Cycle Ontario Alliance
Discussion Paper on Mandatory Helmet Legislation
| |
Cycle Ontario Alliance |
|
|
A Discussion Paper on Mandatory Helmet Legislationas approved by the Cycle Ontario Annual General Meeting on Feb 19, 2005This paper is also available in a printable PDF version. "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement." In November, 2004, Private Member's Bill 129 received first and second reading in the Ontario Legislature. If passed, this bill would require all cyclists (as well as all in-line skaters and skateboarders) to wear approved helmets. The only stated rationale for this bill is to reduce head injuries. This is not the first such bill. In 1991-3, mandatory helmet legislation was passed, but the government of the day changed the regulations (which actually implement the law) to have the law only apply to cyclists under 18. There has been at least one other private member's bill on this topic proposed in the last two years; it died on the order paper. Bill 129, while proposed by MPP John Milloy, was initially only supported by head injury advocates and health professionals. Cycling groups like Cycle Ontario Alliance, who represent the public who would be affected by the proposed law, were not informed of the bill until after second reading. 1. Cyclist Involvement and ConsultationCycle Ontario Alliance calls on the provincial government to let the public speak on Bill 129. Those citizens directly affected by the proposed legislation: Ontario cyclists, have the democratic right to be able to speak to MPPs before the law is finalized and enacted. When the previous mandatory helmet bill (Bill 124) was being debated in 1991, public hearings were held. Furthermore, cyclists — and, in particular cycling organizations and cycling educators who have been directly involved for many years in promoting cycling, promoting cycling safety, and educating cyclists in traffic skills — have the great reservoir of expertise on the possible consequences of this bill, and are most knowledgeable about the health risks and benefits of cycling. RECOMMENDATION 1:
2. Understanding Cycling Safety and Risk ManagementCycling is an inherently low-risk and accessible activity, if done lawfully and with a proper attitude towards sharing the road. The reality is that most people cycle their entire lives in safety and enjoyment. Like any other form of transportation, however, cycling does carry some risks. Risks to cyclists can be reduced by:
The first five strategies are preventative: they try to avoid the crash or collision. The last strategy involves injury reduction once the crash/collision has happened. Cycle Ontario believes that all these strategies are necessary in order to improve cycling safety, and must be implemented together. Bill 129 addresses only prevention of one type of injury. It will not address high-speed or serious cycling collisions where a helmet will not prevent death or serious injury, or the many crashes where head injuries are not involved (but broken bones are). Promoting helmets as a standalone safety measure will not attack the actual causes of cyclist injury, nor sufficiently reduce cycling injuries, compared to a comprehensive approach that includes all the above strategies. References:
3. Implementing a comprehensive cycling safety strategyOntario cyclists' experience with the previous helmet legislation was that substantial education and promotion campaigns were promised but aside from updates to and printing of Cycling Skills and the Young Cyclists' Guide, nothing happened once the bill was passed. One cycling group withdrew from the Bicycle Safety Team, the government-led group charged with implementing these campaigns, because the promised cycling education work was only directed towards wearing helmets, instead of improving safe cycling skills. Cycle Ontario is seriously concerned this could happen again. In addition, one of the most-cited consequences of legislation requiring mandatory helmet use is a substantial drop in the number of people cycling. This may be because of dislike of wearing helmets, not wishing to buy or not being able to afford a helmet, or increased perception that cycling is very dangerous, because of the publicity surrounding the bill, including descriptions of cycling injuries Regardless of whether mandatory helmet legislation should be passed, the government has already indicated (through Active 2010 and other initiatives) that it wishes to increase physical activity and fitness in order to improve public health. One of the most effective ways of doing this is through cycling, since this activity can be easily and cheaply integrated into everyday life. Studies have shown that many potential cyclists do not cycle for fear of crashes or collisions. This is a fear that can be addressed by improving cycling education and implementing strategies 1-6 above. If the government undertook programs, in conjunction with municipalities, school boards, and cycling groups, to improve
this would produce a better public understanding of the value of safe cycling and a realistic evaluation of any risks. It would also encourage people to ride, and accomplish the government's twin goals of improving health and fitness, and reducing air pollution and congestion. Then, if the government concluded that mandatory legislation was valuable, that strategy could be applied without the likelihood of a noticeable drop in the cycling population. In 1991, the Toronto City Cycling Committee estimated the cost of a similar program at $800,000 [Hansard: Bill 124 hearings, Dec. 9, 1991].
RECOMMENDATION 2:
4. Improving the decision-making process on the billThe GOAL of this exercise should be to reduce injuries from cycling, to reduce the (already-low) risk of riding a bicycle, and, as a result of reducing worries about injuries, getting more people cycling. Increasing the use of bicycle helmets is one MEANS to partially achieve a reduction in injuries. A law requiring mandatory wearing of helmets is one MEANS to partially achieve increased bicycle helmet use. A mandatory helmet law should be examined to see whether
No law is free. Each law must be enforced; the public must be made aware of the law, the reasons for it, and the consequences of breaking it. A consistent argument for mandatory helmet legislation is "A helmet saved my life". That's an argument for deciding to wear a helmet. But a law requires legislators to look at the negative consequences of legislation as well, and to weigh negative against positive consequences. Proponents of mandatory helmets often argue, "If it saves one life, the law is worth it." However, governments frequently find themselves in situations where funding a drug or a medical treatment or a training procedure will almost certainly save a life (or mean the difference between a good and bad life). That doesn't mean that drugs for all rare diseases are covered, or that your elderly relative will not have to wait for three years to get cataracts removed or a hip replaced. There is always a trade-off. Governments have to decide what is the most effective use of limited funds. Which decision will have the least negative effects, and the most bang for the buck? Which laws will be obeyed, and which will be only spottily enforced or followed because police have higher priorities? The proponents of the helmet bill argue that it will decrease the risk of head injury. At what cost? Direct Costs
Indirect Costs
Other likely effects
RECOMMENDATION 3:
RECOMMENDATION 4:
|