Newspaper Article
No to Ontario's Helmet Legislation
Mike Barry, Toronto bicycle store owner, feels mandatory bicycle
helmet legislation is discriminatory. The facts show why. In
Ontario, of every 25 who die on roads from head injuries, only one
is a cyclist. Of every 17 admitted to a hospital with a head injury
received on roads, only one is a cyclist.
Cyclists are less of a burden on the health care system than
average Canadians. Heart disease kills 35,000 Ontarians every year
but cycling reduces the risk of heart disease by 50%. British
medical studies show that 20 life years are gained from cycling for
every one lost through death and injury. There are other benefits
too. A person on a bike isn't driving a car. Result - less
pollution and less congestion. No wonder in Holland, where cycling
without a helmet is not an issue, the government has set a national
target of 50% of all trips by bicycle. As Windsor physician, Dr.Tom
DeMarco says "it's better to cycle without a helmet than to not
cycle at all".
Helmet laws also create the false impression that cycling is
dangerous, even though studies consistently show cycling is safe.
A 1994 provincial survey of over 1,000 Ontarians including 609
cyclists, found only 2 cyclists who had suffered a head injury
which required medical treatment the previous year. It explains why
retired naval commander Dick Henly of Ottawa doesn't wear a bicycle
helmet. "I know how to minimize my risks and those posed by
motorists. Besides, the risks are about the same as getting run
down by a bus as I walk across a downtown street". Dick should
know. He has clocked over 1 million kilometres on his bike. His
head is still in pretty good shape.
That's not to imply there are no risks. But the dangers of
cycling are so grossly exaggerated that a climate of paranoia
exists which has the effect of discouraging cycling. This situation
has been largely created by an alliance of headline-seeking
politicians and a manipulative safety industry, all with aid of a
far too uncritical news media.
Myth also masks the limited protective value of a helmet. Less
than 30 fatal cycling accidents occur in Ontario each year. All
result from motor vehicle collisions. About 20 involve head
injuries. The injuries to all parts of the body are usually
massive. A half inch of polystyrene covering one third of the head
makes little difference to the outcome. In Ottawa, four of the last
six cyclists killed wore helmets. The Canadian Standards
Association (CSA), test requires a helmet to withstand a drop from
1.5 metres. It simulates a fall and provides protection against an
impact of about 20 km/h. That is a lot less than the overzealous
promoters of helmet legislation would have us believe. The most
widely quoted study, copies of which the province sends out by the
ton, claims an 85% reduction in risk of head injury from helmet
use. An Australian statistician who noticed no such reductions in
injury rates were occurring in her country following helmet
legislation, used the report's methodology on other data in the
study. She found one could conclude also that helmet use reduces
the risk of injury to other parts of the body by 72%!
Such mythical powers inevitably lead to the notion of the bike
helmet together with it's corollary, bike helmet legislation as a
panacea. In reality, it is anything but. In Australia, cycling has
declined permanently between 25% and 40% among different states
since mandatory helmet use started to be implemented in 1991. For
every Australian cyclist who donned a lid for the first time, four
others quit cycling. Worse still, the state of Victoria reports
that after three years of legislation, there is no decrease in the
rate of head injury. In New Zealand, official disappointment is
being reported because its helmet legislation is not achieving
expected results. Sadly, these experiences will likely be repeated
here. Last year's survey found that 16% of Ontario's cyclists say
they will either defy the law or quit cycling.
A more positive alternative would be to promote the benefits of
cycling. Since fatalities and serious injuries have fallen while
cycling has increased over the last few years, the government can
honestly show that the cycling environment is improving. In
promoting cycling among our young folk, bike safety should be
emphasized. Unlike adults, kids cause over 80% of their own bike
crashes. This demonstrates the need for skills training. In the
Canadian Cycling Association's (CCA) nationally sanctioned skills
program, students are taught the rules of the road and the safe
vehicular method of cycling, skills which can be applied later when
the students learn to drive a car. The importance of safety
equipment - brakes, lights at night, and yes, helmets - is also
taught. And although a competent cyclist is ten times less likely
to be involved in a crash than other cyclists, CCA's program is not
widely available. To address the problem of availability, CCA's
program should be adopted and incorporated into the school
curriculum.
Toronto cyclists like Mike Barry who believe that helmet
legislation should be dumped to protect the gains that society
accrues from cycling are right. As former British cabinet minister
W.F Deedes once commented "you cannot legislate or regulate for
every conceivable accident or mishap which may befall the human
race".
Avery Burdett
(Versions of this article were first published in August 1995 in
the Ottawa Citizen, Kingston Whig-Standard, Peterborough Examiner,
and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record).