Metro Vancouver Bike & Pedestrian Discussion

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Untrue. Indeed our beloved Councillor Meggs was cycling along a quiet residential street when he blew through a stop sign and had his life saved by his helmet.

If you blow through a red light, the seatbelt won't help you one bit as you get T-Boned. (Side-impact airbags may help... but that isn't mandatory safety equipment and is a passive restraint system.)

If a pedestrian jumped onto the bike path along the seawall in front of a bicycle and got clipped, one wouldn't use that as a reason for pedestrians to wear protection when walking beside a bike path.

There are already some exemptions from the helmet law: Religious reasons... primarily Sikhs. What's a few more common sense exemptions. Dedicated bike paths, for example, shouldn't require a helmet. Rollerbladers don't legally require one on a shared rollerblade/bike path.

You could even create a class of utility cycles ( no more than 3-speeds, not rated at faster than 30km/h ) that could serve the purpose of a helmetless class of bike but aren't permitted on streets where there are no dedicated bike lanes.

Common sense is the key.

[wrenegade]

Is a helmet required for skateboarding? Longboarding? I don't think so. My brother wears one only when going out doing big/high speed rides. When he's just heading down the hill from place to place he doesn't, and I think that's pretty common. Why cyclists and not skateboarders? ESPECIALLY on dedicated bike routes like the greenways and the Seawall.

If I were commuting on a bike I would probably wear a helmet because I'd likely be spending 15+ minutes on the ride, wearing bike-type clothes and I'd shower before work. My problem with helmet laws are for the casual user. It'd be nice to just walk outside your apartment and go for a 5-10 min trip from one place to another without having to worry about a helmet. And it may seem vain, but I don't want to mess up my hair! I'm sure lots of guys (and most girls) would probably agree with me here.

edit: If you are dumb enough to blow through a stop sign....then sorry. So many cyclists don't obey the rules of the road. Now some will probably argue that even if one does obey the rules of the road that's nothing to stop some guy in a car from blowing through a stop sign/red light and smoking you. Yes, that's true. My answer? Be more careful. Helmet or no helmet, a car beats a bike 100% of the time. Cyclists should always be wary when on city streets, but I think that's something parents teach their kids when they are 6 years old. If people would use common sense more often we wouldn't need the nanny state that we have today.

[cabotp]

If taxpayers didn't have to pay for someones health if they got injured. Then great go ride out wherever you want without a helmet. If you get get hurt so be it, you can pay for your own health.

But because we as taxpayers pay into everyone's health we as taxpayers required people to wear a helmet.

The helmet law came out because of the rising health care costs and wanting to prevent people from getting seriously injured with mean a higher health cost. Same reason that there is massive smoking bans now. It all comes does to health costs.

[racc]

Originally Posted by cabotp

If taxpayers didn't have to pay for someones health if they got injured. Then great go ride out wherever you want without a helmet. If you get get hurt so be it, you can pay for your own health.

But because we as taxpayers pay into everyone's health we as taxpayers required people to wear a helmet.

The helmet law came out because of the rising health care costs and wanting to prevent people from getting seriously injured with mean a higher health cost. Same reason that there is massive smoking bans now. It all comes does to health costs.

This is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard. Generally, people in our society are given the right to do activities that may result in harm to themselves. Where the line is drawn, is when the actions of people may harm others.

Smoking bans are due to the health effects on others of second hand, not to the impact on the health of the smokers. People are still allowed to smoke as long their smoking does not harm others.

Given the your logic, cheeseburgers should be banned so the public doesn't have to pay the cost of heart surgery.

[IanS]

Originally Posted by racc

Generally, people in our society are given the right to do activities that may result in harm to themselves. Where the line is drawn, is when the actions of people may harm others.

Sometimes. Sometimes not. There are regulations that are designed to protect us from ourselves. The requirement to wear seatbelts is a good example.

