Tuesday May 21, 2013


QUESTION OF THE WEEK

Survey results are meant for general information only, and are not based on recognised statistical methods.







Helmet hilarity

Editorial

Mark this one down as a candidate for stupid idea of the week: The move to repeal British Columbia’s law making it mandatory to wear a helmet while bicycling.

Vancouverites who are seeking to implement a bike-sharing program are among those lobbying to see the law changed. And their intentions are noble: Increasing the number of people getting around the city by bike through a program that would allow people to pick up a bike in one location and drop it off at another. And the current law — part of the Motor Vehicle Act — is seen as a hindrance to the success of such a program, because those who don’t happen to be carrying helmets, or prefer not to use rental helmets, would be discouraged from hopping on the shared bikes for short trips.

The trade-off is just too great, in this writer’s view. If anything, in fact, we’d like to see B.C.’s mandatory bike helmet law more rigidly enforced than it is now. After all, a law that’s not enforced isn’t worth having on the books, and physicians agree that the number of serious head injuries from bike crashes is drastically reduced among those who wear properly fitted helmets.

While some jurisdictions only require that children wear bike helmets, B.C. has had a mandatory helmet law for all since 1996. The current fine for non-compliance is $29, and for children under 16, the penalty accrues to the child’s parents. According to the website cyclehelmets.org, the incidence of cyclist injuries fell by 35 per cent between 1995 and 1997, after the law took effect. However, at the same time it is believed that bicycle ridership also fell by something like 28 per cent, possibly as a result of the new law.

While there’s little question, then, that fewer people ride when helmets are made mandatory, making helmet use voluntary among adults would — pure and simple — increase the incidence and severity of cycling-related head injuries.

In response to Vancouver Coun. Peter Ladner’s contention in The Province newspaper that “for short rides it is not necessary,” we ask: How short? One never knows when a dangerous situation might arise. If keeping and enforcing the current law means that Vancouver’s bike sharing program is doomed to failure, so be it. Better safe than sorry.

— David Burke


Comments


NOTE: To post a comment in the new commenting system you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, OpenID. You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Squamish Chief welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

blog comments powered by Disqus



About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Subscribe | Sitemap / RSS   Glacier Community Media: www.glaciermedia.ca    © Copyright 2013 Glacier Community Media | User Agreement & Privacy Policy

LOG IN



Lost your password?