Last night, Vancouver City Council decided to postpone their vote on a new helmet ordinance. The ordinance, which initially sought to only apply to kids under 18 years old, is now likely to apply to everyone.
Jan Bader at the City Manager’s office told me that the Council did not pass the ordinance last night and instead, “sent it back to staff for revisions to make it all ages.”
“We’re going to rework it,” she said, “and look at suggestions from testimony received last night from local bike clubs.”
Corey Rose testifying in support of an all-ages
helmet law at City Council last night.
(Watch the meeting here.)
One of those clubs is the Vancouver Bicycle Club. I spoke to club President Corey Rose yesterday. He said “I just think everyone on a bike should have a helmet,” and he confirmed that the club sent a letter recommending the all-ages provision to Council.
City Manager Bader added that she thinks the Council is unanimous in its support for an all-ages provision and that the issue will likely be back in front of council for a vote by the end of February.
For more on Vancouver’s push for an all-ages helmet law, see the article I published yesterday.
Click here to watch and listen to the helmet ordinance being discussed at last night’s City Council hearing (includes public testimony both for and against).
Also read the article on this published today in The Columbian.
Stay tuned for details on upcoming City Council meetings and hearings regarding this issue.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Being able to transport yourself via your own human power, is a basic human right. Any rules or laws that hinder this basic right are wrong.
Mr. Rose may think everyone should wear a helmet, well is he willing to put some money where his mouth is ? Is he willing to buy every adult that may wander into vancouver on a bicycle a helmet? Is he will to pay everyone the extra time and hassle that ensues. Is he willing to pay for the increase in accidents from those not riding as carefully because they have a helmet on?
As already alluded to in other posts, this is a slippery slope. Well i know eating such and such is bad, lets mandate a specific diet, i know excercise is good lets have mandatory exercise, we can go on and on. It really is about freedom, and we all know, I hope, that communism doesn\’t work so well.
OMG!! Stop the Red menace!!
Helmet laws make me want to stop wearing my helmet. Plus, lord knows we all need something else for cops to be able to write us tickets for.
This notion that wearing a helmet will make cyclists safer seems reasonable only if it is the only alternative available. But it\’s certainly not. The need for a helmet is a SYMPTOM of a transportation infrastructure that does not sufficiently accommodate bicycles. The real SOLUTION is fixing the infrastructure. As many commenters have pointed out, the cycling injury rate in countries with well established cycling-friendly infrastructures have both a much lower rate of helmet use and a much lower rate of cycling injuries (Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, etc.).
anyone who bitches and moans about having to wear one has never hit their head on the pavement at high speed…..because your head always hits the pavement at high speed.
if people want to stop riding their bikes in Vancouver because they have to protect their brain….well, they\’re probably riding for the wrong reasons anyway. If you love your bike, you\’ll ride it no matter what.
less bitching. more pedaling.
Way to go helmet nazis!
Sieg Heil!
Gee, good that they\’re so concerned about the welfare of the bicycling public. I wonder if they\’d want to amend the law to include requiring helmets for motorists? And pedestrians, people in showers, and any other group at risk of brain injury?
Take a look at some stats. on head injury causes, and remind me why we\’re requiring helmets for bicyclists, & not for motorists?
51% – Motor Vehicle Accidents
21% – Falls
12% – Assaults and Violence
10% – Sports and Recreation
6% – Other
From the Center for Head Injury Services
http://www.headinjuryctr-stl.org/statistics.html
bravenewworld,
your comment reminded me of something a public health official from the The Netherlands said on a recent research trip to Portland…
he claimed that statistically it was more dangerous to take a shower in The Netherlands than to ride a bike.
Bahueh wrote : \”…well, they\’re probably riding for the wrong reasons anyway.\”
what in your mind would be a \”wrong reason\” for riding…?
\”I just think everyone on a bike should have a helmet\”
Well Hell, let\’s just make it a law then!
Hey Corey and the rest of Vancouver, what you think, no matter how well-intentioned, does not justify a law telling other people how to behave. It is an old, out-dated concept, no longer taught in schools, but its called liberty.
\”because your head always hits the pavement at high speed.\”
Always? No.
Wait, are we Nazis or Commies? I thought we were Commies. I can\’t keep it straight.
Anyway, if you don\’t fight us now in the \’Couve on helmets, you\’ll be fighting us in Portland on everything else tomorrow. Our goal is total world domination.
The next thing you know, we\’ll be telling you that your bike has to have lights, that you can\’t ride the wrong way down the street, and that you have to stop at stop signs.
END THE MADNESS!!!
helmet laws are silly. any law that enforces common sense as a way to protect the lowest common denominator (and give police an additional reason to ticket and question you) sucks. you life is your own to live or die with, there should be no law making you \”live clean\”.
