December 18th The Toronto Sun declares opposition.
If reason fails, try ridicule: letter to the Ottawa Citizen; Mark Steyn in the Western Standard; politicians: Hammer's view; and Australians' blog laugh .
KILL THE BILL letter to the Premier of Ontario.
Is History Set to Repeat Itself? The $500,000 hearings led to the child helmet law.
Why are politicians and lobbyists misrepresenting the head injury "problem"?
Helmet Laws Cost Lives National Post November 24th
Editorial Serious Head Injury Stats - Ontario
A discussion with Bill 129's sponsor
The Toronto Star - claim in doctor's letter refuted by a (severely edited) OCBC reply.
... and now for something completely ignorant from (Ottawa Centre's MPP).
... and something downright insulting from (Perth-Middlesex's MPP).
Previous National Post editorial Helmet Hysteria
Print out our generic Campaign Poster and pin it prominently where cyclists, skateboarders, etc. will see it.
Find your MPP's name using your postal code

"Instead of shortening MRI waiting lists, fixing crumbling highways or improving Ontario students' educational scores, our provincial government is eradicating killer sushi, ripping vending machines from schools, banning pit bulls (good luck) and forcing adults to wear bike helmets." Walter Robinson Ottawa Sun Nov 25,2004
"... perhaps we could apply the same sort of rules that are applied with respect to hunting: confiscation of bicycles if the people are not wearing the helmets." MPP David Turnbull Public Hearing May 4, 1992.
"... this bill will fight that unfortunate human weakness that makes us act irresponsibly." MPP John Milloy sponsor of bill 129.
"People don't like to be told what to do." Former MPP Dianne Cunningham sponsor of the original helmet bill in 1994.
"...cycle helmets do not show the benefits that some have claimed" Dr Richard Keatinge from the Irish Medical Times
"I'm strongly opposed to legislation that makes their (helmets') use mandatory" Canadian physician, Thomas J. Demarco M.D. from Don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg in JAMA.
"Stricter bicycle helmet legislation and mass helmet usage in other countries (U.S.A., Australia, and New Zealand) have failed to produce any statistically significant reduction in the rates of fatalities and head injuries, despite optimistic projections. In addition, compulsory helmet use may result in reduced bicycle usage." Regional Coroner for Toronto, Report on Cycling Fatalities in Toronto 1986 - 1996

- November 25

Ontario's Obesity Crisis made worse by Helmet Legislation

In November 24th's Toronto Star, the province’s chief medical officer slams public health policies that have resulted in a growing epidemic of obesity. She says that almost half of adults are overweight with the two main culprits are unhealthy eating and sedentary lifestyles she said.

What Ontario's chief medical officer didn't say is that the Legislature's plans for adult helmet legislation will make the problem worse. Studies or data show that Australia, New Zealand, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia all suffered declines in cycling when helmet laws were introduced and/or enforced. Child obesity rates tripled between 1981 and 1996. It was during this period when governments and "safety" lobby groups were active forcing helmets on children and making cycling look dangerous. Parents are essentially discouraged from letting their kids ride bikes. When cycling declines, public health suffers.

Furthermore, the problem costs Canada's economy and health care system an estimated $4.3 billion.

Let George Smitherman, the Minister of Health and Long Term Care, what you think about this appalling state of affairs that ultimately results ina waste of public and human resources. Click here to e-mail him. Copy your message to opposition critic John Baird.

Private member's bill 129 , a proposal to amend Ontario's Highway Traffic Act, was introduced by Liberal member John Milloy in the Ontario Legislature on November 4th. The bill passed on second reading. See the "debate" in the Hansard transcript.

The Bill has been assigned to the Social Policy Comittee to dermine the next step. The Committee may decide to hold public hearings - public hearings were held in 1991 prior to the passage of the current child helmet law. Alternatively, there is a possibility that the Committee will put the Bill on the backburner and let it die. This would be the most positive outcome for us as any further effort would be a complete waste of time and taxpayer resources. Maybe members of the Committee will agree with us. We must let them know along with other MPP's.

KILL THE BILL NOW

We must get our message clearly heard by our provincial elected representatives. They ultimately determine whether a piece of legislation succeeds or not. We need to talk to or write to our own MPP, the Premier, members of the Social Policy Committee, the ministers of relevant portfolios such as Transportation, Health, and Tourism and Recreation among others, and to key members of the opposition parties.

