Biking thread

[bluenose]

Saw this online today:
I think I've heard the name Ben Wedge somewhere before
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/867812 ... va-scotia/

Halifax cycling group pushing to make helmet laws extinct in Nova Scotia

A cycling advocacy group in Halifax is looking to convince the provincial government to drop the mandatory bicycle helmet law.

Members of the Halifax Cycling Coalition voted this week to make repealing Nova Scotia’s helmet requirement one of the group’s priorities in the new year.

“The board has in the past talked about the helmet law but never taken a formal position,” said HCC co-chair Ben Wedge in an interview Wednesday. “It’s safe to say there’s (now) openness there to start working on this.”

HCC co-founder Doug Denny proposed the idea at Tuesday night’s meeting, arguing that helmet requirements keep people off bicycles without making them any safer.

“What really keeps people safe on bikes is numbers of cyclists,” said Denny. “(But) when you have people in helmets it increases the perceived risk of cycling and people choose not to do it.”

According to research cited by Wedge, when the Nova Scotia helmet law was introduced in 1997 it cut the cycling rate in half but only reduced the number of bike-related head injuries by one third.

“That means the rate of head injuries per kilometre cycled actually increased,” said Wedge.

But according to Doctors Nova Scotia, the benefits of wearing a bike helmet far outweigh the potential drawbacks.

“Helmets really help decrease the risk of injury,” said spokesman Kevin Chapman. “There’s scientific, medical evidence to back that up.”

Chapman said he is confident the province’s doctors’ association would “strenuously” oppose any effort to repeal helmet laws.

“We’re trying to encourage bicycle safety and to us helmets are really a part of that equation.”

Police in Halifax also shared this view.

“Helmets are proven to protect people from brain injury and the majority of research confirms this,” said Halifax Regional Police Department spokeswoman Lauren Leal.

“Even if (the HCC) were successful in having this law abolished we would still encourage people to ride safely.”

And that involves wearing a helmet, she added.

The current fine in Nova Scotia for cycling without a helmet is $143.27. There have been 211 fines handed out by Halifax Regional Police to cyclists not wearing a helmet this year.

Nova Scotia is one of four Canadian provinces with all-ages bike helmet laws, along with B.C., New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. – Geordon Omand

[blacktip]

I'm all for abolishing the law. I'd like to see the gene pool get a bit stronger.

Having worked at a bike shop, and seeing some post-crash helmets(Bell and Giro do crash replacements, bring in a busted lid, get a heavy discount on a new one), I'll always wear one. I know more than one person that would not be alive today if they weren't wearing a helmet.

According to research cited by Wedge, when the Nova Scotia helmet law was introduced in 1997 it cut the cycling rate in half but only reduced the number of bike-related head injuries by one third.

“That means the rate of head injuries per kilometre cycled actually increased,” said Wedge.

I feel that's a dishonest use of math to further an agenda.

You can also argue that it removed 50% of the least safe cyclists that would be hurt more seriously due to them not wearing a helmet, but you can't prove a negative.

Do you know what I hate most as a cyclist? Other cyclists! Cyclists that can't hold a line and wobble in traffic, cyclists that change between the sidewalk and road(especially at intersections), cyclists that feel that it's their "right" to be a nuisance.

I think a campaign to improve cyclist behaviour, along with more "share the road", is going to get more positive press for HCC than abolishing helmet laws.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

The "positive press" thing is definitely a concern - this seems to be generating more negative press/reactions. I am on side with loosening the law however. The Ontario system where those under 16 or 18 or whatever have to wear a helmet, and those older have the choice - personally, I almost always wear a helmet. Not because of the law though.

I liked the idea of a different guy at the hcc bday party - give cops a coupon book instead of a ticket book - so that if you weren't wearing a helmet, they would give you a coupon for 25% off a helmet, instead of a $150 fine that cost more than some peoples bicycles.

[blacktip]

One shop/brand had a program with the HPD to do exactly that(except the helmet was free). I'm not sure how many helmets were given away, or what level of success it achieved, but it's a start.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

Cool,Ive never heard of that. In my experience, friends have gotten ticketed for not wearing a helmet, even though they had just moved here from aesy and didn't know the law.

[mr x]

After you are 18, AFAIAC, helmets should be up to the user.

[GAM]

After you are 18, AFAIAC, helmets should be up to the user.

