I don't have that for you; however, here is a link to a debate that I'm in the midst of on Vibrant Victoria.
Also, I just found this nice little quote:
Between 1995 and 1997, four provinces of Canada introduced helmet legislation either for all cyclists or for those under 18 years of age. Later in 2002, Alberta also enforced helmet legislation for cyclists under 18 years of age.
Comparing provinces with helmet legislation to provinces without for the period 1994 to 1998 shows a relative net benefit for those without legislation. It appears helmet legislation has not provided the benefits expected, infringes civil liberties and has caused more harm than good.
- assessment by Safer Cycling author, road safety instructor and former British Cycling Federation coach Colin Clark
MVB reading material:
Bike helmet laws -- stoopid.
Not for the Faint of Heart: Helmetless cycling images!
Bicycle Helmet Laws? No, car helmet laws!
3 comments:
Hey Evan, I'm a rehab assistant who works in the Intensive Care Unit at VGH. I've seen many a cyclist vs. motor vehicle victim, and can tell you first hand the impact of helmets. They save lives. It's that simple. a few months ago, I had two patients at the same time who had been on their bikes when hit by cars at city road speeds. The first, the helmet wearer, was knocked off by a car running a red light, and was thrown oer the car, landing about 10 ft behind. He's got broken ribs, a cracked femur, broken ankle, bruises, a punctured spleen, and a face that looks like it was run over with a cheese grater. But he was fine. talking, responsive, and able to complete his rehab.
The second, a younger woman who was hit by a car turning right, fell sideways and hit the curb. She was not wearing a helmet. Despite less serious injuries to her body, her head made contact with the road, and she cracked her skull, causing swelling and pressure on her brain. Months later, she experiences significant memory loss, speech problems, and has loss of mobility. She hasn't been able to successfully ride a bike again.
I know you have all these anecdotal observations and personal beliefs, and that's great. I agree that bike paths and such are a good priority, as is greening streets and neighbourhoods. But it makes me so so mad to hear someone say that sacrificing safety is a worthwhile trade off. Maybe, one day, if cars and bikes are more separated then they are today, I could support removing the helmet law. But as long as they're all on the same streets, you need to focus your energy in other areas! Please!
Hi Julie,
Thank you very much for your comment. I am glad this is here, as your case presents the quintessential argument FOR helmet legislation and is very compelling.
First, let's talk about definitions.
Anecdotal: Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
What you have presented is anecdotal evidence.
What I have presented (did you read the other posts?) is an abundance of scientific analysis, state-/province-/nation-wide case studies, and common sense on the issue. None of which is emotionally-driven outside of wanting the 'greater good' to be understood.
There is no proof that a helmet saved #1's life or that wearing helmet would have saved #2's life.
Now, to this issue....
There is not a single credible study that shows that helmets save lives. That said, this is not part of my argument. If a helmet saved #1's life (or anyone else's, for that matter), then that is terrific. Under my regime, you can still wear a helmet!
Safer streets, education, and policy for cyclists and drivers prevent accidents and so save lives.
In BC and Canada, helmet legislation is associated with a decrease in head injuries and fatalities. Unfortunately, this association is completely and totally nullified by the fact that cycling has decreased by a far great amount. In fact, despite less cycling and more helmet wearing, head injuries and fatalities to cyclists in BC did not change, post-legislation. Furthermore, during the same time period, pedestrian fatalities decrease to an even greater extent, so any benefit could likely be attributed to greater road/traffic safety.
Just as you provide anecdotal evidence that helmets save lives, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of people falling on their heads and getting up unhurt. There is also plenty of evidence of people dying from head injuries while wearing a helmet. There is also studies to suggest that wearing a helmet causes increased cranial acceleration on head impact and so may actually increase your risk of serious injury and death.
The bottom line is that repealing helmet legislation leads to far more cycling which saves far more lives than helmets ever have or will.
You can provide all the horror stories that you want. The same can be done for pedestrian and vehicular accidents, however. So, why not push for helmets for them? In fact, those accidents and deaths happen even more often.
This is not about sacrificing safety. This is about making cycling SAFER using a forward-thinking rather than a band-aid approach. This is about prioritizing public health and the greater good rather than reactionary-policies.
Unfortunately, the focus of my energy is actually increasing on this issue.
While we're at it, I also wanted to address something that I am yet to:
Our current cycling and 'safety' culture promotes a blame the victim mentality.
The ultimate cause of the presented (and most severe) accidents is automobiles.
How does it make sense to put all the attention on the cyclist for not sticking a 2-inch piece of foam on his/her head?
Post a Comment
Two things:
1) A lot of discussion about this site happens on facebook; so, I would recommend finding the site (link on the right sidebar) and me there.
2) I'm experimenting with non-sign-in commenting to encourage more discussion (the 2 minutes it takes to create a google/other account seems like too much trouble).
Being 'anonymous' is pretty lame, so at least make up a fake name to use.