Take The Lane

The Invisible Bicycle Helmet

This film titled The Invisible Bicycle Helmet shows what a little thinking-outside-the-box (and seven years of data collection) can come up with.

Why are unused rail lines left to be wheel traps for cyclists?

It is mighty irritating that the 40-something cyclist who died in Toronto on Monday (see Star story here) fell because his wheel was jammed into disused street car tracks.

According to the Star item, the tracks hadn't been used since the 1980s. Basically, they've been sitting there for nearly 30 years waiting for someone to make a wrong move.

This guy did make a wrong move, went down hard and hit his head. He was essentially dead at the scene. Much will be made, I suspect, of the fact that we wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm all for protective equipment (I wear a helmet), but the protective equipment argument can be taken to extremes. Should everyone going to a nightclub wear Kevlar vests, or should we just search patrons for handguns?

Should we all wear helmets, or should we make the roadway environment safe for users? Riding Toronto streets where there are a lot of streetcar tracks is a real obstacle course. I try to cross rail lines at a 90-degree angle, but in some downtown areas of Toronto, a rider would have to have the handlebars in constant motion to weave through the labyrinth of lines.

Perhaps riders should stay clear of the worst areas. Perhaps the city should look to "deactivate" unused rail lines, so they aren't a hazard.

 

 

Anti-cycling message from host city's newspaper must sting Velo-city Global

It was a bit depressing to read this anti-cycling lead editorial in the Vancouver Province on my last day in British Columbia, following Velo-city Global 2012.

Vancouver, after all was the host city for the world cycling advocacy conference. And Vancouver has been setting a high bar for cycle friendliness. So the anonymous and half-formed opinions about the helmet stance of Dutch cyclist Hans Voerknecht "and all the other true believers" that topped the editorial page on Friday were a bit of a surprise.

You would assume that the Velo-city organizers must have felt a bit unwelcome, especially coming on the last day. "Oh, thanks for coming from around the world and spending your dollars here. And by the way, you can stuff your ideas."

Perhaps it was written by a German still smarting from the Euro 2012 loss the day before.

Why waste energy on mandatory helmet laws?

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws, like that being proposed by the Ontario coroner in his Cycling Death Review released last week, is just a waste of effort and funds that could be used to make cycling really safer.

That's the majority opinion of some panellist members of the final event of the day today, The Helmet Dialogue, at Velo-city Global 2012.

With more than two dozen events a day, it is unfair to generalize about the popularity of any issue, but I believe that the matter of mandatory helmet laws came up at every plenary and symposium I attended.

When one considers that "safety" and "children" are the over-arching themes of this conference in Vancouver, it might appear contradictory that there seems to be a strong voice here for helmet pro-choice. Aren't helmets all about safety?

Invariably, the cyclists here who speak passionately about the subject, begin with, "I have nothing against people who wear helmets," or "I wear a helmet myself," followed immediately by, "but I don't think helmet use should be legislated." The personal freedom of choice about "to wear or not to wear" seemed to be a major factor.

That was certainly part of the message from Sue Knaup, executive director of the Arizona-based One Street; Dr. Kathi Diethelm, of Pro Velo Switzerland; and Ceri Woolsgrove, policy officer with the European Cyclists' Federation, who were speaking later today on helmets. All agreed that helmet use is a personal choice. Other issues concerned them more, including the amount of time taken talking about helmets.

"The discussions about helmet laws are taking the place of discussions about safer streets," said Knaup, in an open discussion with Take the Lane. "Helmets never prevented a crash. Let's talk about what we can do to prevent crashes."

Knaup and Woolsgrove said that many officials seem to think that helmets are a substitute for good quality safety and training programs. Diethelm added that drivers "like a helmet law because they don't to care about or think as much about the safety of others. The others can take care of themselves."

And if there is an accident, it's a case of "blame the victim," said Diethelm.

All three were concerned that many helmet law discussions were taking place without sufficient objective study. "The data is flawed," said Knaup. "In some cases, tooth injuries are marked (by emergency room staff) as head injuries," said Woolsgrove. "As a mathematician, I get crazy," said Diethelm, who noted that in some instances, data from accidents involving motorcycle riders wearing motorcycle helmets are used to make the case for bicycle helmets.

Even insurance companies, who one might think would do risk-benefit analysis of bicycle injuries, haven't stepped up to the plate, preferring to argue simply for helmet use. If the rider (on a pubic bike share or a charity ride) signs a waiver agreeing to wear a helmet and then is injured while not wearing a helmet, regardless of the nature of the injury, the insurance company can walk away. "It's just laziness," said Diethelm.

What three things would they say to anyone (such as Ontario) considering mandatory helmet laws?

