The coroner’s office wants Ontario to pass a mandatory bike helmet law
Ontario’s coroner’s office has revived the idea of a mandatory helmet law for all cyclists, rather than just riders younger than 18—a contentious step, but one that’s already been adopted in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Deputy chief coroner Dan Cass made the case for helmets after finding that only 26 per cent of the 129 cyclists killed in Ontario since 2006 were wearing one. But opponents, including bike advocacy group Cycle Toronto, argue helmet laws give cyclists a false sense of safety and discourage others from hopping on their bikes. Another of Cass’s ideas will be familiar to Toronto cyclists: require heavy trucks to install side guards to prevent cyclists from getting crushed beneath the rear wheels, as happened tragically last year to Jenna Morrison. That idea has previously received a chilly reception at the federal level, so we’ll see whether Cass’s recommendations can make the tricky leap into regulations. [Globe and Mail]
![](http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://torontolife.com/city/bike-helmets-mandatory/&title=The coroner’s office wants Ontario to pass a mandatory bike helmet law&picture=https://torontolife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/bike-helmet.jpg&description=[caption id="attachment_144774" align="alignleft" width="320" caption="Bike helmets: not just for dressing up like a robot (Image: Kevin Jaako)"][/caption]
Ontario’s coroner’s office has revived the idea of a mandatory helmet law for all cyclists, rather than just riders younger than 18—a contentious step, but one that’s already been adopted in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Deputy chief coroner Dan Cass made the case for helmets after finding that only 26 per cent of the 129 cyclists killed in Ontario since 2006 were wearing one. But opponents, including bike advocacy group Cycle Toronto, argue helmet laws give cyclists a false sense of safety and discourage others from hopping on their bikes. Another of Cass’s ideas will be familiar to Toronto cyclists: require heavy trucks to install side guards to prevent cyclists from getting crushed beneath the rear wheels, as happened tragically last year to Jenna Morrison. That idea has previously received a chilly reception at the federal level, so we’ll see whether Cass’s recommendations can make the tricky leap into regulations. [Globe and Mail]){kind=link}
In my experience, less than 26 percent of cyclists wear a helmet, so taking that statistic alone would mean wearing a helmet actually INCREASES your chances of dying from a cycling accident.
Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, just fewer cyclists, just what data did this report use to come to the conclusion that helmets save lives?
In fact the opposite is true: helmet laws and propaganda kill people.
Since cycling confers such huge health benefits, regular cyclists live longer and are fitter and healthier than the general population, riding a bike is safer than not riding one.
The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda is to deter some people from cycling, who then lose the health benefits and get sicker quicker and die earlier, there is no safety benefit. Helmet laws and propaganda are rather like tobacco advertising, with obscene profits for the manufacturers and incredible cost to the public purse.
In the middle of an obesity epidemic which will cost many billions over many years, helmet laws and propaganda are literally insane, and will kill many people but have no benefit.
Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the fairy tales of the helmet promoters.
Some people also don’t like wearing lifejackets on boats, canoes, etc. because it’s just so damn uncomfortable. Ergo, you are saying more people would spend time in the great outdoors if not for the suggestion that everyone wear a lifejacket.
I don’t get it. Is this a vanity issue? What is the downside to wearing a helmet? Bad hair? GET OVER IT.
It appears to provide some ideas for improving safety, eg
· Mandatory side-guards for heavy trucks.
· a “complete streets” approach – focused on the safety of all road users
· Enforcement, education and public safety activities targeted to the specific issues of cycling safety identified in a given community.
· Establishment of a “one-meter” rule for vehicles when passing cyclists.
· Prioritizing the development of paved shoulders on provincial highways.
· Cycle training
· Providing clear views at junctions
In 2006 cardiovascular disease accounted for more than 69000 deaths in Canada and road accident deaths 2889 including 73 cyclists . Promoting cycling can help save many thousands of people from an early death. Promoting helmets and legislation contributes to discouraging cycling.
‘The effects of provincial bicycle helmet legislation on helmet use and bicycle ridership in Canada’ provides some good pointers.
‘Bicycle helmet laws in Canada’ also provides useful information.
‘Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law’ is also of interest
In brief helmet laws are not worthwhile from a safety point of view and they discourage cycling and they result in thousands of fines if enforced.
Agree Marmalade. For the anti-helmet lobby – name me ONE negative to wearing a helmet – and if you mention hair you deserve to be smacked and shouldn’t be on a bike in the first place.
I don’t see a problem with mandating helmets. Just hire more cops to enforce it – they don’t enforce the under-18 helmet law simply because of a lack of resources. The government should probably expand police and traffic services to catch the existing scofflaws, before spending more to catch adults who decide to go for a walk without a helmet.
The added side benefit of mandating bicycle helmets will be the removal of Bixi bikes. Since there is no way to share helmets (lice!!!), bike sharing programs will have to be made illegal.
The coroner’s report may not be very reliable. It says in the Executive Summary
Page 5, EXE summary
Only 27% (35 of 129) of those who died as the result of a cycling collision were wearing a helmet.
and it says
Page 15
In this Review, only 34 of 129 cyclists (26%) sustaining a fatal injury were wearing a helmet.
The report does not provide reliable details.
129 deaths it reports
34 or 35 wearing helmets –
How many deaths due to head injury from the 34 or 35?
For non-wearers – lets have precise figures? the number of deaths due to head injuries?
One report details some of the differences in helmet weaers and non-wearers,
‘Bicycle helmet-wearing variation and associated factors in Ontario teenagers and adults’
It reports
In teenagers, drinking alcohol (OR: 2.8) and smoking (OR: 4.4) were strongly associated with helmet non-use. In the adult group, female gender (OR: 1.26), higher income (OR: 1.43), higher education (OR: 1.68), nonsmoking status (OR: 2.0) and abstinence from alcohol (1.27) were associated with helmet use.
Comparing helmet wearers to non-wearers has to take account of several factors and the report fails to consider the wider issues in detail.