Every law that serves as a barrier should be struck and laws such as LA's anti harassment law and the Netherlands' practice of holding motorists at fault in all vehicle-bicycle collision should be encouraged. Federal and Provincial budgets should only approve funding for road construction and resurfacing if it includes provisions for bike lanes where population densities merit it, similar to the green space that developers must plan for.

Make safety equipment, kids bikes, and all bike maintenance tax free.

Ride

Last edited by trustnoone; 08-27-11 at 01:10 PM.
trustnoone is offline  
Old 08-27-11, 02:16 PM
  #98  
Senior Member
 
trustnoone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 520

Bikes: 2011 Colnago World Cup, 2012 Eddy Merckx AMX-2

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by UberGeek
I'm sure many would have died irrespective of wearing a helmet or not. In fact, I'd hazard about 9% of them would have (The number of deaths of riders even when wearing a helmet).

Or, since people were wearing a helmet, oft times a hospital visit was not even required. I'd hazard there is not a large difference in the numbers of people who wear helmets vs. those who don
I would hazard that there is a large difference between the numbers of people who wear helmets and the numbers who don't. In my town if I see a rider without a helmet in the distance I know right away that I don't know them. I know virtually all the adult cyclists who wear helmets. A 1:9 for/against ratio would be generous. Even though there is a helmet law in Alberta the ratio doesn't improve drastically for minors. If you remove the incorrectly worn and wrong sized helmets the numbers really start to drop IMO.

I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse or you have no understanding of statistics.

If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.

In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely. Too bad trauma isn't as neat as neat and tidy as the numbers.

If you removed the mechanism of injury which is undoubtedly a motor vehicle you'd likely surpass the 91% survival ratio.

How are you tracking hospital visits that weren't made?
trustnoone is offline  
Old 08-28-11, 03:17 AM
  #99  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
There's an interesting research done on this. I can't remember the name of the effect; perhaps someone mentioned it before me or could remind me? The basic theory is that the more protection one has, the more danger they feel confident with and procede with, therefore negating the effects of the aforementioned protection.

The simple act of not wearing a helmet cautions the drivers that this cyclist is quite possibly an idiot and dangerous. (I am one of such peoples) This advises drivers to stay farther away from said cyclists and allow more space when passing. This research observed that cyclists who wore helmets had cars that passed by closer.

I wear my helmet when I'm going for a real fast ride. I can go 50km + on flat roads, and 60km + when going downhill. If I intend to go at these speeds, I put on a helmet. Yet if I go at a speed of 10km ~ for a trip to the store, why would I need a damned helmet?

I also put on my helmet when I know I'm going to be working around kids. (I volunteered at a Day Camp for three weeks and wore a helmet everyday there. Nothing like teaching kids to be safe)
pkpyro is offline  
Old 08-28-11, 07:57 AM
  #100  
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
Originally Posted by trustnoone
...I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse or you have no understanding of statistics.

If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.

In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely...
and this is where the helmet compulsionist are being willfully ignorant. This example is already available in New Zealand, an entire country that has enforced helmet use to over 90%. The results from the NZ experience should serve as an example, but no, it's not the example they like, so they look the other way.

The supporters of our law place more faith in a few specially selected small case controlled studies (the Cochraine Review) than the results of what has happened to the people of their own province.
closetbiker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.