Helmet Ticket in Vancouver: The Campaign has begun.
08-13-09, 12:56 PM
#26
NYC
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,714
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1169 Post(s)
Liked 107 Times
in
62 Posts
Here's a hint: Just because something is a law, doens't mean it makes any sense.
Here's a thought: I propose that DRIVER SIDE seat belts and airbags be banned (passeger safety devices are fine), that cars be required to be made of tin foil, without driver side doors, and with a folding lawn chair for a driver seat.
Maybe more drivers would bother to pay attention if their OWN life depended on it.
Last edited by nycphotography; 08-13-09 at 01:01 PM.
08-18-09, 03:00 PM
#27
Resident Seaballer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: East Van Rocks!
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
fwiw: I think the Critical Manners movement is ridiculous and can't be a success because the organizer figures the best way to get exposure is to be invisible. Sorry, but something is seriously wrong with that logic.
At any rate, this discussion is about the fines being implemented for not wearing a helmet -- if you want to discuss Critical Mass or Critical Manners, or the wearing or not wearing of helmets, I'd be happy to do so if you start a discussion specific to that topic rather than trying to derail this one.
At any rate, this discussion is about the fines being implemented for not wearing a helmet -- if you want to discuss Critical Mass or Critical Manners, or the wearing or not wearing of helmets, I'd be happy to do so if you start a discussion specific to that topic rather than trying to derail this one.
With 100+ Riders going up lanes, and making LEGALLY ALLOWED left turns etc.: We were seen.
It's hard NOT to notice a whole scad of folks riding in the bike lane (even wtih the group being broken-up by traffic lights; we still were in large "pods" of 10+ riders...).
I am a Crtical Mass participant as well; but I officially OUT of the ride the moment it heads onto the Lions Gate Bridge.
PS. If I am not mistaken: Bicycle Helmet stats indicate that the damn things do little except DISCOURAGE "newbies" from riding.
If a car hits me: That piece of plastic on my head will do little to save me.
The ONLY area I see helmets helping is in head-blows caused by falls...
08-18-09, 05:59 PM
#28
Senior Member
There was a fair bit of media coverage of the ride before it happened.
Since it happened I only saw one small picture with a caption in The Province showing the ride.
"not much fanfare at all! Exactly what we hoped for!" said event organizers.
I thought the point of protest was to get noticed.
Since it happened I only saw one small picture with a caption in The Province showing the ride.
"not much fanfare at all! Exactly what we hoped for!" said event organizers.
I thought the point of protest was to get noticed.
08-18-09, 06:04 PM
#29
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
08-20-09, 11:24 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: where the mild things roam
Posts: 1,092
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
it will allow the participants to maintain their moral high ground when they trash talk critical mass on the internet and give them a convenient fiction to believe that they are making some sort of "advocacy" progress. basically, it looks like nothing more than an exercise in ego inflation for the organizers.
08-21-09, 11:15 AM
#31
Resident Seaballer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: East Van Rocks!
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
it will allow the participants to maintain their moral high ground when they trash talk critical mass on the internet and give them a convenient fiction to believe that they are making some sort of "advocacy" progress. basically, it looks like nothing more than an exercise in ego inflation for the organizers.
Posts, or word-of-mouth assumptions such as yours are NOT in any way reflecting actual fact.
All they do is drive wedges between different groups within the GREATER Cycling Community.
I have NOT seen anything from the Manners people "Bashing" CM (and I have reviewed all the blogs, Facebook, and the website.
The only "bashing" is being directed from the MEDIA etc. Not the Manners organisers themselves.
As stated: I ride in CM, AND I participated in the Manners ride in order to lend support to a group that isn't attepting a "Moral High Ground"; but is offering an alternative to people of a different mind-set from those that participate in CM.
I see the Manners ride being made-up of folks who for several reasons do not see CM as right for them.