I should choose who gets use of my health care dollars.

Sandy

[CorneliusAlphonse]

I agree with both of you... Mandatory helmet laws discourage the use of bicycles for short trips/new cyclists, who might otherwise cycle to pick up the milk. Low speed, short distance trips have very low risk of head injury. Driving everywhere increases a huge list of risks of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. Helmets reduce head injury, mandatory helmet laws do not.

[GuingesRock]

Brains are extremely delicate. Doesn't take much to kill or convert someone in the prime of their life into a vegetable for the rest of their lives. A little visit to a brain injury unit might help if you are not sure about this. There does seem to be a law against everything these days though.

What's that about bike seats causing permanent erectile dysfunction? Should there be seat regulations as well?

[Keith]

What's that about bike seats causing permanent erectile dysfunction? Should there be seat regulations as well?

Should put out a disclaimer with a picture... just like on cigarette packs.

[blacktip]

Low speed, short distance trips have very low risk of head injury

1. Citation needed.
2. You only control two variables: speed and distance. If you've going 3 blocks to get milk and get smoked by 2000lbs moving at 50km/h, the things that you control don't matter, and it's going to ruin your day.

[Keith]

Your day is ruined with or without a helmet.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

What he said.

Also, with the citation needed, I agree I do need to cite that. But so should everyone else, and they never do, so...show me the statistics on high risk of head injury from short distance, low speed cycling trips. (Neither statistic exists. It was just my viewpoint)

[bluenose]

What's that about bike seats causing permanent erectile dysfunction? Should there be seat regulations as well?

Should put out a disclaimer with a picture... just like on cigarette packs.

I don't want to see a warning picture for erectile dysfunction... although the smoking one showing a bent cigarette is kinda clever

[dexter]

I agree with both of you... Mandatory helmet laws discourage the use of bicycles for short trips/new cyclists, who might otherwise cycle to pick up the milk. Low speed, short distance trips have very low risk of head injury. Driving everywhere increases a huge list of risks of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc. Helmets reduce head injury, mandatory helmet laws do not.

I highly doubt that just low speed or short distances are really going to affect the risks of head injury. Once you get on a bike your chances of having a bike related injury go up 100% simply because you are on a bike versus not on a bike, whether you are going 5k or 5000k you're on a bike the risk is higher. Travelling at a lower speed is a moot point if you get hit by something traveling at a higher rate of speed.

Simple point, helmets save lives, if you don't want to wear one that's your choice, but I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for someone else's poor choices.

That being said if a group wants to eliminate the helmet law go right ahead its with in your rights and its a choice. More power to you, I for one think that if you want to ride a bike you should be tested and licensed the same as a moped. A nominal fee to license the rider and to help cover the cost of enforcing the laws and rules.

[CorneliusAlphonse]

I disagree dexter, the distance is absolutely a factor. And so is the street you are biking on. if you're driving down Allan street where cars drive 30km/hr or down robie where they are driving 70km/hr makes a huge difference in the risk you are taking as a cyclist.

And regarding the health costs - I dont want to pay for the health costs of some asshole who drives his car too fast on an icy road and hurts someone, but that'd just how social healthcare works. Deal with it.

[mr x]

Arguing health care costs is a slippery slope, actually it's not a slope, it's a cliff. For instance, I could very easily get enraged at the medical bills we pay for people who live grossly unhealthy lifestyles related to food and drink, unsafe sex, etc, etc....

[benwedge]

And regarding the health costs - I dont want to pay for the health costs of some asshole who drives his car too fast on an icy road and hurts someone, but that'd just how social healthcare works. Deal with it.

That's the biggest part to me. Whether the HCC decides to pursue this or not, it's a little rich to say you'll pay for socialized health care for people with lung disease, cardiovascular issues, and other health problems directly linked to you driving your car, but not to pay for someone who gets a head injury while cycling.

