Here are excerpts from a post by Tom Fucoloro on the Seattle Bike Blog that casts more light that heat on a contentious issue directly relevant for Vancouver:
.
After years of conflicting studies have thrown its results into question, both the Center for Disease Control and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will no longer promote the conclusion that bicycle helmets reduce head injury rates by 85 percent in light of meta-analyses of similar studies that found lower and inconclusive results.
The often-cited and influential 1989 study was conducted in Seattle by Robert Thompson M.D. for Group Health. It has been heavily influential in discussions about municipal all-ages bicycle helmet laws. … However, subsequent studies have not been able to repeat the 85 percent figure found in the Seattle study. Results vary, but have consistently been lower. After urging from the Washington Area Bicyclist Association in DC, the CDC and NHTSA will no longer be promoting the 85 percent conclusion.
Bicycle helmets and helmet laws are incredibly controversial and divisive. Navigating all the conflicting and sometimes untrustworthy studies on either side of the debate can drive you crazy. Elly Blue wrote an excellent story for Grist looking at tons of studies and arguments about helmets out there and concluded that, at best, support for or against helmet promotion and laws is inconclusive. Her conclusion: “The great helmet question is the wrong one entirely to be asking.” …
It is also indisputable that bike share is extremely safe, perhaps the safest way to get around in an urban environment. … Bike share is so safe that a Barcelona study recently found that their bike share system likely saves 12 lives every year once you factor in the health benefits of cycling and the relative safety of their bike share system compared to other modes of transportation, such as driving.
And there’s the rub. There are serious concerns that King County’s all-ages helmet law could have a negative impact on use of the upcoming Puget Sound Bike Share system. … But bike share could revolutionize the way Seattle gets around. … That’s why the city/county should modify the bike helmet law for adults (not children).
There is very little political will to repeal the law, but there is room for a compromise: Make it a secondary offense (or maybe even make it a secondary offense for bike share users only). Adults who are biking safely and obeying all traffic laws are not a public safety hazard, either to themselves or others. The city should support the success and safety of bike share by doing what they can to encourage the highest use of the system possible. Again: Safety in numbers is 100 percent certain to lower the collision rate for people on bikes.
The compromise here is that people who are not obeying traffic laws and are biking dangerously would get double-ticketed if they do so without a helmet on. So this law change would put an extra emphasis on lawful, safe riding while also allowing bike share to flourish. That’s a politically-palatable win-win that I think most people can agree on.
Price Tags 
Helmets are good (might reduce injury in a few types of bike crash)
Mandatory helmet laws are bad (discourage people from cycling; reduce health benefits)
There are much better ways to keep cyclists safe.
LikeLike
That’s about the nub of it.
Bikeshare please, Vancouver. Yesterday.
LikeLike
Recent Twitter interactions with Mike Magee (Mayor Gregor’s Chief of Staff), Kevin Quinlan (Director of Policy), and Councillor Andrea Reimer have lead me to realize that there is NO appetite at City Hall for a revision/exemption/repeal of the city’s own bylaw that makes seawall cycling illegal without a helmet, let alone attempting to approach the province for the same within the Motor Vehicle Act. So here we sit, five years after Peter Ladner started the ball rolling, with a $50,000 helmet vending machine prototype, and sprawl-induced cities such as Columbus and Dayton Ohio passing us by.
City staff are STILL insisting that some part of a Vancouver bike share system will be in place before the end of 2013, but you and I know that won’t be the case, as a winter launch date would be absolutely unprecedented. So here we are, about to undertake a very expensive exercise in futility and safety theatre, and miss a *real* opportunity to get thousands of new people on bicycles. All because Vision are afraid to do the right thing, and start professing to the public that ACTUAL bike safety comes from numbers, behaviour and infrastructure, NOT shared styrofoam hats.
LikeLike
On a side note, Vancouver’s finest have been out on the quiet bikeways of this city TWICE this week, parking a car and issuing $29 fines to those who feel safe enough to ride without a helmet. Once on the Cypress Bikeway, and once on the Burrard Street Bridge. Who is directing them to partake in this wasteful, backwards and counterproductive charade? Why don’t any other municipal forces in British Columbia seem interested in wasting their time and doing the same? Why is it only on the warmest summer days that they bother? I would encourage all Price Tags readers to visit http://www.helmetchoice.ca, and write their MLA, as well as Mayor and Council to express their outrage. It’s unacceptable behaviour in the so-called “World’s Greenest City”.
