Comments

• Brad

  I ask, does perception hold sway over reality?
  
  David writes that there is no evidence of benefit to helmet legislation, yet because people have the perception that there is, legislation remains in place.
  
  Seems very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale, "The Emperor's New Clothes"
  
  

  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

  Well, there's also enough cyclists who themselves testify from their own personal experience or a loved one, where a helmet did protect their head.
  
  http://forums.teamestrogen.com/showthread.php?t=44268&highlight=helmet
  
  Dave, it is better in your role as a lawyer with case work on personal injuries, to stick what you can best defend on behalf for existing and future clients. Your best defense delivered for clients, is probably grounded best on what your intuitively believe and value most long-term.

  Posted by Jean September 04, 2011 14:52:14

• Such faith!

  All in all, a good article. However, I'm astonished at your belief that bike helmets do save lives, or even significantly reduce serious head injuries.
  
  I'm aware that case-control studies of self-selected subjects typically show benefit to helmet use - provided, that is, that alcohol use is not recognized as a confounding variable! But such studies would be inadmissible in evaluating any other medical intervention. Meanwhile, time-series studies of large populations clearly show no benefit to helmet use. For example, since 1980 fatalities of pedestrians in the U.S. have declined at a significantly greater rate than fatalities of cyclists, despite the great uptake of cycling helmets.
  
  There was a time I believed in cycling helmets. Long study of available data convinced me that the protective effect is illusory. More important, long study of the comparative levels of risk, and the sources of serious brain injury in the population as a whole, convinced me that cycling has never been an important source of brain injury. Over 99% of head injury fatalities have nothing to do with cycling. Whether measured in incidents per year (as a measure of "cost to society") or incidents per km ridden (as a measure of risk to the individual) cycling is simply not a significant source of the brain injury problem!
  
  I hope to see helmet advocates leave cycling alone, and start attacking the other 99% of the brain injury problem!

  Posted by RX August 19, 2011 10:20:42

• BC resisting change

  "It seems to me there is very little appetite for legislative change in this province. I have been told directly by government representatives that there is no interest in a review."
  
  Incognito government representatives, or who are they?
  
  So, bad laws will continue to be in force and the people of BC cannot challenge them.
  Isn't that contra bonus mores?

  Posted by ch1 July 01, 2011 10:12:27

• Charter breach

  I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, BCs helmet law breaches the Charter beyond a "reasonable" limit because,
  
  a) the law does not achieve it's goals (stated in the legislature as - to reduce the deaths and serious injuries to cyclists in BC) and,
  
  b) the effects of the law has resulted in fewer cyclists cycling with the same, or worse,fatality and injurious results.
  
  This has removed the benefits of the health aspects of cycling without the expected trade off of fewer deaths and serious injuries to cyclists

  Posted by Brad January 12, 2011 05:30:25

• Appreciate your willingness to consider

  Until recently I would never have considered the possibility that helmets could be harmful. The European experience has changed my mind. I still wear my own helmet compulsively - but I don't think helmet promotion is a valid way to increase cycling or to improve bicycle safety.
  My question for you is this: You would not advocate for repeal of existing mandatory helmet laws. That's clear. But would you campaign for such laws in places like Copenhagen, London and Paris where helmets are now optional?

  Posted by Merlin January 10, 2011 20:43:58

• Quebec

  I forgot about Quebec. There was little debate there. Quebec rejected any notion of a law because of the negative effects of such a law.

  Posted by Brad January 10, 2011 14:59:20

• helmets in Ontario

  just to clarify, Ontario has no helmet law for adults as well.
  
  Both Alberta and Ontario had proposed all ages bicycle helmet laws but both were changed to apply to children only.
  
  Manitoba struck up a bipartisan committee to examine the worth of a helmet law and decided against such a law because it would result in a worse situation than if a law was passed.
  
  Point is, BC is in a minority position. There are relatively few jurisdictions in the world that have helmet laws. If helmet laws were a good idea, there would be more of them.

  Posted by Brad January 10, 2011 14:43:49

• I think you've got it

  Its the nature of this issue that makes it so problematic. Helmets aren't the problem, helmet laws are (and the promotion of fear in cycling).
  
  I don't think any sane person would doubt that if you are in a crash, you'd be better off with a helmet. But this doesn't justify helmet laws.
  