Call them "straight", or "Law abiding", or "Square" or whatever: The group was made up of folks that don't feel that they have the type of makeup that fits well/feels comfortable in CM.
I will pass no judgements on those that have differing opinions on how the greater goal is accomplished.
They got out there and RODE. Which is the most important aspect here.
I am an advocate of getting AS MANY rides on the streets as possible.
If the Manners ride gets riders out there: I'm for it.
09-04-09, 03:33 PM
#32
Resident Seaballer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: East Van Rocks!
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Here's hoping the rumour that the Helmet Law is being examined for a repeal is true.
Ridership needs to go up. Not stagnate because of a barely useful piece of plastic on the head.
Ridership needs to go up. Not stagnate because of a barely useful piece of plastic on the head.
09-04-09, 04:21 PM
#33
aka Phil Jungels
I don't see what the big deal is - $29 for the fine, $71 for the pollyticians reelection fundsssss....
10-08-09, 11:46 PM
#35
Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Without a properly worn bike helmet, you are more likely to suffer greater head injuries than if you were wearing a helmet. This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
10-09-09, 08:15 AM
#37
Senior Member
Without a properly worn bike helmet, you are more likely to suffer greater head injuries than if you were wearing a helmet. This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
In spite of the inherent risks of riding a bicycle, someone who rides a bike on a regular basis lives a longer and healthier life than someone who does not.
Cyclists require less medical care than the average person. Cyclists lower the cost of health care. Cyclists subsidize the motoring publics expensive, sedentary lifestyle.
10-09-09, 09:16 AM
#38
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It's a common tactic to use the costs of health care for treating injuries to argue for helmet use, but if you fall for that, you really need to put things in perspective.
In spite of the inherent risks of riding a bicycle, someone who rides a bike on a regular basis lives a longer and healthier life than someone who does not.
Cyclists require less medical care than the average person. Cyclists lower the cost of health care. Cyclists subsidize the motoring publics expensive, sedentary lifestyle.
In spite of the inherent risks of riding a bicycle, someone who rides a bike on a regular basis lives a longer and healthier life than someone who does not.
Cyclists require less medical care than the average person. Cyclists lower the cost of health care. Cyclists subsidize the motoring publics expensive, sedentary lifestyle.
10-09-09, 09:33 AM
#39
Senior Member
Just look at the stats from Australia, after madatory helmet law in Western Australia, it's kind of a mixed bag and especially not the panacea some people seem to think helmets are.
10-09-09, 09:37 AM
#40
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This increases the probability of greater health-care costs, to which each of us must contribute in health-care insurance premiums. So yes, I have a direct financial interest in the protection provided to you by a bike helmet.
However, if there is nothing worth protecting, then go ahead and compete for the Darwin Award.
11-04-09, 08:48 PM
#41
Your scars reveal you
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Citizen of Planet Earth
Posts: 406
Bikes: My Brodie's dead, start hunting for a new cycle before March arrives
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
11-10-09, 01:28 PM
#42
Resident Seaballer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: East Van Rocks!
Posts: 189
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Gregor and his cronies are looking at introducing a "Bike Share" program in Vancouver/GVRD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system
Much like the BIXI program in Montreal.
One of the biggest potential roadblocks to such a program is the Helmet Law itself. For what should be obvious reasons.
It has also been indicated that City Council is looking realistically at the REAL statistics regarding helmets, and realising that they do not do much of anything other that reduce ridership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_sharing_system
Much like the BIXI program in Montreal.
One of the biggest potential roadblocks to such a program is the Helmet Law itself. For what should be obvious reasons.
It has also been indicated that City Council is looking realistically at the REAL statistics regarding helmets, and realising that they do not do much of anything other that reduce ridership.
11-10-09, 02:23 PM
#43
Senior Member
I doubt very much that our helmet law will be repealed, but there is more and more influential people noticing that it hasn't worked out like they all hoped it would.
