« We don't hide; we ride | Main | Pickup truck driver hits three cyclists »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter Parker

Someone at the Province is just bitter that they're having trouble finding parking for their SUV.

Focus on the good articles we're getting here at home:


Ridiculous piece.
It's one thing to say we should copy Holland (with regards to helmets), but I wonder if the person who wrote that realizes that helmet use world wide is low.

I would love to know where this 78% comes from also. When CBC did a piece on helmet laws a few years ago, BC sat between 50-60%. Nova Scotia was the highest at around 70%.

Even if it was 78%, for a province that has it law for everyone to wear a helmet, that number seems low...AND if it's 78%, why are cyclists in BC still getting seriously injured or killed?

I don't put too much into this piece anyways. When you submit an opinion piece I was always of the belief you submit your name along with it (I did recently).

It's not Vancouver (or Velo City related), but read this dandy piece on helmet laws:



@Ryan. I may be wrong, but the position of this piece on the Province opinion page led me to believe this was their lead editorial, written by a Province staffer. Unsigned pieces, traditionally, represent the opinion of the publication.


From that delightful Ottawa article:

>“Making helmets mandatory will reduce the number of cyclists on the roads.”.....
>How, exactly, is this a bad thing?

And that is the problem.

Those who argue against mandatory helmet laws (myself included), see these mandatory laws as an impediment to increasing the number of people cycling. This is not just opinion, but as is pointed out by Hans Voerknechthas resulted in the actual reduction in the number of cyclists in countries that have implemented these laws.

There are far more effective methods in increasing cyclist safety. The best seems to be following the Dutch method of segregated road systems for cyclists.

But that is a long term goal. Reduced speeds within cities and an excellent series of interconnecting bike lanes are far more effective and achievable in the short term.

It also begins to create that subjective feeling of safety that will encourage more people to cycle. More people cycling makes it easier to justify taking more road space and reduces the number of bike/car accidents because drivers now are constantly aware of the bikes, they are no longer rare and easily overlooked by drivers.

Yes helmets are effective in helping mitigate injury from low speed crashes. Not all that effective when hit by a car. Arguing that they should be mandatory implies cycling is a high risk endevour, when really it is sharing road space with cars that is the high risk endevour.

As is often pointed out, requiring pedestrians and passengers in cars to wear helmets would have a far greater effect in reducing the number of head injuries, as they make up the majority of head injury victims.

Yes wear a helmet.
Don’t make it a legal requirement for riding a bike.
All that does is make one more argument for not riding.

The comments to this entry are closed.