The right to drive is considered a privelege to all who are first, able, and second take the time, effort and expense to benefit from this privilege. Riding a bike is totally by choice, as is the gear you wear and the bike you ride. Can\’t they just outlaw mulletts and tube tops…this would go farther in getting your southern neighbors to respect you alot more.
What I wonder is if cyclists are actually more sanctimonious than the general population, or if it just seems that way?
What astounds me is the willigness, nay *glee*, of so many people to legislate their lifestyle choices onto others.
The list of examples is endless. And always, always it\’s done for one\’s own good.
On our City Council there is really only one \”advocate bicyclist\” and that is our Mayor Royce Pollard. He is known locally as the \”Bicycling Mayor\” for over a decade or so.
Some of his motivation in championing this proposed law was that he landed pretty hard on his head while riding a bike in Propstra Plaza (Esther Short Park) before an event. I saw him take the fall while riding down a set of stairs in the pedestrian plaza. In this case the helmet let him shake off the crash.
The other recent motivation is a broader reaction to a child bicyclist who was killed when struck by a vehicle last year…and to bring the city in line with other communities in the state.
Wow, barely an hour and we have Nazi AND Communist references. Godwin\’s law strikes again.
A.O.
Lights and adherence to traffic control devices are things that relate to other users\’ safety.
It is my business that a biker use a light because I need to see them in order to not hit them. It is a hazard to me if I cannot see them. That is true whether I am in a car, on a bike, or a pedestrian.
Stop signs etc.? Ditto.
Regarding the comparison to seatbelts. Seatbelts keep drivers in their seat, where they can continue to control the vehicle after an initial impact. I myself witnessed a wreck where a truck went off the road, the driver was tossed into the passenger seat, and then could do nothing as the truck rolled straight into a telephone pole.
Ejected passengers are likewise a hazard to other road users.
I use a helmet about 99% of the time. But it really is none of anyone\’s business but my own.
I don\’t need no stinkin\’ law forcing me to ride with a helmet.
I have the indelible memory of three (3) *broken* helmets to encourage the habit. My doctor said, \”Stop already. That\’s about as much slamming around as your brain can take in one lifetime.\”
I\’m kinda with a.O. on this, and also all for personal liberty and so forth, but I just can\’t get excited about this particular law. Now if it was the reverse–if helmets were *banned*… They could have mine when they pried it from my cold, dead fingers, arrrrrgh.
It is my business that a biker use a light because I need to see them in order to not hit them.
And it\’s my business whether you wear a helmet, because when you don\’t you are far more likely to be injured and far more likely to be forced to live with a permanent brain injury. That means that, if you are poor, I pay for your initial and long-term care through my Medicare and Medicaid taxes. If you are not as poor, I pay higher health insurance rates because of the higher costs paid for your care by your private insurer.
Either way, your behavior costs me.
It\’s a big myth that your failure to wear a helmet affects only yourself. And I\’ve only even mentioned the financial cost, which is arguably not even the most important.
Yes actually a.O the fact that any of us are cycling as opposed to driving which is much less risky should be illegal, solely on the reasoning that if we don\’t have enough money to pay our medical bills the rest of us will have to bail them out.
The reason you\’re being called both a Nazi and a Commie is because you frequently flip flop your stances in regards to laws based on enforcing your personal interests on the rest of us.
Your utopia isn\’t necessarily where the rest of us care to live.
Actually, we should all legally be walking.
No more cars or bikes.
Also, no more skateboarding, or Snowboarding, taxpayers may have to foot the bill.
Actually, no more anything but work, eating a regulated diet, no smoking, etc blah blah.
The sentiment you don\’t understand a.O is that people simply don\’t like being told what to do.
We don\’t feel like other people making choices for us.
…cycling as opposed to driving which is much less risky…
I think this is false. Driving is more risky, whether in absolute numbers or per trip.
…you frequently flip flop your stances in regards to laws based on enforcing your personal interests on the rest of us.
I noticed that you asserted elsewhere that the reason I was \”advocating for more laws\” was that I benefit as a lawyer. That\’s ridiculous and demonstrates that you have no idea what I do (and that you obviously don\’t carefully read my posts, which is fine). I don\’t benefit any more than any other member of our society from any traffic law because my practice has nothing to do with those laws (it\’s energy and natural resource development).
Simply put, you\’re wrong. Wrong about changing stances and wrong about my personal interests.
But I have demonstrated how everyone else pays a price for the decision of others not to wear a helmet. I don\’t hear *any* sensible response to that fact.