One of the major stumbling blocks to the proposed bike share program is our helmet law. No one wants the program to fail if they invest money into it but all indications are that it would fail if riders would be required to wear helmets. At this point, the project has stalled, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see it stalled further. Originally, it was hoped it would be in place for the 2010 games, but at earliest, it would come in after them but most likely wouldn't be for some time yet, if at all.
For the most part cops in Vancouver turn a blind eye to helmetless cyclists unless they are commiting some other offence that can lead to a collision. If you do get a fine, it's just $29
One of the major stumbling blocks to the proposed bike share program is our helmet law. No one wants the program to fail if they invest money into it but all indications are that it would fail if riders would be required to wear helmets. At this point, the project has stalled, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see it stalled further. Originally, it was hoped it would be in place for the 2010 games, but at earliest, it would come in after them but most likely wouldn't be for some time yet, if at all.
For the most part cops in Vancouver turn a blind eye to helmetless cyclists unless they are commiting some other offence that can lead to a collision. If you do get a fine, it's just $29
Last edited by closetbiker; 11-10-09 at 02:41 PM.
11-10-09, 06:03 PM
#44
Senior Member
I found a video on youtube about a proposed bike share program in Melbourne and how they have to deal with their helmet law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fF9...ayer_embedded#
The local authority in charge of the system, Translink, has presented their reports on the implementation of the system. In the 3rd section of the report, there is a section (6.5) that deals with helmets.
https://www.translink.ca/~/media/Docu...0Strategy.ashx
It says (in part)
Personally, I think the helmet issue may kill the system, but I hope, if the program does start up, that police will turn a blind eye to users of the system who choose to go without a helmet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fF9...ayer_embedded#
The local authority in charge of the system, Translink, has presented their reports on the implementation of the system. In the 3rd section of the report, there is a section (6.5) that deals with helmets.
https://www.translink.ca/~/media/Docu...0Strategy.ashx
It says (in part)
6.5 Helmets
Safety for cyclists relates strongly to the number of people cycling and the expectation of motorists
encountering cyclists. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a
motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across
communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.
The European Cyclists' Federation believes that, instead of making it compulsory for cyclists to wear
helmets, the authorities should concentrate on preventing accidents. Promoting the wearing of
helmets by cyclists is not an effective way of improving safety for cyclists. Their conclusion: Road
safety for cyclists can only be improved by removing the danger at its source: by calming the traffic
The Netherlands has adopted a similar approach to cyclist safety - its approach is to segregate
cyclists from fast-moving and dense motor traffic. Where this is either impossible or not desirable,
motor speeds will be limited to 30 kph. The Dutch already have a good record for improving safety:
cyclist fatalities fell more than half in the 26 years to 1996, while both bicycle and car use grew - and
the number of cyclists wearing helmets is still close to zero.
Prior to introducing legislation in Australia, cycling was reported to be growing by as much as 10%
per year in some areas. After legislation, surveys showed a 36% drop in the numbers riding. This
effectively reduces safety for the majority of those still cycling. If cycling had continued to grow at
only 5% per year over the past 15 years, the numbers riding would have doubled.
Please refer to section 8.3 of Volume 1 for a detailed discussion on the issue of helmets and their
impact on cycling safety.
Helmet use is mandatory for bicycle riders in British Columbia. However, this is not the case in
Europe and all of the operators interviewed for this study expressed the opinion that mandatory
helmet use would reduce utilization of a public bike system. One of the key elements of a successful
PBS is ability to serve spontaneous trips as quickly as possible.
A policy of mandatory helmet use is expected to reduce PBS ridership since it makes usage less
convenient. Loaning helmets via a network of vendors or via some kind of automated dispenser
raises hygiene issues, sizing issues (one size does not fit all), liability issues due to unreported
defective helmets, and tracking issues.
With respect to the duty of care that the provider of a PBS would have in terms of helmet provision,
TransLink’s legal department felt that, as with the legal dimensions when renting a car, it is the
obligation of the user to ensure they are wearing a helmet if there is a legal requirement to do so.