LikeLike
I’m confused. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone sounding like they are anti-helmet. The notion that ‘as long as you are a safe rider, it’s OK’ doesn’t make any sense to me. Should drivers that think they drive safely not be required to where a seatbelt? Should motorcyclists who think they ride safely not be required to where a helmet?
I ride my bike to work for most of the week and wouldn’t dream of not wearing a helmet and couldn’t imagine not. When I see people riding on major streets with no bike lane without a helmet (sometimes on their phone, /sigh) I hope that there’s an officer around the corner ready to hand them a ticket.
— text above written before reading http://helmetchoice.ca/yes, text below written after —
Very interesting arguments being made here, though I think too many of them sound more like an inconvenience than anything else, particularly this:
“A senior citizen going a few blocks for a jug of milk, and getting a ticket for not wearing a helmet, is absurd.”
It’s a bit of a catch 22, though. We can’t have safe riders not wearing helmets without proper infrastructure. To get the infrastructure we need bike sharing programs to work. To get bike sharing programs to work we need to remove helmet laws.
I wish the website had stats right up front on injuries in cycling accidents w/ helmets vs. w/out.
LikeLike
Gray – thanks for reading the website. Please also see the blog posts here http://helmetchoice.ca/archive I hope it’s clear that we’re not anti-helmet, but are instead pro-choice.
The solution to your Catch 22 is to remove the helmet law. Riders who wish to wear helmets will wear helmets, riders who don’t, won’t. Not wearing a helmet does not entail dangerous behavior or a guaranteed accident, just as wearing a helmet does not entail an end to dangerous behavior and total body protection. Behavior, infrastructure and numbers are key.
Many, many streets in Vancouver are perfectly safe: we have separated lanes downtown, we have a seawall that connects many destinations, we have calm bike boulevards like 10th Avenue and Adanac. As I described here, Vancouver already boasts many of Boris’ best bits: http://helmetchoice.ca/post/45230265877/vancouver-already-boasts-boris-best-bits
LikeLike
Don’t confuse helmet laws with helmet use, Gray: http://helmetchoice.ca/post/26173106540/usevslaws. A recent U of T study (partnering with the British Medical Journal) found NO correlation between a province mandating helmets and their rates of head injury: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals. It’s important to understand that BC is a global anomaly here, very few places around the world require bike helmets for adults (Australia, New Zealand, and a handful of U.S. cities). There’s a reason for that: the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, and the reduction in riding rates (estimated at 30-40%) created by helmet laws actually costs more (due to inactivity) than they “save”.
LikeLike
Gray – you, yourself differentiate behavior and street types in your comment “major streets with no bike lane … sometimes on their phone”. Of course I would never endorse this behavior, and I would even support an officer pulling this cyclist over, lecturing them about safety and pointing them to the nearest bike boulevard. None of this implies the need for a helmet law or helmet tickets. This is simply police officers genuinely looking out for public safety.
If you differentiate behavior and street types how can you support a ubiquitous helmet law?
LikeLike
“Don’t confuse helmet laws with helmet use”. I guess that’s the sad truth that I’m ignoring. I’m across the straight in Victoria and I’d say we’re a 50/50 city in terms of riders with or without helmets, which I think is a poor ratio. We’re in serious need of proper bike lanes so I can’t wait for the PCMP (a $275M plan to upgrade the city’s streets) to come into effect.
I suppose it’s probably erratic and unsafe behaviour that I’m an advocate against the most. In my head, I have tied that behaviour with not wearing a helmet but obviously have no proof to support that.
I clearly need to do some more research!
LikeLike
Bravo Chris: eloquently and forcefully put!
LikeLike
As an aside to the aside, I note that Vancouver was forced to defend VPD’s bloated budget to Mike Klassen’ CFIB this week. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/yourmoney/Eighteen+local+governments+audited/8452512/story.html
http://www.biv.com/article/20130530/BIV0109/130539994/-1/BIV/cfib-urges-municipalities-to-cut-wages
The optics of three officers kicking people off bikes on a sunny day after that aren’t too hot.
Klassen has noted VPD’s wasteful profligacy since at least 2010 http://archive.citycaucus.com/2010/07/foi-shows-132-more-vpd-staff-join-100000-club
LikeLike
Gray – thank you for your kind and reasonable response. Would that our public servants were so facts-inclined!
LikeLike
Hear hear! Almost unheard of, a person saying “I need to look at this more closely”. Hooray for an inquiring mind.
LikeLike
Another point worth making: Washington state does not have an adult helmet law, only King County does. I believe this might be the equivalent to Metro Vancouver having a law, but in our case that would probably mean the municipalities themselves.