1. Cycing is not a risky activity, and is certainly comparable to being a pedestrian.

2. Helmet laws are making cycling appear to be dangerous, and thus creating impediments to those who might consider cycling. Part two of this is: Mandatory helmet laws are simply the ultimate product promotion, benefiting manufacturers and insurance companies, without making the roads safer.

3. Helmets are not as effective as they are made out to be (usually rated to crash speeds of 20 km/h).

Although helmet discussions can suck the oxygen out of the room, Knaup said that some conversation is necessary because "if we aren't talking about it, the helmet hysteria could wipe out the (cycling) movement. It's worth putting the energy into it."

 

 

Hey politicians! Pay attention to this editorial.

Thanks to The Record for an editorial on the Cycling Death Review that takes a balanced approach to the review by looking at the suite of suggestions from the Ontario coroner about how to make cycling safer in Ontario.

Now if we can just get our elected officials to become long-term planners rather than quick-fix seekers, perhaps there will be real change on our roads.

 

Let's get past the helmet law fear and make a better cycling environment in Ontario

We're only entering the third day after Ontario's chief coroner released the Cycling Death Review, the review of cycling deaths in Ontario between Jan. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2010, so it may be a bit early to assess its impact.

One thing seems to be clear: it was a review with only one recommendation.

That could certainly be your understanding, having read the various media reports. With the exception of a few media outlets (including the story in The Record, written in part by yours truly), Ontario's media, ranging from the National Post to the London Community News, grabbed on to recommendation No. 11: "The Highway Traffic Act should be amended to make helmets mandatory for cyclists of all ages in Ontario..."

According to some of the responses to Take the Lane and on the Twittersphere, those other 13 recommendations in the report were merely smoke to hide this most sinister of bureaucratic infringements on our personal liberty.

Hardly anyone seems to have noticed the two other sentences in that recommendation: "...This should occur in conjunction with an evaluation of the impact of mandatory helmet legislation on cycling activity in Ontario. Such an evaluation strategy should be developed and carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Public Heallth Ontario."

So, first, a multi-ministry study and if the study shows a net benefit, helmet laws. If it doesn't show a net benefit, perhaps no helmet laws. If you truly believe that helmets discourage adult cycling, then you can rest easy. Helmet laws ain't gonna happen. At least, it's pretty unlikely that anything will be in place by the end of the summer.

And few seemed to notice the other recommendations of the review: complete streets approach to planning; an Ontario Cycling Plan; high priority to paved shoulders on provincial highways; a provincial share the road campaign involving the CAA, the Share the Road Cycling Coalition, police agencies and other groups; cycle safety information to be provided to new bike buyers; cycling safety education to be incorporated into the school system; improvements to the driver's handbooks and driver examinations; a review of the Highway Traffic to rationalize sections dealing with cycling (hallelujah!); a review of the Municipal Act and municipal bylaws to ensure consistency; a three-foot passing law; sideguards for heavy trucks in Canada; and finally, co-ordinated collection and sharing of cycling injury and fatality data to help improve cycling education and enforcement in the future.

Haven't these been things that we, as cyclists, have been wanting for a long time? I know that a couple of the recommendations here are things I mentioned when I sent my submission to the review panel. Don't you want to see a better cycling future?

So, say so! Instead of giving letters page editors a flood of anti-helmet-legislation missives to fill opinion pages, write about the aspects of the report that the media missed, and that will make for a better cycling environment. Push your MPP to download the Cycling Death Review and read it. It's only 36 pages. It'll be the easiest thing your local politico will have to do. It's a minority government. Everyone is looking for something to trumpet in their favourite committee. Make your MPP make this his or her issue.

The link to the report online is at the top of this post, or go to www.ontario.ca/coronersreports and download the report.

 

 

 

Dead cyclists are today's hot topic, but what about tomorrow?

You could tell right away that the Cycling Death Review, released today in Toronto, would be a trending topic with the mainstream media.

I showed up 30 minutes early for the press briefing at Xeriscape Park at the corner of Grosvenor Street and University Avenue in Toronto and there wasn't a parking space to be found. CTV, CBC, CityTV and the lot had filled up the street, and the hottest part of this little treed square bordered by the Whitney Block and the Mowat Block in Queen's Park.

Pretty good-sized crowd at the briefing, with camera crews, print media, bloggers, cycling advocates and others. And although the review was passed out prior to the briefing and, in theory, everyone could have just taken off to read it and post their thoughts, pretty much everyone stayed to listen to chief coroner Dr. Andrew McCallum; Toronto West regional supervising coroner Dr. Dan Cass; Share the Road Cycling Coalition's Eleanor McMahon; Patrick Brown, who stood for a number of road-user groups, including Cycle Toronto, 8-80 Cities, Hoof and Cycle and United Senior Citizens of Ontario; and Toronto Police Service Const. Hugh Smith, himself a Can-Bike examiner and co-founding member of the Toronto police cycle patrol.