Whether the state should be making such regulations is debatable, but I don't think one can say that such regulations don't exist.

[twoNeurons]

Agree IanS. Another good one is cellphone use while driving.

I could even see a rule that makes helmets mandatory under a certain age, as we all know that kids don't always have an abundance of common sense.

Adults, however, should know better. Just like it's not illegal to scuba dive along ( though very stupid ) and it's not illegal to wear headphones while driving ( though not a good idea ) and it's not illegal to wear sunglasses while driving in a tunnel ( though not a great idea either ).

Incidentally, people who engage in high-risk sports and activities are indeed covered by health care.

[twoNeurons]

Agreed. Health care costs is a really weak leg to stand on. Comparing it to smoking is a bit of a stretch. Besides, the activity of smoking isn't illegal for adults and it's directly harmful.

Smoking is attacked with a combination of it being generally unpopular and education.

Education is a far better tool when it comes to preventing these kinds of common sense accidents. If you're riding on the road, wear a helmet. Use your brain... or you just might lose it.

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by awvan

I guess my frustration at all of this is I fail to see how this increases the appeal of biking in the city. As was mentioned above, this is basically a big street party. It's a one-off thing and I was probably overreacting. I still maintain that even a study to look at bike lanes on Main and Quebec is excessive. It's not like the CoV is flush with money. I know there has been talk of a BIXI network here, but has there been a study by the city? Or how about a pilot program for a neighbourhood like the West End? I just think that there are better ways of spending limited funds than studying a gazillion bike lanes in places where they may not really be needed. Speaking of studies, was there one done for Dunsmuir, or did they just jump into the testing phase?

Translink did a study about public bikes http://www.translink.ca/en/Cycling/Public-Bicycle-System.aspx

It would be great to see public bike shares in other areas of the metro including areas around other skytrain stations.

[Porfiry]

Interesting article in the Globe and Mail:

When the rubber hits the road for cyclists

Being a bike-friendly city sounds wonderful until you actually start trying to become one. That’s when the rubber truly meets the road and those travelling about in their automobiles discover that more space for cyclists means less space for them.

Watching Vancouver take its first tentative steps towards developing a serious biking culture has been fascinating – and even a little amusing. Compared to what’s happening on this front elsewhere in the world, the city is still on training wheels.

...

Still, it’s easy to scoff at Vancouver’s efforts if you’ve ever been to Copenhagen at rush hour and have seen the tens of thousands of people pedalling to work every day along wide, protected, bike-only lanes. You can get almost anywhere in the city faster on a bike than in a car. Yet officials still aren’t satisfied and intend to take even more space away from drivers in the coming years. The Danes would say that all it takes is tarme, or guts.

...

I don't feel right pasting the entire article, so please read it here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...-for-cyclists/article1612480/?cmpid=rss1

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Agreed. Health care costs is a really weak leg to stand on. Comparing it to smoking is a bit of a stretch. Besides, the activity of smoking isn't illegal for adults and it's directly harmful.

Smoking is attacked with a combination of it being generally unpopular and education.

Education is a far better tool when it comes to preventing these kinds of common sense accidents. If you're riding on the road, wear a helmet. Use your brain... or you just might lose it.

I must say that in my last post I am only the messenger and it was one of the reasons originally for the helmet law. Just as there is a law to wear seat belts.

As for comparing it to smoking. All the bans in smoking have come along because of 2nd hand smoke. They figured if less people succumbed to 2nd hand smoke in their lives. The better chance that they would not have smoking related diseases. Hence less people going to get medical help.

Now in the case of the helmet and seat belt it is similar, but the difference isn't a 2nd party but the first party. If you wear a seat belt it usually means your injuries are less severe so we don't have to pay a higher medical to get you health again. And same for wearing a helmet.

It may seem like a bone head reason to most though.

[aberdeen5698]

> It may seem like a bone head reason to most though.

