Ever since the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in British Columbia in September 1996, I have received at least two calls a month asking that I spearhead a challenge to the helmet laws. My answer has always been the same: “You are talking to the wrong friendly neighborhood bike lawyer.” My perspective is shaped at a visceral level. When helmeted cyclists describe for me the circumstances of significant head trauma, it seems obvious to me, and to them, that the use of a helmet may well have saved their lives.
My perspective is fortified by the fact that helmeted clients do not face allegations of associated contributory negligence in head injury cases. Those clients are therefore in a superior legal position. Naturally, given what I know and what I have seen, I am inclined to favor helmet use.
Until recently, I really was not prepared to listen too long to those who called for a challenge to mandatory helmet use. Lately, however, I will admit to being troubled by a plethora of very learned articles, studies and statistics that indicate the helmet legislation in some provinces have not proved to be in the interest of the health and safety of their populations. It seems that there is no clear evidence of a benefit related to mandatory helmet use. If anything, the studies appear to indicate a number of negative effects.
First, it appears that helmet legislation has caused a reduction of cycling. This started in Australia and New Zealand, which introduced legislation between 1990 and 1992. These jurisdictions appear to have influenced Ontario, Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick to all eventually follow suit. Surveys from Down Under and from four Canadian provinces (no data appears to be available from New Brunswick) suggest helmet use discourages cycling. This is not good. Not only does the community suffer the loss of obvious health benefits associated with cycling, it also faces the increased environmental and social costs associated with other less benign modes of transportation. For example, mandatory helmet use has been an unacceptable thorn in the side of the development of bike sharing programs in Vancouver. One particularly compelling study indicates that helmet law has discouraged cycling in British Columbia by an astonishing 28 percent. Naturally, given the infinite number of variables, this and other studies must be taken with a few grains of salt. Nonetheless, they make a thought-provoking point.
Then there is the evidence from many jurisdictions that wearing helmets might even make cycling more dangerous. There is evidence that helmet promotion diverts attention from other more worthwhile safety strategies, cycling education, sensible riding, better cycling facilities and the need to generally demand a greater role for cyclists in society.
Then there is the constitutional argument. I suppose this is where I could take my rightful place. Helmet laws arguably infringe on civil liberties. Clearly, helmet laws lead to overzealous and often selective law enforcement, which perpetuates discrimination and increases the perception that the law is arbitrary and favors those in a superior socio-economic position. Also, the failure to wear helmets often leads to unnecessary and unfair prejudice in cases involving claims for compensation. After all, from an insurer’s perspective, if you were not wearing a helmet, you definitely “shot the deputy.”
Latest Comments
Brad
Posted by The Emperor's New Clothes September 05, 2011 08:03:56
Your best lawyer defense is what makes sense to help client stay safe and productive
Posted by Jean September 04, 2011 14:52:14
Such faith!
Posted by RX August 19, 2011 10:20:42
BC resisting change
Posted by ch1 July 01, 2011 10:12:27