The legislature has the Ontario Legislature web site which lists information on members, all the committees, ministries, and opposition critics. For example, The Minister of Transportation provides a Feedback Form for your comments. There are e-mail and snail mail addresses, and phone and fax numbers for legislature and constituency offices. The site lists cabinet ministers and opposition critics. Clearly the opposition will want to criticize the government so let's give them some ammunition.

Phone your MPP's constituency office to air your views. Asked to be called back. Fax or mail your views providing a copy to the Premier and the leader of the opposition. Don't forget to provide name address and phone number.

There are members of the opposition who are sympathetic to our position - John Baird, PC House Leader, Joe Tascona who expressed skepticism in the House "debate", and Rosario Marchese who is on the Committee looking at the bill. They, the Premier Dalton McGuinty, and the leader of the opposition Bob Runciman should be copied on correspondence.

FIND OUT YOUR MPP'S NAME

Use your postal code to find out your MPP's name.

THE SOCIAL POLICY COMMITTEE

Private Member's Bill 129 is currently waiting for The Social Policy Committee to determine the next step. The Committee should put the Bill on the backburner and let it die. Hearings cost $10,000 an hour, and would be a complete waste of time and taxpayer resources. The last set of helmet bill hearings in 1991 cost Ontario's taxpayers close to $500,000 and did nothing to enhance the safety of cyclists. (See our report on how cyclists have been ignored for 13 years.) Maybe members of the Committee will agree with us. We must let them know along with other MPP's.

Committee members:

Mario Racco, MPP (Chair) (Sub-Committee) 416-325-0830
Khalil Ramal, MPP (Vice-Chair) Phone: 416-325-6001
Ted Arnott, MPP Phone: 416-325-3880
Ted Chudleigh, MPP (Sub-Committee) Phone: 416-325-5747
Kim Craitor, MPP Phone: 416-325-0790
Peter Fonseca, MPP Phone: 416-327-4370
Rosario Marchese, MPP (Sub-Committee) Phone: 416-325-9092
Ted McMeekin, MPP (Sub-Committee) Phone: 416-326-8507
Kathleen Wynne, MPP Phone: 416-325-7204

E-mail messages could be sent to the Clerk of the Committee for distribution.

USE THE MEDIA

Write letters to newspapers. Call the newsrooms of radio and TV stations. Refer them to this web site and the cyclinghelmets.org web site for information and references to studies which put forth our side of the argument.

SUPPORTERS FROM OUTSIDE ONTARIO

Supporters from outside of Ontario can help us by letting our Minister of Tourism know what this does to Ontario's image elsewhere.

Hon. Jim Bradley
Ministry of Tourism and Recreation
Hearst Block, 9th Flr, 900 Bay St
Toronto ON M7A 2E1

Feedback Form
Tel : 416-326-9326
Fax : 416-326-9338

LET YOUR VOICE BE HELD

To co-ordinate activities, the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling, first formed in 1992, has been re-formed. As before, it will cover the whole of Ontario with regional grassroots activity. Unlike last time, when the OCBC was an umbrella group for clubs and associations, the organization will primarily be one made up of campaigners and supporters.

Strategies and alliances are being worked out on the fly as we speak, so keep in touch with this web site. We have been compiling a mailing list (that's you if you sign up) to communicate developments and campaign tactics. From our experience last time, only political pressure works; direct access to politicians and indirect access via the media is essential.

GET ON OUR MAIL LIST

Register Now via e-mail and let us know where you are in Ontario or elsewhere. There is no membership fee; only a commitment to work to defeat this bill by acting politically. Numbers count with politicians. We ask you to point at least 5 more like-minded folks to our web site and ask them to do the same much like a chain letter. If we can get clubs and other organizations involved that will be a bonus. Ask your local cycling organization to support us and oppose the law too. Notify them of this campaign web site.

We particularly would like to hear from anyone in organized cycling, say on the board of a club, or that has a track record in political lobbying. We would also like to get the support of physicians, others in the medical community, statisticians, epidemiologists and cycling instructors who can see how counter-productive forced helmet use is. If you know anyone that fits this profile get him or her to contact us.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST LEGISLATION

There are a multitude of valid reasons for opposing mandated helmet use. You likely have your own but below are some of the arguments that have been mentioned to us. You may not agree with all of them and the list is incomplete but use those you feel comfortable in defending.

1. The legislative process is a complete waste of time and of Ontario taxpayers' resources. In 1991/2 the province spent close to $500,000 for a helmet bill which did nothing for cyclist safety. All of the recommendations of Ontario's cycling community were ignored and are still valid today.

2. Detracts from proven methods to reduce cycling injuries, such as driver and cyclist skills training; enforcement of speed limits; prosecution of reckless drivers;

3. It is a nanny-state measure interfering in the rights of citizens. It is government treating adults like children.

4. When laws are enforced it discourages levels of cycling - proved by recorded declines in cycling in Australia and New Zealand; data for British Columbia showed cycling accidents of all kinds declined following legislation; this suggests that cycling declined there too; law promoters point to no decline among children in Ontario, but fail to mention law has never been enforced here.

5. Police resources already stretched trying to deal with real crime; thus the law cannot be enforced without large increases in cost of policing; this would have to come from municipal authorities who are limited in revenue raising opportunities.

6. The health of Canadians as a nation is appalling; obesity and heart disease are at epidemic levels; the protective value of exercise in reducing heart disease and cancer is proven; thirty minutes of cycling five days a week reduces the risk of breast cancer and colon cancer by 30% and heart disease by 50%. By reducing cycling, helmet laws endanger public health overall. Promotion of cycling should be a health policy strategy; for each year of life lost from cycling accidents twenty years are gained from the health benefits of cycling.

7. Likewise, the need for energy conservation and environmental strategies.

8. If the government insists on proceeding with this bill, it should add an amendment to include motorists and pedestrians to save taxpayers' money (see Estimate of Cost Savings for car occupants determined for the Australian Government); both groups suffer far more head injuries than cyclists, so it would be fitting that legislators set an example.

9. Helmets are not suitable or comfortable in many situations; in extreme heat conditions (30C plus); in cold weather (8c and below) many wear cyclists woollen headgear - safety is compromised; when climbing hills, increased energy is required and slower speed reduces cooling effect; women's aversion to "helmet hair" - not suitable for travel to work; sweat accumulates and runs into eyes from helmet;

10. Fails to acknowledge the phenomenon of risk compensation, ie the benefits perceived from a safety device is consumed by behavioural changes that result in being offset by increased risk taking; has been observed when car seat belts were introduced - injury rate of drivers declined while rates for other users rose - ABS's, and airbags too; Canadians John Adams and Gerald Wilde are world leaders in this field.

11. Use and abuse of statistics: the conclusions in many of the "popular" helmet studies have been developed using poor analytical procedures and have been strongly criticized by experts; claims of high helmet effectiveness have never been proved in studies of large populations; there is no evidence that increased helmet use has saved lives - Trend Charts show cyclist trends are no different from pedestrian trends.

12. Government has not proved it's case: for some, helmets simply don't work: some believe they increase the risk to cyclists; some that they yield no benefit and no disadvantage; some believe they can be helpful in preventing abrasions and other minor injuries. Some believe helmets work as claimed but that the decision to wear one is up to the individual.

13. Organized cycling, including the Ontario Cycling Association, the governing body for cycling sport and recreation, and Velo Ontario, representing utilitarian cyclists, has not been consulted. Even since the first helmet law, lobbyists have never talked to those that have the expertise to make cycling safer.

14. Violates Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights; requires limitations on life, liberty and security of persons to be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

15. Government does little to change behaviour of motorists; virtually all drivers including legislators and judges exceed speed limits; instead government places responsibility on vulnerable road users (potential victims); where's the "fundamental justice" that cyclists are entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

16. Helmet laws elsewhere have reduced head injuries by reducing cycling e.g. Australia and New Zealand.

17. To mandate helmet use falsely suggests that cycling is inherently dangerous. Data from the Ontario Road Safety reports indicate otherwise. In 2002 there were 20 cycling fatalities and 146 serious injuries. Some of them would have been wearing helmets. Around 94% of cyclists involved in reported accidents (i.e. collisions with a motor vehicle) suffer minor injuries or no injury at all. Cyclists suffer about 1.6% of all road fatalities and just over 3% of serious injuries.

CONTACTS

Toronto and Queens Park coordinator,
Clive Rayman e-mail.
Mike Barry, Owner Bicycle Specialties, father of US Postal pro, Michael Barry,
campaign centre Toronto.
Avery Burdett e-mail