CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT
CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT
HELMET LAWS
MANDATORY PROTECTIVE GEAR
THE CURRENT CONTEXT:
The Canadian government has extended its interventionist tendencies and enacted bicycle helmet legislation. Today, about 30% of Canadians live under bike helmet legislation. Between 1994 and 2003, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island introduced legislation compelling bikers of all ages to wear protective head-gear while riding. Ontario plans to extend its helmet law, which currently targets riders under 18, to include its entire population. In Alberta, it is still only minors who are affected by the helmet laws.
Within Quebec, the suburbs of Cote Saint Luke and Westmount have passed bylaws requiring riders to adorn helmets in their districts, however, no province-wide law has yet been introduced. Debate was held in 1997 over the issue and the helmet law was nixed. Nevertheless, given the province’s tendency as of late to imitate the health and safety obsessed provinces in the rest of Canada and many Western countries, CAGE does not expect Quebec to wait long before moving in this direction once again.
Concerned health professionals continue to view maximizing safety and health as the primary goal of government. They have of course lost sight of the true primary task of a benign state, which is to maximize every citizen’s ability to pursue their own happiness and well-being (however they define this, as long as it is not at the expense of others). Hence legislation forcing helmets onto cyclists, skiers, roller-bladers, skateboarders and other sports enthusiasts seems to them a reasonable proposition, since it will allegedly save lives.
Of course, laws coercing people into taking various measures (including expensive measures) to protect themselves from even slight chances of injury have a way of multiplying, as the never ending search for a perfect, completely safe society leads us to all kinds of absurdities.
Because different people have different values, what seems like a minor imposition to one person (wearing a helmet or other protective gear) may be viewed by another as a major intrusion.
OPPONENTS:
"Protective sports gear legislation" has its origins in three basic sources: 1) Protective sports gear manufacturers, represented by their lobbyists in government; 2) Health professionals and activists who lost sight of basic principles of individual liberty long ago; 3) Government legislators looking for a purpose – and finding it in the quest to save people [from themselves]. Especially when a relative of some government legislator dies in an accident, an accident where some protective helmet or other item might have saved them, new legislation results. Without an organization such as CAGE to remind people of the clear limits that should restrict such legislation (sovereignty over oneself), legislation steadily moves beyond informing people of various risks to coercing them to take obligatory measures to avoid risk.
ALLIES:
In some cases, however, industry allies exist. When the imposition of a certain "protective gear" law risks impacting negatively on important corporations’ profits, the legislation is opposed much more effectively. The perfect example is alpine skiing – because ski centers understand that forcing all their clients to don helmets would lose them many clients, no such law has come into effect anywhere. The case of bicycles, roller blades and skateboards is different, however, since the manufacturers of these products also typically manufacture the protective gear for them. Hence the only groups opposing intrusive legislation in these areas are often loosely organized, under-financed clubs of cycling or other sports enthusiasts. In the case of Ontario’s recently tabled helmet law, every cycling association investigated by CAGE opposed the law, for precisely the same reasons CAGE opposes it (see below).
CAGE’S POSITION:
CAGE supports the government initiative to educate its citizens on the safety benefits that a bike helmet might provide in case of an accident. However, we oppose strongly a mandate that forces bikers to wear a helmet a) because of our overarching ideology based on limiting government encroachments and b) in light of growing evidence that such laws have had only a limited impact on reducing head injuries, while increasing the number of people who have abandoned their bicycles because of perceived dangers and a dislike for the hassle imposed by nanny-state intervention.
CAGE supports every citizen’s right to decide what risks he or she, is willing to take in pursuit of their own perception of pleasure (provided that pleasure does not inflict harm on another, unwilling, citizen). Bike helmet legislation is the perfect example of governments intervening to force their own perception –that "true happiness is found in perfect safety" upon whole segments of society.