I neither have the time nor desire to write a full-on critique of the helmet issue, but I'll summarise it here:
In the event of an accident are you safer when wearing a helmet? Yes. There's no argument from me on that point. We need to talk about overall risk. When Nova Scotia introduced the helmet law the rate of head injuries did not change in a statistically significant manner when corrected for overall trends in accident rates. Uncorrected, Nova Scotia has had 6-17 head injuries related to cycling every year since around 1990, except for 1997 when there were only 3. For something with a small sample size, wide variation is expected. When Nova Scotia introduced the helmet law there was an immediate drop of 50% in the cycling rate. This result has been demonstrated in every other jurisdiction with a mandatory helmet law. The head injury rate per cyclist increased by about 30% when the helmet law was enacted, at no benefit to the absolute number of head trauma cases.
The other portion of this is that the absolute number of people wearing bike helmets was practically unchanged from 1995/1996 to 1998/1999. It went from 542 to 567 in a study done by the IWK. The number of cyclists observed, as mentioned above, went from 1,494 to 672. A reasonable conclusion to draw from this is that those who were not wearing a helmet before the law came into effect simply stopped cycling.
Here's a source for most of the above. The replies to the article are very intriguing.
I'll conclude this section with a damning quote from the Canadian Pediatric Society.

Comparing the population-based rate and proportion of head injuries in Canadian provinces that did or did not implement helmet legislation, they were unable to demonstrate a significant association between legislation alone (all ages or children only) and a decline in head injuries, with rates of helmet use and head injuries generally declining in all jurisdiction regardless of legislation status.

Link here. Note that this is the same source the expert from Capital Health quoted on CBC yesterday when claiming that the helmet legislation has been effective.

So, now that we've debunked the effectiveness of the law as a way to reduce the total number of head injuries, what are some other benefits of the change? Increased cycling rates mean fewer greenhouse gas emissions, better air quality, better cardiovascular health, lower incidence of obesity and related illnesses, and so on. Is the risk of an added head trauma, something that is easy to count and emotionally gripping, outweighed by the greater population health benefits, which are not as easy to grasp on an emotional level? That's the question in front of me right now.
For what it's worth, the Halifax Cycling Coalition is looking for a pledge from the city to built 100km of complete separated bike lanes by 2025. By reducing interactions between cars and bikes we render much of the helmet issue moot.

[bluenose]

so are they arguing for just bicycle helmets or motorcycle helmets as well?

If they're arguing it from the 'free choice' point of view, then they'd have to argue for both. If it's about the safety thing, then their argument is moot IMO as helmets reduce/prevent injuries in any incident where they make contact with something versus a bare head making contact with something.

EDIT: Ben posted whilst I was typing, but I take it he's not contesting the safety merits of helmets

[bluenose]

@Ben in a genuinely inquisitive way... What is the goal? Are you expecting more people to begin cycling if the helmet laws are repealed?

[mr x]

Helmets won't prevent injuries if the pump I'm working on explodes. Or if a transfer truck runs over my head.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

[CorneliusAlphonse]

Motorcycle helmets is another issue entirely.. But Ive seen info showing motorcycle helmet use decreases head injuries but increases upper spine injuries. But if anyone wants to talk about that we should take it to another thread

[benwedge]

@Ben in a genuinely inquisitive way... What is the goal? Are you expecting more people to begin cycling if the helmet laws are repealed?

I'm assuming that the inverse would be true, so yes, if the law were repealed more people would cycle. That said, my focus right now is to work on infrastructure. If the board comes to a consensus to ask for the repeal then we'll see what happens, I'll have to start by figuring out how to frame the argument, something close to the above, I reckon, and then work with DoctorsNS to get them onside. They're coming at it from a "stop head injuries at all costs" perspective, which is a reasonable and valid argument. I'm looking at it from an overall population health perspective, and my line of reasoning says that on the whole we'll live longer, healthier lives if barriers to cycling are lowered.

[bluenose]

Motorcycle helmets is another issue entirely.. But Ive seen info showing motorcycle helmet use decreases head injuries but increases upper spine injuries. But if anyone wants to talk about that we should take it to another thread

I think it's safe to say that as motorcycle helmet use goes down that motorcycle accident fatalities go up, and as motorcycle helmet use goes up so does survival rates, but also the rates a paralyzed and comatose people. Some would rather die in an accident rather than survive to be paralyzed or in a coma. Not me, as I wear a helmet regardless of which two-wheeled contraption I'm on

[blacktip]

So what's the cycling rate now? Did the decrease have lasting effects, or was there a recovery? The numbers that keep getting repeated are 16 years old, which half a generation or so.

CorneliusAlphonse: interesting aside, MX and downhill riders now using cervical braces(I thought it was a typo when I saw it in the catalog). I'd say at the pro level for MTB it's ~30-40% after watching several events this year.