I don't think it's a bone head reason. I think it's the same general principle that says people who ski out of bounds and need to be rescued should bear the costs of their rescue. The problem is that in our society it would be inhumane to not treat an injured cyclist, and the cyclist probably couldn't afford the bills - so the emphasis is on trying to prevent as much injury as possible.

But it would be interesting to speculate about whether there's a bigger impact on the healthcare system due to more severe injuries of unhelmeted cyclists or due to the long-term effects of less exercise by people who won't cycle because it would require a helmet...

[flight_from_kamakura]

the helmet requirement, apart from being very annoying, really does make a bixi or velib-style bike sharing program impossible.

[whatnext]

I love to see cyclists tie themselves up in knots rationalizing why they shouldn't have to operate with safety equipment. Forget helmets, what about mandatory lights? Licensing to ensure proper training?

I know that by the same token they will support my campaign to roll back safety standards on automobiles to Model T levels. This will of course drastically lower the cost of automobile ownership, ensuring a new car is within reach of all.

Also noted is their convenient ignoring of the fact that a collison between two cyclists each going 30 km/h runs the risk of severe injury to both if they're not wearing helmets.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

> It may seem like a bone head reason to most though.

I don't think it's a bone head reason. I think it's the same general principle that says people who ski out of bounds and need to be rescued should bear the costs of their rescue. The problem is that in our society it would be inhumane to not treat an injured cyclist, and the cyclist probably couldn't afford the bills - so the emphasis is on trying to prevent as much injury as possible.

But it would be interesting to speculate about whether there's a bigger impact on the healthcare system due to more severe injuries of unhelmeted cyclists or due to the long-term effects of less exercise by people who won't cycle because it would require a helmet...

Interesting idea on whether usage of helmets prevents certain people from cycling thus having less exercise.

My hunch is that anyone using the excuse that they are not going to cycle because they have to exercise. Is more than likely lazy enough to not exercise or do some king of physical activity at all. They are using the helmet thing for the sole fact that they are well just lazy.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I love to see cyclists tie themselves up in knots rationalizing why they shouldn't have to operate with safety equipment. Forget helmets, what about mandatory lights? Licensing to ensure proper training?

I know that by the same token they will support my campaign to roll back safety standards on automobiles to Model T levels. This will of course drastically lower the cost of automobile ownership, ensuring a new car is within reach of all.

Also noted is their convenient ignoring of the fact that a collison between two cyclists each going 30 km/h runs the risk of severe injury to both if they're not wearing helmets.

I believe lights are mandatory. What isn't mandatory is the style or type of light.

I wouldn't support the idea of licensing. If you do that then you might as well have people licensed to walk. Most people learn to cycle about a year or two after they walk. Just as you learn to look both ways when walking across a street. You learn the same thing on your bike.

[deasine]

Good luck enforcing licensing. Oh no, looks like we are going to have to ticket children biking around the park because they don't have licenses.

[WBC]

What do you guys think of electric bikes. I've seen a few "zipping" downtown. Are they allowed to use dedicated bake lanes? I am talking about the battery powered bikes, not scooters.

[BCPhil]

Wearing helmets isn't so much about health care costs as it's about liability in the event of an accident.

It's not about decreasing cost on the taxpayer, as in the end it's probably not that much. It's about protecting individuals.

What happens if a driver clips a bicyclist wearing a helmet vs not wearing a helmet? Both are the driver's fault for causing the accident, but in one the liability he has for covering the losses of victim is less.

We can talk about the cost of healthcare, but even in an extreme scenario, we are talking about $1 million in health care expenditures. But that pales in comparison on the loss of productivity to individuals involved in the accident and even to society. The loss in quality of life can never be covered by publicly funded healthcare. The taxpayer will do what it can to make you not sick, but the taxpayer can't make you whole again.

You might decide to put your life up to fate by not wearing a helmet, but when you are involved in an accident that's totally not your fault, do you really think you can successfully sue to cover your expenses and maintain your standard of living? Can you really place all blame on someone else for your injuries when you made the personal decision to not wear adequate protection?