Aside from this, our most strong critique of bicycle helmet legislation, numerous reports have shown that in places where the laws have been introduced, their impact on the number of fatal head injuries incurred while riding has been minor, or even negligible. Although, pro-helmet studies show that when the number of cyclists wearing helmets increased from 0% to 30% between 1986 and 1996, the number of injuries was significantly reduced. The same trend of fewer injuries applied to pedestrians during that period, however. The pedestrians were not wearing helmets. Furthermore, the majority of injuries resulting from accidents on bicycle do not involve the head or are such that a helmet would have very little chance of preventing head trauma.
Legislation has succeeded, however, in reducing the number of cyclists brave enough to engage in the apparently lethal activity. A thorough examination of the impact of mandatory helmet laws in Australia shows that the reduction in cycling was actually greater than the increase in helmet use. Similar reports with similar results have also been conducted in US municipalities where the helmet laws are in affect.
CAGE is shocked by the level of government intervention and confused by the logic of their actions. Intending to increase the rate of healthiness in society by forcing bikers to wear helmets, the government is actually encouraging sedentary lifestyles by portraying cycling as dangerous. Targeting a small segment of society for engaging in apparently risky pastimes, they ignore far more risky activities such as driving motor vehicles. Why is there no legislation compelling these drivers, who are hundreds of times more likely to suffer head injuries, to wear helmets? Although this is a facetious argument and CAGE would fight against such legislation, it is made to point out the ridiculousness of bike helmet laws. It should also be noted that in the Netherlands, where bicycles are an integral part of the culture and account for 25% of all trips made, no helmet laws exist. In North America and Australia, where the polluting car reigns supreme, cycling accounts for less than 1% of all trips made, and likely even less once more helmet laws come into effect.
Instead of the ill-conceived, negative, coercive approach to cycling (and other sport safety issues), CAGE promotes further education on bicycle safety for both cyclists and motor vehicle drivers. We, along with avid cyclists, believe that this is the most sound method of reducing injuries (not just head injuries) and encouraging healthy lifestyles.
HELMET LAW -- Web Sites
Facts, Figures and Consequences An excellent review written by Dorothy Robinson from the Bicycle Federation of Australia on the negative impacts of the mandatory helmet laws imposed in Australia in 1992. It shows the massive decrease in the number of bikers following the imposition of the law. It also provides evidence that the relative difference in frequency of head injuries versus other injuries incurred while biking remained constant despite the implementation of the helmet law. In fact, this study shows that although overall numbers of head injuries was reduced, the chance of head injuries while biking increased because the false security offered by the mandated helmets encouraged more reckless biking habits. On the other hand, programs instigated at the same time to reduce drunk driving and encourage responsible driving seemed to have a much larger impact on the reduction of injuries while on bicycle (confirmed by the parallel decreases in pedestrian injuries). http://agbu.une.edu.au/-drobinso/velo1/velo.html
The Vehicular Cyclist A website that supports CAGE’s view that helmet laws are yet another example of government encroachment into personal freedom. It offers numerous links to articles and websites from around the world that share this view and that debunk claims that helmets will reduce head injuries. http://www.magma.ca/-ocbc/
Bicycle Helmet Legislation – Curse or Cure? This power point presentation created by Nigel Perry of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand questions whether bike helmet legislation is a cure (as claimed by New Zealand’s government) or a curse (his conclusion). Again, he uses John Adams’ Risk Theory to prove that the chance of injury has increased since the implementation of the helmet law and statistics to show that the overall number of bikers has decreased. He also humorously points out the hypocrisy of New Zealand law-makers. http://nz.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/nigel.perry/cycling2001/CurseOrCureScreen.pdf
The Cycle Helmet, Friend or Foe? A clever examination of the justness, rationale and effectiveness of helmet laws by Dr. Hillman. Again, he comes to the conclusion that helmet laws are not only ineffective but that any safety legislation should instead target drivers of motor vehicles who are responsible for the majority of fatal head-injuries suffered by bicyclists. http://www.greengas.u-net.com/HelmetsByHillman.html
Bike Helmets, Statistical Aspects This article by Claire Morissette of Quebec again debunks myths propounded by pro-helmet law activists. More interesting however, is the SAAQ catagorization of bikers into the innovators, the precocious adoptors, the precocious majority, the late majority, and the rebels. After reading this article, one will notice the similarities between the opinions of militants promoting helmet laws and those promoting smoking bans and other radical health legislation. http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/quebec.html .
And if you have managed to read this far, here is a little treat....
For no other reason than the fun and the challenge, these two bicycle adventurers rode their bicycles across the Israeli – Jordanian border (prior to the two countries becoming officially at peace), and then crossed the hottest portion of the summer desert to get to Petra, then back to the Saudi Arabian border, and on …
They carried with them all of the essentials: bike tools, spare parts, tent, sleeping bag, change of clothes, toothbrush, soap, bandanas, saddle bags, sunscreen, first aid kits, food,camping utensils, food and lots and lots of water.
They forewent all of the unnecessary extra weight, such as cell phones, helmets and government nannies looking over their shoulders.
The dog in the front basket is a small puppy that they found in the middle of nowhere, 30 km east of Wadi Rum. The dog, "Sandy", had an injured leg, was very thirsty and was only too happy to catch a lift and get some help finding a new home with some friendly Jordanians.
Wearing helmets ‘more dangerous’
This interesting article addresses one of the possible reasons why jurisdictions where helmet laws were
imposed upon cyclists saw an increase in severe bike accidents. Naturally, we find the conclusions of
the "Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents" to be rather perverse. The facts, as indicated from
the following study and the data collected in mandatory helmet law jurisdictions, are that helmets increase
the rate and risk of accidents.
2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol were recorded: Cyclists who wear protective helmets
are more likely to be knocked down by passing vehicles, new research from Bath University suggests.
The study found drivers tend to pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than those who
are bare-headed. Dr Ian Walker was struck by a bus and a lorry during the experiment. He was wearing
a helmet both times. But the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said tests have shown helmets protect against injuries.
To carry out the research, Dr Walker used a bike fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to find drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle, at an average of 8.5cm, when he wore a helmet.
The experiment, which recorded 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol, was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Dr Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University’s Department of Psychology, said: "This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance.
This study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely.
Dr Ian Walker: "By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to de
al with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.
"We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer
any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial. "Either way, this study suggests
wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place," he added.
Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them
as "Lycra-clad street warriors" and believe they are more predictable than those without. He suggests
different types of road users need to understand each other.
"Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic,
and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.
"There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive
and practical experience would be even better."
Wig wearing:
To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing
distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.
While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing.
In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK’s
roads.
However, a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents insisted: "We wouldn’t
recommend that people stop wearing helmets because of this research. Helmets have been shown to
reduce the likelihood of head and brain injuries in a crash.
"[The research] highlights a gain in vulnerability of cyclists on our roads
and drivers of all types need to take more care when around them."
Published in the Montreal Gazete:
In his letter of September 13 ("Cyclists at fault"), Donald Haslam bemoans the fact that on streets
such as Milton, cyclists ride against the one-way flow of traffic. Perhaps Mr. Haslam should visit the
Netherlands one day, a society that truly encourages the use of bicycles.
In the Netherlands, cyclists are generally exempt from the one-way street rules. Additionally, urban bike
paths there incorporate bicycles into traffic, so that cars learn to expect and look for cyclists on their
right-hand side. Montreal, in contrast, segregates two-way bicycle traffic into 1 lane subject to more
stop signs and rules than cars must abide by, such as the Rachel street bike path.
Finally, Dutch law automatically blames automobiles in any bicycle-car collision, with strict penalties
for the car driver. Given that cars pollute, make noise, take up space, promote a sedentary lifestyle,
and kill people, the Dutch approach of favouring bicycles seems reasonable. It also seems to be working – virtually everyone in the Netherlands uses a bicycle daily, and there are no helmet laws there either...
David Romano
.
MENU
SHORTCUTS TO