Can't blame the Toronto media for turning out in droves: bicycling has been a hot-button issue for the Toronto media, esp. with Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's battle against the so-called "war on cars" and all the buzz about adding and removing bike lanes.

McMahon addressed some of the vitriol, by speaking against the "overheated and irrational environment" that now exists, so over-heated that politicians are trying to figure out what they can do to please cyclists without alienating motorists.

McMahon said that cycling safety is "not a bicyclist versus motorist issue. It is us, it is we. We are all trying to navigate roads that are becoming increasingly crowded."

She might have pushed the envelop a bit too far when she said that "all Ontarians want this to change." Well, clearly, some Ontarians don't want it changed. They are happy with roads full of cars, and bicycles relegated to parks and multi-use trails that are out of sight and out of mind.

She moderated that later, but pointing out that "many" Ontarians want a better cycling environment. The "blame game is not an acceptable refuge," she told the gathering, inviting politicians to stop criticizing and make roads safer for all users.

Hers was the most political, and most passionate, of the addresses. But we'll need more than passion to make change in Ontario. We'll need commitment of cycling advocates and others to take this review and do something with it. Time to hold our politicians' feet to the fire.

Helmet opponents can relax; mandatory helmet laws won't likely happen

The cycle-sphere is buzzing following the release of Cycling Death Review, the Ontario chief coroner's office review of 129 Ontario cycling deaths from Jan. 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2010.

A lot of the buzz has to do with the recommendations regarding bicycle helmets. What might not have been clear during the press conference comes into sharper focus on second reading: the review recommends "the use of helmets by cyclists of all ages should be promoted and supported" including financial incentives (tax breaks?), public awareness programs and enforcement of existing helmet laws (Recommendation No. 10); AND "The Highway Traffic Act should be amended to make helmets mandatory for cyclsits of all ages in Ontario . . . in conjunction with an evaluation of the impact of mandatory helmet legislation on cycling activity in Ontario" (Recommendation No. 11).

In essence, the review gives itself an "out" on the question of mandatory helmet legislation. Support helmet use, but do a study first to see if mandatory helmet use will have a negative effect on overall cycling, before any steps are taken to introduce changes to the Highway Traffic Act.

If the early reaction is anything to go by, mandatory helmet legislation will be stalled in the "evaluation" stage.

Bicycle cam records double hit and run

This video, of two cyclists hitting the ground in Berkeley, Calif. after being sideswiped, has been making the rounds (this version is from the sfist website), but it you haven't seen it, it's worth a look.

According to a later post on sfist, a driver, who had later in the day of the hit and run reported his car as stolen, was arrested and charged with felony hit and run and possession of heroin and ammunition.

So, do we all have to have bike-cams on our handlebars now? Based on the way these guys hit the pavement, we might all want to think about helmets (and elbow pads, and knee pads, and...)

Community Access Bicycles will ride again, maybe

I thought I heard voices: "Help us. Let us out."

I traced the sounds to the bicycle cage at the Charles and Benton parking garage in Kitchener. Here, trapped under lock and key, are many of the Community Access Bicycles that were stationed around downtown Kitchener last summer. With the warm weather, they are getting anxious to be out on the street and ridden again.

Joe Mancini, top dog at the Working Centre, which hosted the Community Access Bicycles project last year, told me that the intention is to put the bikes back on the streets this year, but the wheels of that project are moving rather slowly.

Mancini said the report on last year's test project has only recently made its way into the hands of Kitchener city councillors. If you know council like I know council, that means some councillors will barely give it a glance (and then take up meeting time asking questions they could have answered if they'd read the report) and others will want to take up council time prevaricating on the conclusions before there is any decision about further commitments.

The good news is the Community Access Bicycles only used a fraction of the money that had been allocated to it last year, so there is still enough funding to at least repeat the test project.

What Mancini hopes for is a larger, long-term low-tech mobility solution (aka a bicycle-sharing program) that would embrace Kitchener and Waterloo. Reps from the Working Centre are meeting with some University of Waterloo students later this week to discuss some of those options.

I'm ready to sign up again. The only real obstacle to this bike-sharing program was the requirement to have a helmet when "renting" the bike. Since helmets are not required for adult cyclists in Ontario, and it is unlikely that many people in the downtown would have bike helmets without having their own bicycles with them, this program was pretty much limited to people without their own bicycle who happened to buy a helmet to leave in their office or those who simply lied about having a helmet when coming to collect a bike. No one asked to see my helmet when I showed up for my CAB bike.

Surely, the helmet requirement should be dropped.