...and the jury says?
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
More on helmets...
I promised to discuss at greater length my opinions on bicycle helmets. I haven't forgotten, I'm composing my thoughts carefully, and as a part of that process I found the article below. I don't agree with all its points (mostly statistics are presented in a misleading manner) but it's an interesting article and offers contact information to a Vancouver Police Officer who is willing to hear opinions on the matter which is somewhat refreshing.
Here's the article:
Much to ponder over mandatory bike lids
BY MARK TONNER, THE PROVINCE MAY 10, 2009
Police officers become accustomed to being labelled. This month I find I'm
wearing another, square on the forehead.
Apparently I'm a "Liddite." An unthinking proponent of mandatory bicycle helmet
laws.
I'm not sure I'm done with it yet, though I am willing to think. Bicycle helmets
don't offer genuine safety, according to the anti-lid set. Most bike fatalities
involve collisions with cars, not falls onto hard surfaces. Helmets are rated
for simple falls, not collisions at speed.
The natural response, a call for better helmets, is said to be misguided.
Studies on more robust motorcycle helmets show mandatory laws elevate crash
rates, even cause fatalities. Something in a false sense of security is said to
bring trouble, while an elevated sense of danger actually providessafety for the
helmet-free.
Helmet laws are said to cause perceptions of danger, making people afraid to
cycle. Fear-driven preference for auto transport brings congestion, raises the
risk to pedestrians, other drivers, and you guessed it -- cyclists. The fewer
cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is for those who do ride.
Social engineers would have us trained from childhood, to want to ride, and to
obey the law when we do. They'd have motor vehicles made to slow down and
respect cyclists, rather than impose helmets on riders.
It's no surprise to see anti-liddites pointing to the Netherlands. Drug liberals
have been bowing that way for years, though the bicycling issue may benefit more
clearly from Dutch insight. They restrict auto access to residential and
shopping districts. They support public transit, subsidize cycling, and you
guessed again, they don't insist on helmets.
Almost half of Netherlanders pedal to work without helmets, yet the country has
a uniquely low rider-mortality rate. They've addressed the real problem, as they
see it. The cars.
The extreme side insists that mandated helmets equal legislated fear. Auto
manufacturers sell more cars when people fear cycling. Oil companies sell more
fuel, helmet manufacturers sell to a market held captive by regulation and fear.
Past a certain point, the anti-helmet manifesto reads like a Michael Moore
script. Cigarettes kill 400 times as many people as bicycles, but smokers aren't
made to use filters. Skin cancer kills ten times as many as bikers, but
sunscreen isn't compulsory.
Add an alien and we'd get David Duchovny back. For my part, I'll admit to being
swayed. Police officers aren't lawmakers, but we're being asked to think
carefully about enforcement of helmet laws as weather improves.
The new Burrard bridge bicycle lane will provide some interesting moments,
almost certainly. I can guarantee a major portion of bridge riders will be
helmet-free. It's the same everywhere. A sizeable segment within the cycling
community simply isn't buying into this law.
I think about proposed bicycle exchange programs, with cycles available in
strategic locations around town. Spontaneity would be entirely removed if one
needed a helmet to take advantage.
I think about the will of the community, both riders and drivers, and whether or
not this law expresses majority beliefs. Is it time to reconsider? Let me know,
at the address below.
Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in
the Province. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police
department or board. Mark may be contacted at marcuspt@shaw.ca
BY MARK TONNER, THE PROVINCE MAY 10, 2009
Police officers become accustomed to being labelled. This month I find I'm
wearing another, square on the forehead.
Apparently I'm a "Liddite." An unthinking proponent of mandatory bicycle helmet
laws.
I'm not sure I'm done with it yet, though I am willing to think. Bicycle helmets
don't offer genuine safety, according to the anti-lid set. Most bike fatalities
involve collisions with cars, not falls onto hard surfaces. Helmets are rated
for simple falls, not collisions at speed.
The natural response, a call for better helmets, is said to be misguided.
Studies on more robust motorcycle helmets show mandatory laws elevate crash
rates, even cause fatalities. Something in a false sense of security is said to
bring trouble, while an elevated sense of danger actually providessafety for the
helmet-free.
Helmet laws are said to cause perceptions of danger, making people afraid to
cycle. Fear-driven preference for auto transport brings congestion, raises the
risk to pedestrians, other drivers, and you guessed it -- cyclists. The fewer
cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is for those who do ride.
Social engineers would have us trained from childhood, to want to ride, and to
obey the law when we do. They'd have motor vehicles made to slow down and
respect cyclists, rather than impose helmets on riders.
It's no surprise to see anti-liddites pointing to the Netherlands. Drug liberals
have been bowing that way for years, though the bicycling issue may benefit more
clearly from Dutch insight. They restrict auto access to residential and
shopping districts. They support public transit, subsidize cycling, and you
guessed again, they don't insist on helmets.
Almost half of Netherlanders pedal to work without helmets, yet the country has
a uniquely low rider-mortality rate. They've addressed the real problem, as they
see it. The cars.
The extreme side insists that mandated helmets equal legislated fear. Auto
manufacturers sell more cars when people fear cycling. Oil companies sell more
fuel, helmet manufacturers sell to a market held captive by regulation and fear.
Past a certain point, the anti-helmet manifesto reads like a Michael Moore
script. Cigarettes kill 400 times as many people as bicycles, but smokers aren't
made to use filters. Skin cancer kills ten times as many as bikers, but
sunscreen isn't compulsory.
Add an alien and we'd get David Duchovny back. For my part, I'll admit to being
swayed. Police officers aren't lawmakers, but we're being asked to think
carefully about enforcement of helmet laws as weather improves.
The new Burrard bridge bicycle lane will provide some interesting moments,
almost certainly. I can guarantee a major portion of bridge riders will be
helmet-free. It's the same everywhere. A sizeable segment within the cycling
community simply isn't buying into this law.
I think about proposed bicycle exchange programs, with cycles available in
strategic locations around town. Spontaneity would be entirely removed if one
needed a helmet to take advantage.
I think about the will of the community, both riders and drivers, and whether or
not this law expresses majority beliefs. Is it time to reconsider? Let me know,
at the address below.
Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in
the Province. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police
department or board. Mark may be contacted at marcuspt@shaw.ca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
