From: John_-_Forester@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles
Subject: Mandatory Helmet Law in Ontario in 18 months
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:56:15 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na






                         BIKE ACTIVISTS AND HELMET LAWS

   The news that Ontario may have a mandatory helmet law in 1993 has aroused
two kinds of opposition. 

The second opposition comes from typical bikeway activists. The Bicycle Users 
Group of Guelph and Transportation Alternatives of New York have posted
opposition arguments on EcoNet's Transport conference. (I don't have access to
this conference, but their stuff was transmitted by Bill Michel on the SCVBA e-
mail distribution list bikecommute@bike2work.eng.sun.com.) Their first argument
is that helmet laws should be opposed because they reduce the amount of
cycling. In other words, the evil of motor transportation is so great that it
behooves us to ride bicycles even at the unnecessary and avoidable cost of
deaths and disabilities to cyclists.

Their second argument is similar. Government should provide safe cycling by
"spend[ing] that amount [the cost of helmets] on cycling facilities [bikeways]
and auto-reduction policies."  The argument goes on with: "The logic of helmet-
law advocates ultimately supports the position that cyclists don't belong on
the roads -- the natural turf of automobiles .... helmet-law supporters rarely
get behind other measures which support cycling and attempt to prevent
accidents altogether. .... An alternate position looks to transportation and
environmental priorities which encourage and indeed privilege cycling and
cyclists' place on the road over that of motorists." All of this is said to be
quoted from "The Bicycle Blueprint: Making Cycling a Mainstream Option in NYC."

The bikeway activists' argument is based on the superstition that motor traffic
causes nearly all the accidents to cyclists. Therefore government should reduce
motor traffic to reduce the cyclist accident rate and should provide bikeways
to protect cyclists from the remaining motor traffic that is allowed to
operate. The argument that advocating helmets says that cyclists don't belong
on the roads is an attempt to steal the cyclists' rights argument but is based
on the same old superstition. It says that because cars crush cyclists' heads
the person who advocates helmets accepts that motor traffic is too dangerous
for cyclists instead of fighting against the dangers of motor traffic. 

The contrary facts are well known and accepted. Car-bike collisions constitute
only 12% of accidents to cyclists while falls cause 50%. Bicycle helmets are
designed to protect against falls, an impact of about 10 mph, not against
impacts from fast-moving cars. (Of course, they protect against the fall that
often follows a car-bike collision.) Any time that you ride a bicycle you may
fall, and any time that you fall you may hit your head. Many cyclists have done
just that. All responsible cyclists, including people like myself who are
adamant about preserving our rights to use the roads, advocate wearing helmets
as the best insurance you can buy, not only financially but also for quality of
life. Bikeways increase rather than decrease the cyclist accident rate. Bike
paths have the highest accident rate of all the facilities that we know. Bike
paths and bike lanes in urban areas increase the number of car-bike conflicts
and make them more difficult to handle. Having discovered the difficulties of
the argument for bikeways without cars, Transportation Alternatives is moving
to the argument that they want roads without cars.

These arguments made by organizations that call themselves bicycling activists
 



                                                                              2

(Transportation Alternatives is but one example among many) show unequivocally
that these organizations are so overcome by their hatred of motor traffic that
they advocate measures (bicycle facilities, bikeways) that delay and endanger
cyclists and jeopardize their rights and they oppose measures (helmet wearing)
that protect cyclists against deaths and permanent disabilities, merely to
further their anti-auto campaign. It is doubly unfortunate that the motoring
establishment, which otherwise dislikes such organizations, has seized on their
anti-cyclist advocacy as demonstrating cyclist support for its intent of
getting cyclists off the roads.

Cyclists must get over the feelings of inferiority and weakness that make them
believe that they need the support of the anti-motoring crowd. Cyclists need to
recognize that anti-motoring activism all too frequently produces anti-cyclist
results. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Cyclists must concentrate
on preserving their rights as drivers of vehicles against the assaults of both
the motoring establishment and the anti-motoring organizations who masquerade
as bicycling activists. Yes, this is a difficult course between two evils, but
if cyclists develop a consistent policy of preserving their rights as drivers
of vehicles that policy can be achieved. And remember, nobody else will do it
for us, nobody else wants to do it. We must do it ourselves. And we can.

JForester@cup.portal.com               John Forester
                                       726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426                           Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA