Riders protest helmet law at Vancouver City Hall, then eat ice cream
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on March 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Pirate Roberts — leading the ride
up Columbia Blvd.
(Photos © J. Maus)
A smiling group of cyclists that included several kids and families showed up at Esther Short Park in downtown Vancouver last night for the “Freedom Ride” to protest the recently passed all-ages helmet law.
The ride was organized by 13 year-old Vancouver resident Stuart Jackson. Jackson — who prefers to go by Dread Pirate Roberts, a name he got from a character in the movie The Princess Bride — organized the ride because he believes the new law eliminates choice and that government should instead focus on laws that make the roads safer in general.
“I think that instead of limiting our freedom as cyclists,” he said, “they should first make it more enjoyable to ride on the street.”
As we gathered under warm, rainy skies Jackson informed us that Vancouver City Council had canceled their regularly scheduled Monday night meeting. Through an unabashed grin, he said, “I think they raised the white flag in surrender.”
In front of City Hall.
|
|
After passing out pirate jewelry and candy, Jackson mounted his yellow Schwinn Breeze three-speed (leaving his matching yellow helmet in the front basket), and led us on a short ride up Columbia Blvd. and then back down to City Hall.
About half the riders didn’t wear helmets; but this ride wasn’t anti helmet, it was anti helmet law. Most of the riders I spoke to have no problems with wearing a helmet, they simply feel a law mandating its use for adults is simply unnecessary.
As we gathered in front of City Hall, Jackson held up citizen comment cards and gave us a brief lesson on how to speak in front of City Council. One woman on the ride reminded us that five of Vancouver’s council members (including Mayor Royce Pollard) are up for election soon.
his letter opposing the new ordinance.
Another Vancouver resident on the ride, high school sophomore John Russell from Fisher’s Landing, left a letter he had drafted in opposition to the helmet law in the night deposit box.
After the rally at City Hall, Jackson led us up Main Street to an ice-cream parlor where we all helped celebrate his 13th birthday amid whipped cream, chocolate sundaes, and a rousing rendition of “Happy Birthday to You”.
So what’s next for this 13 year-old rabble-rouser? Later this summer he’s planning a tricycle race during PedalPalooza, and next weeks he’s off to the bike nirvana of Amsterdam for a family vacation, where he says the best part is, “I don’t even have to bring my helmet.”
See a few more shots from the ride in the photo gallery.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
March 11th, 2008 10:17
The logic seems obvious: Dread Pirate Roberts for Vancouver city council.
March 11th, 2008 10:17
right on little brother!
March 11th, 2008 10:18
So awesome, way to go dread!
March 11th, 2008 10:25
Well, if there's one thing you can say unequivocally about teenagers it's that they really understand the importance of safety.
March 11th, 2008 10:25
Kudos to Dread Pirate Roberts!
For those that fail to realize it, this helmet law is the very definition of tyranny: officials making laws based on their personal prerogative (the hearings such as they were included no scientific studies or evidence) and ripe for abuse by police officers free to engage in selective enforcement. We all should be outraged.
March 11th, 2008 10:54
I've watched this debate from the motorcycle side for years. In the end, I can only be ambivalent. There are many battles worth fighting, but this one isn't one of them.
March 11th, 2008 10:56
The person riding directly behind him is wearing a helmet.
March 11th, 2008 10:57
In fact, of 9 people in the photo, 7 are wearing helmets!
March 11th, 2008 10:57
It heartens me to know about the awesome youth advocating in The Couve. Go Dread Pirate Roberts!
March 11th, 2008 10:58
amazing
March 11th, 2008 11:27
no helmet on the 13 y/o?
March 11th, 2008 11:33
@GLV,
Your point? The article clearly states:
"but this ride wasn’t anti helmet, it was anti helmet law."
I for one, wear a helmet and encourage others to as well. However, I also believe that it should not be mandated by law. West Cougar (above) pointed out some of the many reasons why.
March 11th, 2008 11:47
You say "there's no scientific evidence that helmets save lives..."? Let the kid spend an afternoon at Harborview with a friend in a coma due to a severe diffuse axonal brain injury due to a cycling accident. Enjoy watching the drain tube and other probes that access his brain through a hole that drilled there. Then take this kid out of school so he can help his friend spend the next 9 months in therapy. Then let this kid help pay his friend's bills because his friend can no longer work again, let alone walk again. I'm missing the argument? Go visit Harborview. ;)
March 11th, 2008 11:48
The Dread Pirate Roberts never takes prisoners.
He can't afford to make exceptions. Once word gets out that a pirate has gone soft, people begin to disobey and then it's nothing but work, work, work, all the time.
March 11th, 2008 11:57
"Let the kid spend an afternoon at Harborview with a friend in a coma due to a severe diffuse axonal brain injury..."
Thomas, with all due respect, please understand that it is possible to be all for the live-saving benefits of helmets, while at the same time thinking that mandatory helmet laws are ridiculous.
the world is full of sadness and tragedy brought on by serious injuries of all sorts... but it is simply not the role of government to pass laws that make a feeble attempt at improving our "safety" when such major and obviously dangerous behaviors remain all around us (like inadequate facilities for biking and a transportation culture that is heavily imbalanced toward motor vehicles and discriminates against other modes).
March 11th, 2008 12:11
Thomas: You paint a grim and graphic picture of the results of traumatic brain injury, as have many, many commentors in these discussions, but I see no evidence in your comment that bicycle helmets will prevent them. No is arguing that brain injuries are trivial. It is, however, becoming obvoous that the one (1, that is) study that is universally quoted to "prove" that bicycle helmets prevent over 80% of head injuries is, in fact, severely flawed. It is, of course, obvious that any layer of padding around the skull will do something to mitigate the effects of an impact. What is still at issue is the degree of protection actually provided by bicycle helmets, the possibility that they may contribute to rotational injuries, and, more importantly, the fact that simply protecting the head, no matter how well, is not the same thing as being safe. The goal of any bicycle advocates or city planning comissions should be to make cycling safe enough for ordinary people that helmets are unnecessary, rather than to impose fines for dress code violations and proclaim that they have thereby made us all safe. Whether the law is repealed or not, calling attention to such false and misdirected efforts is always worthwhile.
March 11th, 2008 12:23
Jonathan, one of the major purposes of government is to protect the health and safety of its citizenry. It's even right there in the U.S. Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in order to...promote the general welfare...."
Whether this particular law is the best way to accomplish that may be a legitimate topic of debate, but it's a well-settled question that legislating for health and safety is a legitimate role of government.
As I've said before, I think there are other more pressing issues than mandatory helmet laws, whether one is for them or against them. I think instead of lobbying for or against mandatory helmet laws, far more could be accomplished by lobbying for comprehensive, meaningful safety measures, regardless of where one comes down on the side of helmet use.
That said, I would like to express my admiration for Dread Pirate Roberts-- keep the activism coming!
March 11th, 2008 12:29
You know,
What I saw yesterday in Vancouver really told the story of why such a ordinance change was able to go through so simply and uncontested.
The majority of the people who showed up for the ride were kids. Kids, boys and girls, and the caring parents of these kids.
After seeing this, and having conversations with them, and some of the adults afterwards, what I had suspected all along became entirely clear.
The majority of the adult cycling population of Vancouver DOES NOT CARE!
They already wear helmets. They complain and bitch at others for not wearing helmets. They do not allow you to ride with them if you do not have one. I personally have, in the past, been turned away from rides for just such a reason.
And, they are the main problem with cycling in Vancouver, as is proven by many cycling and non cycling residents I have spoken with. The organized group rides, as well intentioned as they may be, are what I hear about being the most problematic. As in not sharing the road, or even close.
This makes it very apparent to me that as long as we have a group like the Vancouver Bicycling Club and the City Council making decisions for us, the near future of cycling in Vancouver is in jeapordy.
And this is only going to get worse, and soon, unless people step up, stand up, and help to implement the proper changes.
Where were you? For all the arguing, complaining we have seen and heard on this issue, you felt it was more important to do something else.
Maybe you were afraid of melting from a little rain? Perhaps you have some trained flying monkey's you could have sent in your place at least?
Must we leave it up to the residents not even old enough to vote to fight our fights?
Must we wait 8-10 years for these kids to be old enough to make the changes for themselves?
I for one will not. There is another city council meeting on St. Patrick's day, and I am going to be there. I will probably be asked to leave, as outspoken as I am.
Who will stand up and speak after I am escorted out?
You?
March 11th, 2008 12:29
I don't think there is much serious debate that helmets prevent TBIs, which are among the worst kinds of injuries and frequently cause life-long disability.
Thomas may have missed the important point about governmental priorities, but he does have one good point:
Just go to Harborview and visit the patients, just once, just for a little while, before you organize or attend another anti-helmet law rally.
That's a reasonable request, right?
Then you can say with no doubt that you've seen and know the consequences of not wearing a helmet and of a policy that makes it less likely that people will wear a helmet while biking.
Then you can say that you truly understand what the majority is talking about, and you have made an informed choice to disagree.
And if you've already been, good for you. But my guess is that many of you have not.
And for those of you who are concerned about governmental priorities, as I am, why are you focusing your energy on protesting a law after the fact rather than on advocating for what are admittedly higher-priority issues?
Sure, maybe you're doing both, but you only have so much time, right?
This energy seems a little misplaced to me.
March 11th, 2008 12:42
I've always found the idea that somehow we, as cyclists deserve to get more respect, better political representation, increased infrastructure and more 'rights', yet at the same time refuse to submit to more regulation or control, like some sort of cowboys, to be curious.
Anybody with any political smarts will tell you those two things are diametrically opposed. With increased rights come increased responsibilities. Get used to it.
March 11th, 2008 12:49
Given how little mode share cycling has in Vancouver, it would probably be hyperbole to say, based on the stats at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/, that this is the nail in the coffin for that mode there. More accurate would probably be to say that the already shut coffin just got shut a little tighter.
March 11th, 2008 12:54
Darwin is bound to step in sooner or later. I live in Portland and see many foolish riders (no helmet, all black clothes, ignoring riding etiquette).
While they're don't deserve to be hit, injured or worse (deserve has nothing to do with it) They certainly aren't doing themselves, or the biking community any favors.
It's a like people who smoke in public. Dangerous to themselves, others and ultimately, very very selfish.
March 11th, 2008 12:56
k:
What you fail to understand is that, outside of Portland, Davis, and a handful of other places in the US, cycling has such a vanishingly low profile as a mode of transportation as to make it completely irrelevant what "rights and responsibilities" cyclists "embrace."
The real question is what will increase that mode share, vs what will decrease it. There is abundant factual evidence based on experience with such laws elsewhere, as well as what can be deduced from common sense and everyday experience, that helmet laws taken by themselves can only decrease it.
But me, I think I don't care that much -- I'm ready to join the young leader of this ride, in Amsterdam -- permanently!
March 11th, 2008 13:02
Yeah, next thing you know they'll be making us wear seat belts when driving our cars!!
March 11th, 2008 13:11
Punishing bike riders for not riding helmets wont solve the problem of physics that the sheer size of cars vs. bikes entails. I have a friend in harborview right now from a head trauma which occured while he was riding a bike- and wearing a helmet. He was plowed down by a reckless halfwit driver. Did teh helmet save his life? hes been in a coma for 2 weeks. maybe it did. maybe he will wake up and make a great recovery after a lengthy therapy. I was hit by a car in 2003, and the helmet I wore made no difference to the three months of therapy I had to endure, or the 2 year legal battle that finally proved the driver was at fault and made the insurance company cough up the 27k of bills I had incurred.
helmets, if they make a statistical difference at all, make only a marginal difference. If we want real progress we wont mandate helmets, but double car fines for infractions where bike lanes are present and use those fines to develop car free bike paths and de-car-mission residential areas so that they will be safe to bike in.
mandating helmets is like putting a bandaid on a head wound.
March 11th, 2008 13:23
Stan Roberts:
While it is perfectly true that one can land on one's head in the shower and suffer cerebral hemorrhaging, which would argue for wearing helmets at all times, it's also been said that riding a bike in the streets of Amsterdam or Copenhagen is safer than taking a shower at home. So a more accurate analogy than yours for people who fail to wear a helmet on American streets would be people who fail to wear a flame retardant vest in a hypothetical combination city/insane asylum full of lunatics running around with flamethrowers. Substitute motorized personal heavy machinery (aka, "cars") for flamethrowers, and the analogy works well.
March 11th, 2008 14:05
As a participant in this ride, I can easily say that the entire point of the rally wasn't to oppose helmets, it was to oppose mandatory helmet laws. I for one wore my helmet.
Also, the argument isn't about brain trauma, it's about the safety of cyclists collectively. When you require helmet use, the number of riders easily decreases. This makes it less safe for the rest of cyclists as other drivers are just not used to seeing them. Just look at Amsterdam, they've got so many cyclists that helmets are almost entirely irrelevant.
Echoing the sentiments of the Dread Pirate Roberts himself, this money shouldn't be spent on helmet laws. It should instead be used making the roads safer for cyclists as a whole, regardless of whether they are wearing helmets or not.
March 11th, 2008 14:42
I would describe myself as a casual biker (EG, a few times a year for fun or to get around). A serious biker friend of mine once helped me to buy a biking helmet. I was leaning toward the $10 helmet, and he was steering me toward the $100-$200 helmets. He successfully got me to buy an expensive helmet by pointing his finger above my head and saying “That imaginary light bulb above your head burns pretty bright, would you say it’s your most valuable asset?” I replied “Yeah”, to which he responded “Then get the expensive helmet if you don’t want that bulb to go out”. I got the expensive helmet.
March 11th, 2008 15:07
T - off topic, but the main differences between cheap helmets (at least those in the $25-35 range) and expensive ones are ventilation and weight -- in fact cheaper helmets often offer more protection than the minimalist $150 roadie hats.
I am all for wearing helmets, and yes I yell at my friends if they don't wear them -- but that's MY job, not my government's. It's OK for me to be a nosy busybody, because I don't have a big stick to back it up with... forcing helmet usage is just a coercive big government intrusion, like telling us which leaves it's OK to smoke.
March 11th, 2008 15:12
DJ Hurricane: You, Thomas, and various others seem to be quite determined to insist that the result of riding a bicycle without a helmet is to wind up in the TBI ward, without exception. Thinking for a moment will allow one to realize that if this were true, that ward would be the size of the rest of the hospital, and would be filled almost exclusively with cyclists. Your sensational distortions are tasteless and crude. Cut it out. (With respect)
March 11th, 2008 15:23
Val, I'm not sure where you got that I said biking without a helmet would result in a trip to the TBI ward "without exception." Sounds sorta like a "sensational distortion" to me. But anyway, maybe you should just go visit. Just sayin...
March 11th, 2008 15:29
Jeff is right.
I pay over a hundred dollars for a helmet as a rule.
The reason?
Fit, ventilation, profile, and even different helmets intended for different activities.
The reality of helmets is that they are required to be certified (correct me if I am wrong), and all offer basically a minimum of protection.
Many are designed to break when they hit the ground, absorbing the impact.
In fact, the better makers of helmets recommend that you replace your helmet after impacting it once!
This is very solid advice, as the integrity of most bicycle helmets is very easily compromised after one blow.
And not a ploy to sell more helmets, as many manufacturer's offer a good discount in order for your to replace your damaged helmet at a decent rate.
I advise you to look at your helmet, and those of your friends, to see if there are obvious signs of impact.
Maybe the case is that you are not protecting your own brain properly, but instead demanding that others protect theirs?
This comes from a person who admittedly deals with head trauma, as in my own head. If there is one thing I understand, it is head trauma. I believe it is referred to as "petite mal seizures, and extreme migraines, due to swelling and trauma to the brain".
I am lucky to have my wits about me.
This also comes from a person who recognizes the difference between a city looking out for it's vulnerable road users and a city looking out for itself.
March 11th, 2008 16:09
Whoot!!! Go Dabby #18 I'll be there!
March 11th, 2008 16:25
I agree wholeheartedly with post no. 13 and the subsequent posts that relay the same message. despite "statistics" to the contrary, as raised in the motorcycle helmet debate, helmets indeed decrease the chance of traumatic head injury, which in turn decreases the burden on our health care system thereby reducing health care costs. While this is not completely transferable to cycling due to speed, force of impact, and different accident profiles, I have a hard time believing those claiming that bicycle helmets do not reduce head injuries. I, for one, applaud the city counsel.
But I do appreciate the other point of view as I'm sure that somewhere you can find a motorcycle rider with a traumatic brain injury that still maintains he/she wouldn't wear a helmet if they had it to do all over again. based on the comment about his upcoming trip to Amsterdam, it sounds like this little pirate is going down the same path . . .
March 11th, 2008 16:32
"helmets indeed decrease the chance of traumatic head injury, which in turn decreases the burden on our health care system thereby reducing health care costs"
...but an even larger decrease in health care costs would come with increased usage of bicycles via less obesity, asthma, etc... and this law will not lead to an increased usage of bicycles. On the contrary, what this law is likely to do -- along with the continued inaction of the City of Vancouver to take real steps in improving bicycling conditions and encouraging the use of bicycles -- is to promote the idea that biking is unsafe which is the #1 reason people don't ride to begin with ... is that clear?
March 11th, 2008 17:15
bottom line:
anti-helmet-law protest ride? ended at ice cream parlor.
city council meeting that enacted helmet law? no ice cream.
THE HELMET LAW IS ANTI-ICE CREAM.
can i make this any clearer? i know where i stand.
March 11th, 2008 17:16
This is a tough one.
One of the beauties and gifts of living in the United States of America are Freedom and Liberty.
I guess if having a law requiring helmets just means now the police have yet another reason to harass cyclists and deter people from using bicycles as a valid mode of transportation. Then I can understand and appreciate the opinions of those who oppose such a mandate. The time and energy spent to pass this law was misdirected and could have been put to much broader and effective use.
But we also live in such a quick fix society with two diametrically opposed philosophy of life. A liability driven, punish and blame everyone else, take no responsibility for your own actions population VS. the freedom to do as you damn well please group.
So where is the happy medium????
A helmet will not prevent entrance to the head trauma ward at Harborview in every automobile vs. bike altercation. A helmet will minimize the severity of injury in any situation where your head hits the ground and decrease your chances of sustaining a life threatening or crippling injury. No automobile encounter required, just a pothole in the road…or a pile of wet leaves.
It is unfortunate the Vancouver City Council felt the need to take such a paternalistic role and focus on helmets as a mechanism to protect the careless cyclists that are not inclined to protect themselves rather than address the LARGER ISSUE OF CARELESS MOTORISTS and FAILING ROADS.
Hopefully the Vancouver police department will focus on enforcing the “Anti cell phone use while driving” and make the roads safer for ALL TRAFFIC.
I applaud the Dread Pirate Roberts initiative to take action for what he believes in, but I hope hee will choose to wear a helmet and stays healthy long enough to keep up the good work.
March 11th, 2008 17:24
apparently little Stuart's friends don't really think helmets are that bad. Has this kid given a good reason for why he doesn't like this law?
March 11th, 2008 17:48
Arrrrrr Dread Pirate....
Tis passion in theez debates. Passion & ice cream solve all manor of differences!
Bah! Helmets or no helmets..both sides of the same coin..tis apathy that's the true villain.
Apathy and Cars!
Well done Lad.
March 11th, 2008 18:12
One thing I forgot to mention:
In the first quarter of a mile of my ten-mile-long ride from Fisher's Landing to Downtown, I came within feet of being thrown upon the hood of a careless motorist's car.
I was traveling straight through an intersection across 164th Ave. at which I had just been stopped at the front of. Clearly oblivious to the fact that cyclists actually use the roads, she failed to yield when turning left despite numerous signs about doing so. Obviously not knowing how to react, she slammed on her brakes directly in front of me, requiring me to narrowly swerve around her.
Regardless of the fact that she was clearly at fault, she then gave me the look of "What the heck is a cyclist doing on the road?" I think almost everyone here has some idea what this looks like. Every time you nearly get doored, right hooked, or even just narrowly miss being thrown up on their hood, they rudely brush it off, thinking that we were the ones clearly at fault.
Based off of my observations alone, I would say this problem is far worse in Vancouver than it could ever be in Portland. This is the problem that the City needs to be fixing. They don't need to be wasting their money on a poorly conceived helmet ordinance.
March 11th, 2008 18:33
mandatory full body bubble suits for everyone. walking, riding bikes, driving cars, having sex, everything. just imagine the decrease in healthcare costs (and fun!)
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
March 11th, 2008 18:34
...but an even larger decrease in health care costs would come with increased usage of bicycles via less obesity, asthma, [hazardous air pollutant emissions,] etc... and this law will not lead to an increased usage of bicycles. On the contrary, what this law is likely to do -- along with the continued inaction of the City of Vancouver to take real steps in improving bicycling conditions and encouraging the use of bicycles -- is to promote the idea that biking is unsafe which is the #1 reason people don't ride to begin with ... is that clear?
Crystal.
To me, this whole episode illustrates the unfortunate immaturity (no pun intended) of the bike rights movement. Getting 20 people to ride around flaunting their anti-helmet law-ness after all the Couve cagers have gone home for the evening isn't where any serious bike rights activists would be focusing her or his efforts. It smacks of a lack of understanding of how to effect the change necessary to make biking a viable transportation option, in my humble opinion.
We need to focus our efforts on changes in the law that make it safe to bike. And, as we apparently can agree, the main threat to biking safely isn't biking, it's the way people driving motor vehicles behave when driving around people bicycling. That means we need to change driver behavior.
Two obvious options are: (1) making it clearer under the law that bikes have full right to the road, and (2) providing serious penalties for drivers who violate those rights.
Note that I didn't list rallying around kids who have homework to do. I appreciate the grassroots nature of this effort. It's how you have made biking saf(er) and cool in Portland. And it warms my heart. But it's not what's going to get the "willing but concerned/orange cyclists" onto bikes. It's not going to stop getting us killed.
Doing that is going to require time spent with the City Council and lobbying in Salem. And, yes, pissing some people off. We might even occasionally have to be less than nice. I know that's hard. Do you have the stomach for it?
NB: I wish to make clear that my opinion is not intended to be divisive or derogatory or personal, but to provide what I see as a direction forward. If it is too strident for your tastes, please understand that it is offered in the earnest spirit of putting more asses on saddles!
March 11th, 2008 18:37
Regardless of the fact that she was clearly at fault, she then gave me the look of "What the heck is a cyclist doing on the road?" I think almost everyone here has some idea what this looks like. Every time you nearly get doored, right hooked, or even just narrowly miss being thrown up on their hood, they rudely brush it off, thinking that we were the ones clearly at fault.
Yes, every damn day, the threat of instant death, or worse. This is what needs to be changed if people are going to start biking. Helmet laws are irrelevant to this. Please, please, good pirates and wenches and other lackeys and outlaws, focus your efforts on this, and not on that.
OK, self-declared moratorium on this post. Thanks for listening.
March 11th, 2008 18:45
#35 Yea! Thank you Johnathan for being once again the open minded voice of reason, and echoing where I was going in a post made months ago on this topic.
If we are all so concerned about over loading our less than efficient health care system everyone should be riding, as in Amsterdam where our clever little pirate is headed. Oh! Amsterdam is an example that is often used as bike utopia, look around and count how many helmets are found there.
I don't understand the need to give up any more rights because some people are worried about what others are doing.
March 11th, 2008 18:56
Perhaps everybody who points to the lack of helmets in Amsterdam could be bothered to research why conditions are different there.
No?
March 11th, 2008 20:33
Come on ya all. THINK!! What is the perported purpose of this new dandy little law? Safety for all cyclists, right?
They are going to save you from yourselves. Robert #13 you should be proud.
It regulates a minority of the populace without actually dealing with the real problem at hand. Which is, saftey for the people that want to use an alternative mode of transportation, without actually having to make any real hard infrastructure tax choices.
Cheers to you V.C.C. You managed to shift the burden of public saftey
from your own job description to the 40 or so cyclist in your burb. And open up those cyclist to undo liability.
And, as an extra added benefit, they can stick it on their resume' that they are an cycling advocate. :)
Fear works well, does it not Robert #13?
March 11th, 2008 20:40
...but an even larger decrease in health care costs would come with increased usage of bicycles via less obesity, asthma, etc... and this law will not lead to an increased usage of bicycles. On the contrary, what this law is likely to do -- along with the continued inaction of the City of Vancouver to take real steps in improving bicycling conditions and encouraging the use of bicycles -- is to promote the idea that biking is unsafe which is the #1 reason people don't ride to begin with ... is that clear?
Uh, no. I agree with the first part of your statement, but the rest doesn't follow. Why is this either/or, black/white? Why do you wear a helmet, Jonathan? Are you trying to promote that bike riding is unsafe? I understand that "freedom" is an issue here, but there are a lot of laws (and in my opinion, should be more...ie gun control) in our country that inhibit our "freedom." As a physician, I think those who are anti-helmet law are focusing their energy in the wrong place. Yes, there are many other areas where bicycle transportation could be improved. Focus on those, but why the big uproar against a sound public health measure? It's equivalent to being anti-seatbelt law, in my book. There is clear evidence that wearing seatbelts and helmets reduce death and disability.
March 11th, 2008 20:49
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE ICE CREAM?
I, for one, am with Joel.
March 11th, 2008 21:05
Dj Hurricane,
I think you have missed the point that this ride was simply the first step (or an announcement of intention) in a long line of uphill steps towards the top of the landing.
The first step towards a wish for a city council's effort to help make streets safer to ride upon, instead of just making it a slightly safer landing when a car inevitably, and with little consequence to the driver, crashes into you..
And it makes no difference how quickly we "take this to Salem", as this is a Washington state issue, and Salem is the capital of Oregon.
Your condescending tones towards efforts being put forth are misdirected, and unwanted.
A couple of questions...
Do you live in Vancouver?
Do you have to deal with these issues on the streets of said city?
Do your negative remarks towards this issue, and the way others are trying to deal with it, for the good of you and all other cyclists, really make a difference?
Did you bother to set your feet on the first step towards righting this very apparent wrong?
I think the answer to all of these questions is no.
The kids that you mentioned should be doing homework were right where you and many others should have been. Standing up, if even in a small, first step, for what is right. (also, the after rush hour time frame made it safer to go on a slow, around town cruise with children in tow)
I recommend that you jump down off your
pedestal, and onto the street with the rest of us.
Or maybe not, for you may be no help at all.
Oh, and once again, I love Joel Metz.
And I love ice cream.
And if he is right that the helmet law is anti-ice cream, is just pours fuel on the fire within me.
That fuel should really be replaced with hot fudge.
March 11th, 2008 23:01
"Hey Son, why don't you an I hop on our bikes and pedal through the neighborhood to the park?"
"Gee dad, that sounds great."
"Hmm. I see your helmet son, but I don't have one. Since I primarily ride through parks and on trails, for recreation... but I guess I can't go with you or that copper two blocks down will bust me with a $200 fine."
Yeah. I'm all for bike safety but again, this is just a completely silly law. Encourage people sure but letting police have another random excuse to hand out tickets isn't going to reduce head injuries.
Please be safe. Always wear a helmet. Yes. I agree. But this is less like putting seat belts in cars and more like mandating knee pads and gloves while jogging (we might stumble).
March 12th, 2008 00:25
Good show Dread! I was going to ride up for it, but got caught up with things and by the time I remembered, it was far too late. Wish I could of made it.
GLV #7-8, you've obviously missed the whole point of the ride, but others have detailed that point.
Dabby #32, I've also seen it recommended by manufacturer's to replace every five years. The foam has a shelf life and loses it's ability to absorb impacts. I've been off my motorcycle for a little more than a year and I'm due to replace my helmet before I get back on. Not looking forward to it, but will do it gladly.
BTW Dread Pirate Roberts, cool bike, love it!
March 12th, 2008 01:29
alpha #50. you nail a concern of mine perfectly. when i head back over to the 'couve to hang with the folks we'll often cruise around the neighborhood and to a park near their house. they don't wear helmets, or have helmets to wear. they're not regular bikers by any means. just casual cruisers, and really only when i ride over. i suppose we'll just have to stroll to the park instead...
i always wear a helmet but laws telling me how to live safely are bogus. booo. driver education/safe driving enforcement is what vancouver needs. i hate riding over there.
March 12th, 2008 02:25
Great Job Dread Pirate and others.
Joe
March 12th, 2008 08:29
I've been told that helmets should be replaced after an impact, or every 3-5 years. The integrity of the shell and foam degrades over time with exposure to sun, sweat, etc etc.
I wear a helmet; I don't live in Vancouver (my older brother and his family unit does); I've never biked in Vancouver. I agree that this sort of law is a band-aid solution to a larger problem.
I also see that this ride was the first step in a long journey (hopefully not too long!) towards making effective change-- however, if no one follows up with further action, it's an ineffective step.
March 12th, 2008 10:05
wow...a whole, what, eight people showed up to "protest"...sounds like most Vancouver residents, even riders, couldn't care less...
yet, it garners over 50 responses on this website...makes me think most of the respondents here are from PDX.
Jonathan, with all due respect, your bias against helmet laws is showing rather obtusely. If new riders are in fact so dissuaded by the use of a helmet in Vancouver, they probably aren't too genuinely interested in riding in the first place...those of us who love it will always find ways to do it and do it safely.
most of those people who argue against helmet laws on this site have never had their head hit the pavement at high speed...it'll wake you up to reality of risk on a bike real quick when you see the pavement sliding by your eyes 2" away..or remove your helmet to see the impact site...
keep riding, it'll happen to you too someday. whether you can mitigate the damage is of course up to you...
March 12th, 2008 10:34
"Jonathan, with all due respect, your bias against helmet laws is showing rather obtusely."
Hi bahueh, thanks for pointing this out.. but I'm really not ashamed or trying to hide the fact that I think this law (in the specific context of Vancouver) is ridiculous.
"If new riders are in fact so dissuaded by the use of a helmet in Vancouver, they probably aren’t too genuinely interested in riding in the first place…those of us who love it will always find ways to do it and do it safely."
True perhaps, but the key point here is that "those of us who love it" are not who we are trying to encourage to ride. The whole name of the game is to expand the bike riding market to new users and non-enthusiasts who don't already "love it".
March 12th, 2008 10:36
Jonathan,
I respectfully disagree that a helmet ordinance serves as a disincentive to cycling (post #35). Especially when helmets are given away, or sold at an incredibly reduced rate, as part of the ordinance's adoption. That argument is akin to the argument that the Share the Road license plates are a bad idea because people should just give their money to BTA directly.
I highly doubt that motorcycle helmets are a disincentive to riding a motorbike or scooter, and I imagine the same logic applies here. Does a helmet law act as a disincentive to people using small scooters that do not require a motorcycle endorsement from the DMV? If so, then the helmet law so applied is a disincentive to using a more efficient mode of motorized transportation than the average car (for those that WILL NOT bike anyway). As such, requiring scooterists to wear helmets is adding to our dependence on foreign oil due to it causing people to drive cars instead of more efficient scooters. I highly doubt this logic is supportable.
I also imagine that if a cyclist gets pulled over in Vancouver without a helmet, they will first get a warning and be directed to a place where a helmet can be obtained cheaply or free.
And as for the dad that simply wants to cruise in the park with his kid, that's the type of cyclist that this ordinance will protect the most . . . an inexperienced cyclist, likely riding an inexpensive, poorly sized bike, on trails in a park or through a neighborhood. I highly doubt this particular class of cyclist chooses to not ride a bike because it is "unsafe."
And such an ordinance is not the same as mandating knee pads . . . as a cyclist, you are operating a vehicle and subject to the laws and rules of the road. Vancouver has stated that one of those rules is that you must wear a helmet. Pretty simple logic.
All this argument aside, I always wear a helmet and, despite these posts, am not crazy about the ordinance, but there are good and sound public policy arguments in favor of its adoption. And it will also serve as a fee generator that can be used to make the improvements to Vancouver's cycling infrastructure that many here are advocating. This makes sense given that those paying the tickets will benefit the most from any improvements made with the additional funds generated.
March 12th, 2008 13:20
Jeff #29 & Dabby #32:
“…cheaper helmets often offer more protection than the minimalist $150 roadie hats” and “The reality of helmets is that they are required to be certified (correct me if I am wrong), and all offer basically a minimum of protection.”
Yo, Dabby – we finally have something we can agree about! Since March 10, 2000 it is illegal to sell or offer for sale in this country ANY BICICLE helmet that does not meet or exceed the standard set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). That’s FEDERAL law. Note that the standard applies only to bicycle helmets. There is not yet any CPSC standard for skateboard helmets, though I’ve heard CPSC is working on one. That’s why the Vanc. Helmet ordinance, posted elsewhere on bikeportland, refers to the currently voluntary ASTM or Snell skateboard helmet standards. So any bike helmet you buy in this country at least meets the CPSC minimum standard (if the helmet’s legal). The only standard in this country which significantly exceeds the CPSC standard is the voluntary Snell B-95. It requires much better impact protection and more coverage at the sides and rear of the head, so if what you’re looking for is protection rather than style, get a Snell B-95 helmet. Unfortunately they’re hard to find. Only a very few manufacturers are even able to meet such stringent standards, and the helmets don’t sell well because in order to meet the impact requirements some vents have to be sacrificed, and the helmets don’t look “cool”, usually coming in single colors in a more rounded shape to avoid rotational injury. Jeff, you’re right on about price. Ironically, if you want to get the most protection for your helmet $, go to one of Legacy Health System’s helmet sales. They offer many styles of bike helmets including a few remaining Snell B-95’s for a $5 donation. They’re phasing out the Snell B-95’s because those are harder to fit properly and don’t move well because they’re not stylish. They even offer dual-certified bike/skateboard helmets. The $5 is much LESS than their cost to purchase, but they ask for the donation in order to stretch their subsidy dollars farther and reach more people. On top of all that they size and fit the helmet as well as any specialty bike shop could, so the helmets they distribute work properly when needed.