I would love for BC to repeal the law, and allow municipalities to decide whether to pass their own. Infrastructure, street design, topology, city zoning and distances all vary hugely across BC. Municipalities are making their streets safe at much different rates, and Vancouver has done a great job so far, with many more improvements to come I don’t doubt.
In reality, as Chris mentioned, there are very few tales of police (or RCMP for that matter) in the rest of the province wasting everybody’s time and money stopping hat free cyclists. This seems to be a peculiarly Vancouver affliction, and yet councillors seem to blame the province. It would be really useful to remove that excuse.
LikeLike
I am actually anti-helmet. They are designed to protect against the kind of impacts more commonly incurred by pedestrians falling on the sidewalk, and give a false sense of security. They lead to more risk taking by bicyclists, which increases injuries. And most importantly, they lead to the false impression that riding a bicycle is a dangerous activity.
LikeLike
I think you’ve hit a very important point. A mandatory helmet law makes people think that cycling is inherently unsafe. It prevents a normally sedentary portion of society from even thinking about using a bike because they associate it with danger rather than better health.
I rode a bike nearly every day in the 1970s and 80s and never wore a helmet. I remember entering some fun event at UBC in 1990 that required helmets and having to borrow one. A few months later a car forced me into a pothole and my bike’s rear axel snapped. I haven’t been back on a bike since.
My kids have asked about riding with them so I may finally get back on a bike this year, but I would never ride to/from work. There are many reasons, but the first two are the big ones:
– The last thing I want to do at the end of the day is climb the big hill home.
– I never seem to have enough time and riding a bike would take longer than riding the bus, especially once parking/showering/changing is taken into consideration.
– I had a lot of near misses with cars and people my age just don’t bounce the way we did 22 years ago.
– Riding in poor weather is unpleasant and significantly more dangerous.
– Clearly I’m jinxed because my commute to/from school was only 15 minutes each way and much of that on a cycle path rather than road, but I remember getting lots of flat tires every year.
– I get a discounted annual transit pass through work so I wouldn’t really save any money unless I committed to cycling full time.
LikeLike
I just wanted to point out that Seattle passed its helmet law independently of King County, in which Seattle is located. That is to say there was a period of time where it was legal to cycle without a helmet in the City of Seattle, but not once you left the city limits.
LikeLike
How can you legislate common sense? Especially when the fine could be death?
LikeLike
I’m not a big commenter in general, but feel compelled to chime it.
As a kid I cycled to and from school never wearing a helmet. As a teen I cycled all over Vancouver on major streets without a helmet. Now, as an adult I ride my bike, and yes, I wear a helmet because I don’t want a fine. I’ve read all the literature, for and against helmet laws, and at the end of the day it still comes down to one thing.
I am sick and tired of living in a world ruled by lawyers and fear. I am disgusted by our individual unwillingness to accept responsibility for our lives and the consequences that come with our choices. We have become a whiney, pathetic, coddled and infantile.
You know what might happen if we gave adults a choice? Every now and again someone on a bike might hurt their head. And maybe even cost the taxpayers a few pennies. But you know what the alternative is?
A fat, selfish, wheezing, whining populace stuck idling in traffic in their third car, living in vague fear and distrust of the world around them, frustrated and angry because somewhere, deep down, they know they’ve sold their freedom for a Starbucks latte, nay sold their children’s inheritance, the planet, for the right to consume anything and everything the demi-urges of their libidos demand.
Think I’m being dramatic? Not by a long shot.
LikeLike
Hi Jordan:
Many think what you have written, but few say it.
As to the benefits of cycling, there is plenty of serious research that concludes this: the health benefits of cycling vastly exceed the risks. Helmet or no helmet.
LikeLike
Touché, Jordan. Truer words may never have been spoken. It’s sad state of affairs, and even the most optimistic part of me doesn’t see things changing anytime soon.
LikeLike
“I am sick and tired of living in a world ruled by lawyers and fear.”
Great insight Jordan! I think what is so sneaky that we don’t even notice it’s assimilating us… aren’t lawyers (they’re vocal advocates),… It’s car culture, car commercials, and car ads, and oil companies that compose the invisible force that has affected our policies and public perception towards Bikes and cycling. (See the “car industry strikes back” series on copenhagenize). I view the car industry just like the tobacco industry. They rely on public money (billions spent on roads) while giving the public nothing in return. If the car industry were required to build their own roads, there would not be any car industry. They have been as vigorous in their campaign against car-helmets, maybe bribing politicians with money in order to prevent any hint of a legislation (something similar happened in australia already). The car industry has been as fierce in their lobbying efforts to brand cycling as dangerous and an extreme sport (which is ironic of course). We have been turned into worshipers of the car, never daring step in front of one or step out of line onto the road (for you would be “jaywalking”!) or simply challenge the fact that the car is killing people (“blame the driver for killing, it’s not the car or society fault” chant the car industry).