I don\’t like being told what to do either, which is why I don\’t like people who make stupid choices telling me I have to pay for their stupid choices. If you were really so concerned about freedom, you\’d realize that the people who are against helmet laws are the ones *forcing* people to subsidize the poor choices of others.
The people advocating against such laws are really the ones who are \”promoting Communism\” – they\’re just too ignorant of the actual facts to understand that.
a.o., reset and try again. This time try to include some notion of \”freewill\” in your arguement.
If you do not agree in the notion of freewill, then don\’t waste your time.
Torfinn, i think you should be more specific and argue for the elimination of fast food and high fructose corn syrup. Otherwise, right on.
And why Moo? I think that tube tops should be mandated cycling gear. John Howe looks great in one.
Freewill. Freewill. Say it with me a.o. Freewill.
Jeff TB, I have no idea what you\’re talking about.
But let me say this again, lest it isn\’t clear:
People who don\’t wear helmets get injured more frequently and drive up private and public health care costs. The cost of a lifetime of care for a brain damaged individual is staggering.
The costs of one individual\’s decision are borne by the rest of society.
If you oppose a helmet law, you are advocating for people to be able to charge you for the costs of their own decision not to wear a helmet.
In short, you are advocating for the costs of one person\’s bad decision to be shared by everybody.
That sounds more like communism to me than saying everyone should wear a helmet so we don\’t have to pay for your brain injury.
Now, isn\’t that ironic?
*You\’re* the communist and I\’m the one trying to lower your taxes and health care premiums so you can spend your money on what you want.
That\’s why any sensible libertarian would support a helmet law.
There is no \”free\” in freewill for a.O. remember.
a.O I understand your logic, and it makes great sense….
However I think that it\’s digressing to greater faults in our societal system than addressing a simple helmet vs healthcare funding type of argument.
Frankly, I could spin a thousand different activities into this argument people simply shouldn\’t be allowed to do if the costs might abstractly be placed upon the tax payer as a whole.
One for instance might be golfing.
People get hit in the head with golf balls, might not have insurance, badabing! I\’m paying for it.
So should golfers wear helmets?
What\’s the cutoff here?
Amen, a.O. (post 29)
I am tired of paying for the idiots that don\’t want to wear a helmet, or stop smoking, or not wear a seat belt. If you don\’t want to be a responsible adult, fine, but DO NOT expect me to pay for the injuries or illness.
you mean you guys dont wear your helmets in the shower?
So now we\’re comparing the likelihood of a TBI from getting hit on the head with a golf ball to the likelihood of a TBI from getting hit by a car while on a bike without a helmet? I don\’t think so.
That\’s a distraction from the issue at hand: Your refusal to wear a helmet requires me to pay for your bad choice, because that\’s just the way the health care system currently works here and everywhere else in the world.
This isn\’t about golf balls. It\’s not about making decisions with respect to other risks. It\’s about you wearing a helmet so I don\’t have to pay for it.
What\’s the cutoff here?
Generally, lawmakers think in terms of cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether a law would benefit society. They weigh the burden (b) of adopting the regulation against the probably that a loss will occur (p) multiplied by the size of the loss (l). When b > pl, the law would cost more than it would save, so it would not be a good policy. But when b
[my post on the cutoff was cutoff!! ha!]
But when b
it\’s broken. forget it.
Wow, so from the logic I\’m seeing here, does this mean we should we start fining people over 250 pounds for their Health Care costs relating to their weight (i.e. heart disease, diabetes, etc.), making it a law for everyone to do yoga, since it\’s so damn good for you, and get rid of everyone\’s television sets due to the ill effects of a sedentary lifestyle?
It seems to me we all KNOW what is good/right for us/society (i.e. eating healthily, exercising, wearing a seatbelt and a helmet, doing cross word puzzles instead of playing video games, etc.). The question is, should there really be laws FORCING us to do these things, instead of educating us to make these choices ourselves?
Who\’s going to pay for all of these required helmets/lights/panniers (is that next – save your back!)etc. required on a bike? Will it come standard when you buy a bike now (like seatbelts are now required in automobiles)? Or are we going to penalize poor poeple who ride a bike not out of choice, but out of neccessity, even more buy ticketing them when they haven\’t bought that $50 helmet that\’s now required.
Off my soap box now. Thanks.
So if driving is so risky why isn\’t there a mandatory helmet law for motorists?
The amount of money we collectively as a society pay for unhelmetted cyclists\’ head injuries is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money we collectively pay for unhelmetted motorists\’ head injuries.
This is beating a dead horse, but I\’m not sure that requiring helmets actually is a benefit to society. This is a decent summary of various arguments in favor and opposed, although the author comes out opposed. I think most relevant are these two sentences:
So, even helmetless cyclists reduce medical costs to society overall.