“I advise you to look at your helmet, and those of your friends, to see if there are obvious signs of impact.” Do more than just look for obvious signs of impact. Even a small hit, not causing obvious damage, can reduce protection. The inner portion of the helmet absorbs energy by crushing in addition to breaking, so even a small impact can partially crush the foam, reducing ability to absorb a bigger impact. If you hit your helmet, in addition to checking for obvious cracks & breaks, feel carefully all over the thin plastic outer shell, pressing to see if there are any spots under the shell where the foam has been partially crushed. If you find any, it’s time to get a new lid.
March 12th, 2008 13:39
Jonathan..
thanks for the reply, but there is responsibility in promoting bicycle usage and promoting it safely.
Do you not think a new rider who will (and most new riders will) take a fall in their first few experiences on a bike (in their adult life) be so inclined to get back on a bike if their accident involves a head injury?
The discussion surrounding this issue is generally limited to conflicts between cyclist and cars..and the assumed injuries wherein. However, the majority of times I've found my head scraping across the pavement has been the result of blown front tires, other cyclists, children, dogs, etc..to limit the discussion to the harm a car can do is somewhat shortsighted.
There is no harm or limitation to a rider for helmet usage (people here would like to argue/justify their behavior due to rumors associated with hearing, baldness, etc...which sorry folks, just isn't true).
Supporting this kid in Vancouver for taking a stand "against the man" is somewhat irresponsible...he's not old enough to know the repurcussions of his actions/inactions...and he's not old enough to truly comprehend the life-long impact TBI's have on someone...and he's definitely not skilled enough to rely on bike handling skills to avoid the majority of the impacts he's got coming the longer he takes the saddle.
sorry, "Dread"....
yes, my viewpoint is skewed simply because I race and train on an almost daily basis...I've witnessed first hand someone's head hitting the pavement at 30+mph...both with and without helmets..
but I think my perspective is somewhat unique (as is anyone who spends any serious time on their bike) as it allows us to truly see the inherent risks..and gives us to realize the true impacts of our decisions on our families, friends, etc. Not wearing one to simply make a political statement is well...stupid and selfish.
March 12th, 2008 14:04
Baheuh,
I hate to tell you, but you are once again wrong.
This is Jonathan's personal web site. It does not belong to the city. He has the right to take any stance he wants, on any issue he wants, whether you feel it is irresponsible or not.
Also, this is not protesting (once again) wearing helmets, but rather the reason Vancouver has decided to make people wear helmets, and the lack of other vulnerable road user protective ordinances.
I was on the ride. The boy in question had his helmet. He knew and agreed he should wear a helmet. But he also knew the implications of what was going on behind this supposed "protective" ordinance change.
After reading your one sided comments on this for quite a while now, it appears that, on this particular issue ( a ordinance change here "IN VANCOUVER", where you obviously are not), the Dread Pirate Robert's is much more well versed in what is going on than you are.
March 12th, 2008 14:34
If the city is trying to make it a safer place, maybe they should outlaw smoking altogether. That would probably have more of an impact right? Oh wait, is there a strong tobacco lobby to contend with? Maybe not. Illnesses directly related to smoking cost us ALL lots of money.
People should be able to choose what they want to do, whether it kills them or protects them.
March 12th, 2008 14:46
Wow.
Imagine if so many articulate Vancouverite opponents had been present at the Council meetings; maybe even Colonel Pollard might have been persuaded to see the bigger picture painted re: personal freedom & the arguments about rideshare (saw Pollard's bike leaning in his office when I called upon him). But he was in favor of this feel-good law and kind of a stubborn guy. And the 'couve couldn't be bothered to protest much in council or out on the streets with our own young potential Kucinich.
I salute the Dread Pirate Roberts for his participation in the process. Stay the course and you shall have my vote in five years to seat you in the Vancouver Mayoral Palace.
On the other hand, when my children were minors, they didn't leave the frickin' property without a helmet when bicycling, because I loved them and they were my responsibility. As adults, I don't lecture them on the subject, but they didn't grow up in proverbial Amsterdam, they grew up in the United States of Automobile. And, as adults, they now ride bike way more than drive cars.
As a resident of this godforsaken, abandoned fur-trading outpost, I also think the energy spent both promoting and opposing the helmet ordinance is misplaced. The majority of people who will be injured (and do the injuring) on our public roadways are in automobiles--how about we start enforcing existing traffic code around here? No firearms, drugs, or disasters take as many lives on a daily basis as Mr. Ford's successful product. Vancouver has one of the best textbooks of how to protect and enable bicyclists just across the river Columbia in Stumptown (no, not the coffee). Let's embrace those methods & move on beyond the already-passed helmet law to continue to educate the community to share the road and with the development of better cycling infrastructure.
...uh, rant off?
March 12th, 2008 17:40
I could go on and on about why helmet laws are bad but I will limit this to two or three points.
The British Medical Journal has run a number of papers on this issue. I've linked to the latest issue that ponders the effectiveness of the laws on public health. (http://tinyurl.com/2kcr5l) There are plenty more in the BMJ besides the three available at this link. I suggest people look them over.
The fact remains that countries with the highest bicycle mode shares (Germany, Netherlands and Denmark) have decided against adult helmet laws because of the clear evidence that they reduce the number of bicycle riders which has been shown to reduce overall bicycling safety.
Davis CA realizes this too and while they encourage helmet use, they do not actively try to force people to wear them. There is no stigma about not wearing a bike helmet in Davis (this shocked me). The town has instead focused on creating the infrastructure where the bicyclist is given equal and often greater priority. I can say that riding on the streets of Davis feels very safe, like that in bicycle friendly cities in Europe. By the end of my stay there I was leaving my helmet behind as I casually rode my bike across town.
Also... Yes brain injury's are really bad. But I guarantee that if you looked at how most brain injuries patients ended up in their condition, most were probably the drivers or passengers in motor vehicles. If you really wanted to stop TBI the most effective thing to do would be to require are motorists to wear helmets but nobody would ever suggest that, would they??