Until we rid this attitude and only after the car industry has loosened its ropes on society will people begin to realize that there is nothing to be afraid about when a person cycles without a helmet.
And for your other comment: ” And maybe even cost the taxpayers a few pennies.”
You have actually hit the mark. Every km cycled cost society exactly 2 pennies in crash costs (according to a study). But cycling also saves society 23 pennies in reduced health costs, producing 21 cents of net health care savings per km cycled.
LikeLike
Misinformation and fallacious claims are the foundation for the helmet law…but at the end of the day, the truth is that:
“After years of conflicting studies have thrown its results into question, both the Center for Disease Control and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will no longer promote the conclusion that bicycle helmets reduce head injury rates by 85 percent in light of meta-analyses of similar studies that found lower and inconclusive results.
Notice that that is very different of the seatbelt or helmet for motorbiker where studies show a net positive result.
Still, in BC, Misinformation and fallacious claims are the rule:
In BC, some people, stranger to deontology and ethics, believe they are right against the rest of the world in despite of pounding evidences. Their position is not only foolish and irresponsible, but is eventually criminal, since it is proven that the helmet law, not only is grounded on wrong factoids, but also prevent to save many life, and more generally many health cost, by discouraging cycling.
I heard of good source, that Penny Ballem is also preventing city staff to make meaningful recommendations, to the council in regard of the Vancouver Public Bike Share, but it is obvious that ideologically blinded councilors are willing to waste our tax $ on a Bike Share (which could be one of the most expensive in the world on a bike basis) rather than to try to learn from the rest of the world…it is pathetic.
Ironically, when the VPD was enjoying sunshine at ticketing cyclist this week near the beach a pedestrian died under the wheel of a car on Hasting…
But well, Reimer will probably explain you that fining helmet free cyclists is utterly important!
I, like 40% of other cyclist in BC, proudly ride helmet free, and will prefer give up cycling rather than to deal with the inconvenience of carrying an helmet around!
LikeLike
It is clear that the ultimate answer to road safety is for all drivers and cyclists to be aware and courteous. It is also clear to me that this situation will never evolve in North America during my cycling life. I really enjoy riding in environments like that, but that only happens when I’m in Europe.
So the question is fundamentally; how much do you trust other people on Metro Van roads with your health and life? Whether driving or cycling, being on a road is by far, the most dangerous thing in my life. By far.
I’ve invested too much in my brain to the risk being hit by a vehicle (or a pedestrian, or another cyclist), falling off my bike (even after decelleration), and smacking my skull on a hard surface. I’m not worried about the aftermath of death, but living with a brain injury.
Somewhat similar with sunglasses; I need my eyes so it seems hardly inconvenient of putting on contacts and slipping shades on and off throughout a sunny day.
LikeLike
The North American culture towards bikes, even from cyclists, is that people on their bikes must wear lycra and “drive” their bikes. In europe, as you site, there is a much more casual bike culture. But this revolution is starting to travel over the atlantic. There are now many european cycling environments in N.America, namely separated bike lanes.
The general difference, many people think, between the netherlands and Vancouver in terms of cycling, is that the Dutch bike lanes are flat, car free and safe for all Abilities & Ages. But isn’t the seawall flat and car free? The only difference is the climate, and the fact that there is a bike helmet law… And vancouver has more beautiful scenery.
LikeLike
No, the “european cycling environment” to which I brefer is not a bike lane but the attitudes on the shared roads, to scooters, cyclists, etc. Bike lanes are only a fraction of trips made in Europe, as well in America.
In Europe, it’s rare to have idiotic, disrespectful cyclists, and careless, inattentive drivers. They don’t treat their car seats like living room couches of comfort. They pay close attention because road standards, signs and lines are either non-existent or highly variable. It’s hard to explain, but there is far much more cooperation on shared roads. For many drivers in America, bikes are considered toys that they only used in youth, like skateboards.