  The problem with helmet laws is that they discourage and de-normalise cycling, as well as take the focus off what actually makes cycling safer - lower urban speed limits, proper infrastructure and strict liability for motorists.
  
  If we look at the places that have succeeded in making cycling safest, there is very little focus on what can help in an crashes and lots of focus on preventing them. Riding in the Netherlands without a helmet is 20 times safer than riding in Australia with helmet laws.
  
  Too bad that we have such a hard time learning from their successes

  Posted by Dave January 10, 2011 13:35:05

• Law is not justified

  Following helmet legislation in Victoria, Australian, helmet use increased from approximately 32% to 65%. However, cycling reduced by approximately 36%. In effect helmet use increased from 32% of 100 to 65% of 64, or from 32 to 42, an extra 10 wearing from 68 not wearing prior to the law. In comparison to the extra 10 wearing helmets, 36 fewer were cycling and 22 choose not to wear them, in spite of the legal requirement.
  
  The European Cycling Federation stated "the evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous," indicating safety was actually reduced.
  
  The UK's National Children's Bureau provided a detailed review stating "the case for helmets is far from sound", "the benefits of helmets need further " and "the case has not yet been convincingly made for compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets."
  
  2008 Curnow concluded “Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo, authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this.”
  
  You have been misled and not been given the full evidence. Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/USA_helmet_laws.pdf
  provides more details

  Posted by Colin January 10, 2011 09:54:03

• Who needs helmets?

  David's article misses a most important point: No matter what people claim, bike riders are not at great risk of serious head injury. Not per person, not per mile traveled, not per hour activity, not per year.
  
  From www.vehicularcyclist.com:
  
  "Who should wear helmets?
  Of 2500 Major Head Injuries Annually in Ontario
  49% motor vehicle involvement - including pedestrians, excluding cyclists
  35% falls, 6% homicide, 2% suicide, 6% other causes
  less than 2% Cycling"
  
  Given the burden of head injuries on Canada's health care system, why are the other 98% not being told to wear helmets?

  Posted by datahead January 10, 2011 09:05:27

• Helmets in Alberta

  Alberta does not have a mandatory helmet law for adults, only minors 17 and under.
  
  Just clarifying.
  
  

  Posted by BikeBike January 10, 2011 08:52:53

• case law

  There have been instances in court in which a helmets effectiveness has been called into doubt.
  
  California saw a case in which the judge commented that the standards helmets are tested to are not true performance standards, only measure certain areas on a helmet that are not involved in the majority of head injury accidents, and are not sufficient enough for making a product safe enough for use on the streets before awarding a plaintiffs family $17 million in damages.
  
  http://www.stc-law.com/prodliability.html
  
  and in Australia, Sue Abbott won her case against their helmet law when the judge concluded that: ''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your (Abbott's) side of the ledger. ... I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''
  
  http://momentumplanet.com/videos/australian-wins-helmet-law-case
  
  It's time for the legal community to wake up and respect the rights of cyclists regarding this law rather than dismiss their rights on no clear evidence of need or benefit.

  Posted by Brad January 08, 2011 09:39:33

• perception

  Forgive me if I am missing something, but it seems to me after reading this article, that the helmet law is justified by personal perception, rather than a justifiable need and benefit.
  
  Indeed, David makes the point that there seems to be no clear evidence of a benefit related to mandatory helmet use, yet it seems to me for the right of choice to be removed from a member of society, there must be clear evidence of both a need and benefit.
  
  I also wonder at what all the families of helmeted cyclists who have died feel about the claims that helmets save lives. The sad fact of the matter is that after BC implemented its helmet law, ridership dropped and helmet usage almost doubled, cyclist deaths increased.
  
  There is a good reason why cyclists die on our roads. Cyclists are hit by motor vehicles and bicycle helmets cannot provide adequate protection in these collisions.
  
  Cycle helmets do make one feel safer though, and it's on these feelings, rather than the hard facts, that our helmet law was passed. It's a pity David chooses to follow emotion, rather than reason in his efforts to help cyclists deal with the law. It would be quite a feather in his bonnet to successfully challenge the law. Instead, many brave individuals with little to no knowledge of the law show up in court to try to do it on their own, with no legal help or representation.

  Posted by Brad January 08, 2011 07:41:16