I wonder how many people who oppose helmet laws for bicyclists would support an end to the ban against marijuana. Sure, it\’s a different subject, but the same principles apply. If it all boils down to personal choice, shouldn\’t I be able to toke at will without risking imprisonment?
Yes Phil, you definitely should! It\’s up to you whether you want to partake in a potentially harmful, yet also potentially wonderful experience. If I can fill my arteries with cheesecake and donuts (knowing the risks to my health), one should also be able to fill their lungs with marijuana in the privacy of their own homes.
a.O.
Try as you might, there is simply no flat-out objective way to look at this.
This issue invariably involves a fuzzy line. What compelling interest does the STATE have in mandating helmet use? What is a reasonable restriction?
You can tell me that you think it should be a law, and argue for it becoming a law, but don\’t try to claim some absolute, objective high ground where your argument is impenetrable. It ain\’t.
I have insurance. That is a business relationship that both the company and I have entered into by our own freewill. I pay them premiums, they pay the doctor when I crash and break myself.
If you, someone not a part to that business relationship, gets to tell me to wear a helmet, where does that end? Can I no longer go mountain biking? That\’s pretty risky. No skiing? No drinking? No rare steaks?
If you have the right to tell me to wear a helmet because it might save you money, then it\’s no big step for you to tell me to wear body armor. Seriously
There are plenty of good lawyers and judges who have been able to argue successfully in favor of helmet laws for motorcyclists, but that almost invariably involves the fact that the state has already inserted itself into the equation with operator licenses. In other words, if you want to ride a motorcycle, which the state already controls via licenses, you must abide by the state\’s requirements – helmets. I don\’t agree with that, but they\’ve been able to argue it.
The state has also inserted itself into the helmet issue with kids under the argument that the state is protecting minors who do not yet have the capacity to make such a decision for themselves.
Jeff TB, I think instead of \”freewill,\” which is a discussion for another day as to HOW we arrive at our decisions, you mean \”freedom\” or \”rights\” which are principles that govern what we allow each other to do.
So, if there were a lobby of anti helmet capitolists that provided a certain amount of dollars to exceed your cutoff point we\’d be clear then?
While this may be about helmets a.O, as I understand it Cancer, lung disease and a few other things are costing our society a metric shit ton more than helmetless cyclists.
Need I mention an 800lb gorilla?
🙂
If it all boils down to the dollars a.O our society would become an unliveable place.
First and foremost, everyone would need their diet planned for them.
Here is the up to date link for last night\’s council discussion:
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/stage/cvtv/cvtvindex.asp?section=25437&folderID=1688
Scroll down and launch the chapter on helmets.
Here is something to read and ponder.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uob-wah091106.php
I only have dialup service & it would have taken 3+ hrs. to download the link listed by Todd Boulanger. Here\’s a link to a Columbian newspaper article:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/01/01292008_Vancouver-exploring-bike-helmet-ordinance.cfm
Thanks, Tasha! Pot and donuts — two of life\’s great pleasures. Oh, yeah. And bikes. Don\’t forget the bikes.
I think the comment from Dag #37 is the salient one.
I wear a helmet 100% of the time, save the occasional test ride, but don\’t feel we need a law for this.
The complexity in this discussion arises from the data versus the anecdote. The data implies we should abandon the law. The anecdote speaks of a tragedy that may have been prevented through using a helmet and has emotional element that may cloud judgement.
Hey tonyt, don\’t try to claim some absolute, objective high ground where your argument is impenetrable. It ain\’t.
I tried to explain where we draw the line – there is a principle that creates a bright line – but it wouldn\’t work.
Anyway, FWIW, I support repeal of the cannabis prohibition because B > PL and I also enjoy donuts.
tonyt…do a lot of OBRA road racing do you?
I do…I\’ve seen a lot of broken helmets and have witnessed more bicycle related injuries or crashes than you probably ever will…and yes, your head always hits the pavement in some form or another. I personally have enough scars and cracked trophies at home to prove the point..
DAbby-
that study has been thrown around ad nauseum the past few years…its has a large number of epidemiologic flaws inherent in its design if I recall…hard to tell without the the actual acticle.
good public health data is only as good as its investigator…his comparisons are also that of two very different things (high speed falls and begin struck by a car…um, ya, not the same)
that do not produce the same injuries by enlarge.
😐
You would support the repeal of a drug that has been proven to cause lung cancer, but you want people to accept that they should be compelled by the law to wear helmets, on the off chance they survive and happen to end up brain damaged with hospital bills?
Perhaps flip flopping wasn\’t the best term, but you can see my concern with your logic can you not?