LikeLike
I know that this is four years old but I only came across this site today, anyhoo if you get email updates you may want to read this paper. If you do consider yourself a rational thoughtful person you would do well to actually research the a topic upon which you are publicly posting your opinion. https://books.google.ca/books?id=IlRychZFYwQC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=bicycle+helmets:+a+scientific+evaluation&source=bl&ots=9s0nesjSb4&sig=KVJ5Tn_GVy2XaYu54uNucpDrAxE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bicycle%20helmets%3A%20a%20scientific%20evaluation&f=false
LikeLike
As an observer from London (the one in the UK, that small island just south of Iceland) I have found this an interesting debate. It’s certainly more thoughtful and courteous than those on this topic that I see on many British and US sites. Maybe that says something about Canada – although I think Michael Moore may have made that point already.
I’ve commuted between 20 and 40 miles a day in London for the past 30+ years. In that time I’ve gone from being a bit of an oddity who was on nodding acquaintance with most of the other cyclists on the same route to being just another of the near critical mass of cyclists pouring into the city every day. I didn’t wear a helmet in 1982 because mountain biking was still something done only by a bunch of fruitcakes in California and the marketing men had yet to come up with the idea of promoting an activity that had been around for more than a century and pre-dated the motor car as “dangerous”.
Nowadays, I’m still in a minority because I don’t wear a helmet yet, curiously perhaps, I feel safer than I did then, because of the massive increase in cycling that has taken place, particularly since the 2005 terrorist attacks, which led to a lot of people avoiding the underground. As in other European countries, the presence of so many people cycling has forced the majority of drivers to adjust their behaviour and, in most cases, drive more considerately.
The bike hire scheme, which came in two years ago, has also made a difference. People are getting far more used to just hopping on a bike, in their normal clothes, to go from A to B. Not a helmet in sight. In fact, a few months ago, I was invited to attend a “White Tie” reception with the Queen at Buckingham Palace and rode there in my full regalia on a hire bike. Unfortunately, when I got there, there was nowhere to put the bike, but that’s another story!
Of course, it isn’t perfect. We have a big problem here with dumper trucks and other large vehicles in the city centre during peak hours. Revealingly, this year, more cyclists have died in London through being crushed than have died from head injuries. A helmet isn’t much protection from being driven over by an eight-wheeler.
But, overall, I thing that in London we are starting to see a culture emerging that rejects the notion that riding a bike is inherently dangerous and focuses much more on the extraneous factors that can make people nervous of cycling – the principal one of which, of course, is traffic. The mayor of London has put forward quite ambitious proposals for a network of bike lanes and other measures that would transform the city. They’re great ideas but he has no idea how he is going to pay for them – and we have a few economic pressures at the moment. My hope is that, ironically, the mess that our government is making of the economy may lead more people to cycle and that, as alluded to above, will in itself lead to the change in driver behaviour that will make people feel safer on the roads and not succumb to the siren calls of the helmet peddlers.
As for Vancouver, I think you are where London was say about 20 years ago. My sense was that the traffic volumes were not that high but that a lot of the road infrastructure in the central area was designed to move cars around as quickly as possible, without any regard to pedestrians, cyclists or even the odd guy on a donkey. I don’t think creating more bike lanes, unless they are done to, say, Dutch standards, is the answer. The key is simply getting more bikes on the road, so you should embrace the hire scheme but fight tooth and nail against any requirements for the riders to wear plastic hats. It should be as easy to hop on a bike as to jump on a bus or into a cab.
LikeLike
Sorry, I should have added that I was last in Vancouver in 2007.
LikeLike
Very good comment and much appreciated for the view from London, but I would like to point out that much has changed in the past six years in Vancouver. In 2007 I remember biking being a fringe activity – in the last few years, it’s become much more mainstream.
LikeLike
Pingback: Quote: Time, Toronto and Bike Lanes | Price Tags
Many hipsters and other overly, look-conscious types abhor helmets because it conflicts with their hair, and there are no easy options to wear one in ironic fashion. And having people admire their hair is really, really important. So, best to whine about helmets. Talk about vain. Even Hell’s Angels biker-types adapted with a unique style of helmet.
LikeLike
I think it was Gord who brought to my attention the notion that North Americans use bikes as an alternative to driving, while Europeans use them as an alternative to walking. (I imagine soem study of the seriousness of car/bike collision rates might bear some of this out.) The uniformly dense walking scale of many European capital cities makes the tradeoff between walking and biking very attractive, especially since most of those places are much, much flatter than are Vancouver, Seattle, Portland and San Francisco.
A helmet is a pretty good idea if you’re hell bent on moving as fast as cars do, in mixed traffic situations, over longer distances. However, it is really quite difficult to foresee that a bikeshare program will succeed with the mandatory helmet requirement, regardless of one’s hipster status or hairdo. It is just such a huge deterrent.
LikeLike