Riding a bike at non-competitive speeds (under 14mph) is not much more hazardous than walking. In fact I read that a cyclist at this speed is less likely to suffer TBI than a person taking a shower. What about a shower helmet law??
What makes cycling even at these "pedestrian" speeds dangerous are the cars out there trying to kill you. This is the root of the problem, not the act of riding a bike.
For this and this reason only I wear a helmet here in New Jersey as I casually ride my bike to get around town. I wouldn't if I didn't feel that I have to as a last ditch effort to possibly save my life. And when I ride for speed, whether that's on my road or mountain bikes, then I always wear a helmet because I'm pushing the limits and I'm more likely to crash; and with really serious consequences.
BTW - Dread Pirate! Really Cool Bike! I didn't know such a young kid would be so stylin' as to ride such a cool and practical retro ride. Wish I could have joined ya' but I'm on the other side of the continent.
March 12th, 2008 21:27
While I don't like having the government ruling every aspect of my life, I have to play Devil's Advocate. If it is not up to the government to enforce laws in the name of safety, is it not a good idea to force people to use seatbelts? or car manufacturers to provide airbags, crumple zones, bumpers, etc? Should we just let people do whatever they want because it's not up to the government to promote safety? guns for everyone, no licenses needed? No child seats necessary for children in cars? Are traffic lights unnecessary because they are an example of the government forcing us to stop and wait for others in the name of safety? I don't care, honestly, because I wear a helmet already. I wear a seatbelt in a car, and I probably wouldn't have gotten into the habit had it not become mandatory. Sometimes laws are invented for our own good and good comes from it. I'm just sayin'.
March 12th, 2008 22:04
Mark, bikes are not cars or motorbikes. Bikes do not possess the inherent danger accompanying the excessive speed capability that cars and motorbikes are capable of.
Those points and numerous others have been discussed earlier on this thread and related others. The question is whether society, through its representative government, should be able to allow adults the continued use of their own discretion in determining whether a bike helmet is needed for the type of riding they intend to do.
The freedom adults have had to exercise this discretion regarding bike helmet use by adults is what will be going away for anyone that rides a bike in the city of Vancouver, thanks to the Vancouver City Council, and seemingly, the citizens of Vancouver.
March 13th, 2008 10:59
Who wouldn't vote for the ice cream candidate
March 13th, 2008 11:59
wsbob,
Bikes do posses the inherent danger of being able to kill you through speed. Who here hasn't done a 40 mph downhill run? Do you think that speed won't kill you?
Here is question that you should all answer if you are against mandatory helmet use.. Are you proponents of universal health care?
If you are then you can't demand freedom of choice, because you are willing to give up that freedom to obtain health care. And once everybody pays for that service (through taxes) it becomes the governments responsibility to legislate common sense to reduce the cost of that service.
March 13th, 2008 13:44
"[B]ikes are not cars or motorbikes. Bikes do not possess the inherent danger accompanying the excessive speed capability that cars and motorbikes are capable of."
Yes, they are not cars or motorbikes, but they are capable of speeds and circumstances(and inherent danger) that can result in severe injury to the rider. And there are credible arguments that wearing a helmet could reduce these injuries.
And Andy B from NJ, I suspect that head injuries from riding a bicycle at 14mph are uniformly more severe than head injuries incurred while walking, if you compare apples to apples. Without such a qualification, your assertion is is a good example of using misleading statistics to validate a point. More people are likely injured while walking because many more people walk. Vastly more people walk than ride bicycles. And of those that are injured walking, many may be at higher risk for such injury - i.e., elderly, intoxicated, or otherwise walking challenged.
Conversely, cyclists as a group (not universally) are usually more capable of operating a bicycle in the situation that they choose. Sure, there are outliers - intoxicated cyclists and others that shouldn't be riding, but as a general rule, I suspect that if you look at head injury statistics from cycling accidents where a helmet was not worn (even if one was worn), the injuries are much more severe than walking-related head injuries among otherwise non-challenged walkers.
As for the comparison of shower injuries to cycling injuries, seems that you need to account for the addition of a lubricant (soap), a copious supply of water, and a slippery surface without any traction devices in order for the comparison to be even remotely fair. Maybe shower injuries are more common due to those variables since we don't always ride our bicycles on ice, without tires, with soap in our eyes, while moving our heads at odd angles that upset human equilibrium. Well, most of us don't anyway. And since most of the population showers more than they ride bikes, it is probable, and quite likely, that shower injuries are much more frequent.
When all is said and done, I don't think these comparisons add up to much. It's a public policy decision that you either agree with or disagree with.
March 13th, 2008 15:07
I put my $.02 in this argument in another thread, but I'll reiterate my synopsis here for the benefit of those who didn't read that thread.
I'm a cyclist tha suffered a TBI severe enough to impair my ability to communicate via the spoken word anough to keep me out of work since shortly after the wreck. I was wearing a helmet in the wreck and continue to wear one now, upgraded from a regular bike helmet to a full face version, because in the wreck my face had to be sewn back on (so I could see out of my right eye, my forehead was hanging down in front of my eye) and plastic surgery was more uncomfortable than the first 2 months of the hardware holding my leg together, at least until the bottom screw in my femur started to catch on my quadreceps.
I wear a helmet every time I ride my bike on the street, and I think everyone else should as well. I'm also adamantly against mandatory helmet laws, because stupidity should be painful and/or fatal, like it is in the real world.
I also think that cars should be built so that 95% of pedestrians and cyclists hit at up to 30 MPH survive, rather than 100% of the occupants survive an impact with a concrete barrier at that 30 MPH, but that's just me.
Opus
March 13th, 2008 15:12
Yes, I am in favor of universal health care. If this country in fact did have universal health care, that might be a factor that would weigh in favor of mandating bike helmet use by adults. If this country ever has universal health care, I might be prepared to consider that the need for mandatory bike helmet use by adults has arrived. All things considered, my personal view is that this time has not arrived yet.
Vespa, sure there are credible arguments that wearing a bike helmet can reduce injuries, but all things considered, there is not a credible argument that wearing a bike helmet should be mandatory for adults. Numbers of cyclists, rates of injuries, and related costs from bike related head injuries to the public have not reached a point where such a law is is reasonable.
March 13th, 2008 16:12
My understanding was that the bike vs. ped injury rate is per km per person not a gross rate. I also made the mistake of saying 14mph not 12mph.
What makes showering dangerous is exactly what you pointed out. They are totally different set of circumstances but the fact remains that at slow to moderate speeds (under 12mph), showering is more dangerous than cycling, particularly once you take the "killer car factor" out of the equation.
Maybe the law should only be for fast cycling, like over 15mph. I could almost agree to that. If your gonna' hit 40mph, YEAH! Wear the helmet! But if I'm putzin' down to the bagel shop (yeah I'm from Jersey) on my 3-speed Ross at 10 mph I often don't wear a helmet and don't feel the need.