TransLink would have to remind system users of this obligation, but TransLink’s in-house counsel
did not feel that it would be necessary to supply the helmet. Counsel noted it would be useful to
include the requirement as part of the conditions of use. It is recommended that a second opinion
on this issue be obtained from external counsel.
Taking into account all of the above, provided that external counsel concurs with the opinion
received from TransLink’s in-house counsel, it is recommended that the conditions of use for the
Vancouver public bike system state that a helmet must be worn and that it is the responsibility of
the individual user to provide one. The RFP should include a requirement for the operator of the system
to develop a network of helmet rental locations similar to the fare dealer network. Longer term, it is
recommended that an exemption be sought from mandatory helmet use for PBS users, similar to
the one granted for pedicabs. It may be more effective to start this process after the system has
been launched and the concept is better understood.
Safety for cyclists relates strongly to the number of people cycling and the expectation of motorists
encountering cyclists. The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a
motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across
communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.
The European Cyclists' Federation believes that, instead of making it compulsory for cyclists to wear
helmets, the authorities should concentrate on preventing accidents. Promoting the wearing of
helmets by cyclists is not an effective way of improving safety for cyclists. Their conclusion: Road
safety for cyclists can only be improved by removing the danger at its source: by calming the traffic
The Netherlands has adopted a similar approach to cyclist safety - its approach is to segregate
cyclists from fast-moving and dense motor traffic. Where this is either impossible or not desirable,
motor speeds will be limited to 30 kph. The Dutch already have a good record for improving safety:
cyclist fatalities fell more than half in the 26 years to 1996, while both bicycle and car use grew - and
the number of cyclists wearing helmets is still close to zero.
Prior to introducing legislation in Australia, cycling was reported to be growing by as much as 10%
per year in some areas. After legislation, surveys showed a 36% drop in the numbers riding. This
effectively reduces safety for the majority of those still cycling. If cycling had continued to grow at
only 5% per year over the past 15 years, the numbers riding would have doubled.
Please refer to section 8.3 of Volume 1 for a detailed discussion on the issue of helmets and their
impact on cycling safety.
Helmet use is mandatory for bicycle riders in British Columbia. However, this is not the case in
Europe and all of the operators interviewed for this study expressed the opinion that mandatory
helmet use would reduce utilization of a public bike system. One of the key elements of a successful
PBS is ability to serve spontaneous trips as quickly as possible.
A policy of mandatory helmet use is expected to reduce PBS ridership since it makes usage less
convenient. Loaning helmets via a network of vendors or via some kind of automated dispenser
raises hygiene issues, sizing issues (one size does not fit all), liability issues due to unreported
defective helmets, and tracking issues.
With respect to the duty of care that the provider of a PBS would have in terms of helmet provision,
TransLink’s legal department felt that, as with the legal dimensions when renting a car, it is the
obligation of the user to ensure they are wearing a helmet if there is a legal requirement to do so.
TransLink would have to remind system users of this obligation, but TransLink’s in-house counsel
did not feel that it would be necessary to supply the helmet. Counsel noted it would be useful to
include the requirement as part of the conditions of use. It is recommended that a second opinion
on this issue be obtained from external counsel.
Taking into account all of the above, provided that external counsel concurs with the opinion
received from TransLink’s in-house counsel, it is recommended that the conditions of use for the
Vancouver public bike system state that a helmet must be worn and that it is the responsibility of
the individual user to provide one. The RFP should include a requirement for the operator of the system
to develop a network of helmet rental locations similar to the fare dealer network. Longer term, it is
recommended that an exemption be sought from mandatory helmet use for PBS users, similar to
the one granted for pedicabs. It may be more effective to start this process after the system has
been launched and the concept is better understood.
Last edited by closetbiker; 11-10-09 at 06:26 PM.