Also, no one has rebutted convincingly that the reasoning for why the big three European cycling countries (Germany, Denmark, Netherlands) dismissed passing bicycle helmet laws for adults was flawed. I'm still waiting for that one.
Here is a link that uses hard references to rebut helmet laws for even children.
http://tinyurl.com/38dlh
Riding a bike at slower, not competitive speeds IS NOT dangerous. Don't be sucked in to the propaganda that it is. Doing so only scares away potential cyclists.
March 13th, 2008 16:39
wsbob and Andy B.
Your last two posts provide support for my main point. It's a public policy decision that is not subject to the best, most supportable, statistically valid and reasonable argument. That's why public officials make policy decisions instead of all of us that know better. In my line of work, I bump into bad public policies all the time. In the three European countries that you cited, I suppose that they decided it wasn't a public policy that they wanted to adopt. Not sure I'd use that as a litmus test though - those countries have plenty of public policies that could be debated - drugs in Holland, speed limits on the Autobahn in Germany, are the first that come to mind without even thinking about it (I'm not taking a position on either of those but only point them out as examples). They are a distinctly different "public" than we are.
Statistically, I don't argue with the fact that a member of the general public is more likely to slip and fall in the shower than hurt themselves on a bike ride. But that statistic is not a valid indicator of the dangers of cycling or whether an injury while traveling 12mph is statistically probable. I'm quite sure that your chances of getting hurt in an automobile accident as a passenger far outweigh your chances of getting hurt in any manner as a cyclist. Again, not a valid indicator of severity and statistical probability of a 12mph bike crash.
And I totally agree - cycling is NOT dangerous. I've been riding and racing bicycles as an adult for nearly 25 years. And I also ride a motorcycle, motorscooter, and ride the occasional rollercoaster. Risk takers, we (North) Americans are . . .
March 13th, 2008 19:38
And public officials are not exactly rushing to mandate licensing and liability insurance for bikes and their riders, nor does the public seem to be making much of a demand for those provisions. That tells a lot about how ready our society is to embrace mandatory licensing and liability insurance for the legal right to ride a bicycle on public streets.
March 13th, 2008 22:00
Hi to Refunk....
...actually there were more citizens speaking in testimony against the helmet law than supported it during the final public hearing (5:1).
But the Mayor did not want a public debate on the topic ('statistics [I do not like] be damned') as he had already made up his mind. Just check Jonathan's record in the past post.
The curious thing...is that I tried to register my bike in Vancouver with the police 3 years ago and they said that they were no longer doing this service as they did not have the manpower to do it any more. Mmmm...
March 13th, 2008 22:04
I would love the choice to have bike insurance coverage...in case I hit a pedestrian (my fault), rent a car, or get hit by an uninsured motorist (their fault). (There are a lot of uninsured motorists out there - 30%+).
March 14th, 2008 05:10
Hey, Racer X
Alas, this i>is Vancouver--try to look like wealthy land speculators next time you testify, and yeah, Colonel Pollard's not known for flexibility. Two things to his credit, though: he does ride around town, and also, he once said he wished Portland would annex Vancouver.
Don't know about the bike registration thing, but as for the police manpower issue: Someone else has said here, it would be no surprise if the helmet law was intended for more than just feel-goodness and was jumped upon as a handy addition to the arsenal of harrassment tools.
Regarding bike insurance (which seems OT) I will say this: some automotive policies cover automotive-connected events for the insured. My wife's (she's got the last car) covers me and I rely on it while cycling; it has covered our children when they were struck as pedestrians. No good for bike-on-bike or bike/ped events. Helmets have never factored into periodic confirmation discussions with our agent; the person is what is insured, not the mode of travel (given the conditional involvement of an automotive vehicle).
March 14th, 2008 08:23
Insurance is governed by state law, not local ordinance. Lobby your Olympia/Salem representative/senator if that's where you want to go. I, for one, don't want another reason to stand in a DMV line!
Even if the legislature mandated bicycle insurance, I highly doubt many companies would write policies for it as the amounts at issue likely render it not worth the insurance company's time, not to mention the impracticality of writing such a policy.
Imagine a claim against a policy for a four year old that fell learning how to ride his/her bike, damaging a parked car and skinning his/her knee in the process? Or is the parent liable because he/she was teaching the child how to ride? What if the four year old left the scene of the incident? Hit and run charges??
Simply too many variables for the insurance company to get their head around. IMO, the last thing I want is another type of insurance policy . . .
March 14th, 2008 13:48
Here it is - the helmet ordinance is now on the city's municipal code web page:
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/MunicipalCode.asp?menuid=10462&submenuID=10478&title=title_9&chapter=62&VMC=030.html
March 14th, 2008 14:53
Thanks, Todd.
OMG, WTF!!! Look at Section 9.62.030 d!:
D. A person is exempt from the requirements to wear a helmet under this chapter, if wearing the helmet would violate a religious belief or practice of the person.
I'm ...just all out of electrons here. What the hell. Go to town, folks, har,har...
March 14th, 2008 16:08
"D. A person is exempt from the requirements to wear a helmet under this chapter, if wearing the helmet would violate a religious belief or practice of the person." Vancouver Municipal code/Section 9.62.030/non-motorized vehicles/helmet required
Hysterical. "...religious belief or personal practice of the person."...trumps safety. Well, that's easy. Anyone confronted by a police officer in Vancouver about not wearing a bike helmet now only has to respond 'sorry, it's against my religion'. There's a great slogan for a t-shirt:
No Bike Helmet in Vancouver?!! Sorry...against my religion..
March 15th, 2008 13:57
Sweet!!!
I guess we don't have to wear helmets!
March 15th, 2008 15:35
helmet laws are in place to protect idiots who think that their righteous indignation at having their civil rights threatened will protect them from an open skull injury . a 13 year old railing against "the Man" is all very cute, but try arguing against wearing a helmet to a trauma nurse...you'll get a whole different viewpoint.
March 16th, 2008 14:01
eric #82
The idiots I need to be protected from are in no way affected by this ordinance. They drive 1 1/2 to 2 ton vehicles and either pay no attention to me or they are actively trying to kill me. A thin layer of styrofoam over my skull will do nothing to keep people from hitting me, and danged little after they hit me. A helmet law is like a "sticking plaster" on a malignant melanoma, it makes it look like somebody's doing something, without actually doing anything to correct the underlying disease.
March 18th, 2008 08:13
I maintain that a municipality requiring someone to wear a bicycle helmet without also requiring the state and federal government to help offset the obscene cost of health insurance for that person is a classic, classic example of a government who wants to be absolved of responsibility for its citizens. Helmet laws discriminate against bicycle riders, especially against the poor ones, and They Solve Nothing.