My auto insurance might have $3 million personal injury liability, but do you think ICBC is going to jump at the chance to pay that out to someone not wearing a helmet? It's similar to jaywalking; how much compensation is a jay walker entitled to? If you wear stiletto heels on an clearly icy sidewalk, is the property owner liable for your stupidity? If you don't wear a baseball helmet and you get beaned in the head, is the pitcher liable?

That's what the bicycle helmet law tries to accomplish, it puts all bicyclists on even legal ground when they are injured. If all bicyclists are equally as safe as possible, then all are entitled to the same level of compensation for their injuries. But if some are safer than others, then some will be more deserving of being compensated than others.

I don't mind paying healthcare expenses for people who've made bad choices, but that's as far as my compassion goes. If you decided to not limit your potential of injury and get in an accident, then you have decided to live with a life full of brain trauma with no help or compensation (if you're lucky enough to survive).

[tybuilding]

Originally Posted by WBC

What do you guys think of electric bikes. I've seen a few "zipping" downtown. Are they allowed to use dedicated bake lanes? I am talking about the battery powered bikes, not scooters.

Vehicles including electric bikes are allowed to use cycle paths. They are treated as a bike. They can legally travel up to 32km/hr under thier own power. I believe if you pedal with it or are going downhill you can travel as fast as you want up to the road speed limit, of course all speed limits still apply.

I love electric bikes as I have had one since 2005. It makes my 18 km commute from Newton in Surrey to Edmonds in Burnaby fairly easy. I do not interfere with anyone on the trails or roads any more that I would on a regular bike. I do move faster but no faster than I could under my own power if I wanted to go that fast. I am just able to have an average speed of around 25-30 km/hr. When there are more bikes on the road I will go slower until I have a clear opportunity to pass. I usually pass most cyclists on the bridges and then I just use my bell to let them know I am behind them.

I have now gone over 12,000 km on my E Bike, though now I am on battery #2.

[racc]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Wearing helmets isn't so much about health care costs as it's about liability in the event of an accident.

It's not about decreasing cost on the taxpayer, as in the end it's probably not that much. It's about protecting individuals.

What happens if a driver clips a bicyclist wearing a helmet vs not wearing a helmet? Both are the driver's fault for causing the accident, but in one the liability he has for covering the losses of victim is less.

We can talk about the cost of healthcare, but even in an extreme scenario, we are talking about $1 million in health care expenditures. But that pales in comparison on the loss of productivity to individuals involved in the accident and even to society. The loss in quality of life can never be covered by publicly funded healthcare. The taxpayer will do what it can to make you not sick, but the taxpayer can't make you whole again.

You might decide to put your life up to fate by not wearing a helmet, but when you are involved in an accident that's totally not your fault, do you really think you can successfully sue to cover your expenses and maintain your standard of living? Can you really place all blame on someone else for your injuries when you made the personal decision to not wear adequate protection?

My auto insurance might have $3 million personal injury liability, but do you think ICBC is going to jump at the chance to pay that out to someone not wearing a helmet? It's similar to jaywalking; how much compensation is a jay walker entitled to? If you wear stiletto heels on an clearly icy sidewalk, is the property owner liable for your stupidity? If you don't wear a baseball helmet and you get beaned in the head, is the pitcher liable?

That's what the bicycle helmet law tries to accomplish, it puts all bicyclists on even legal ground when they are injured. If all bicyclists are equally as safe as possible, then all are entitled to the same level of compensation for their injuries. But if some are safer than others, then some will be more deserving of being compensated than others.

I don't mind paying healthcare expenses for people who've made bad choices, but that's as far as my compassion goes. If you decided to not limit your potential of injury and get in an accident, then you have decided to live with a life full of brain trauma with no help or compensation (if you're lucky enough to survive).

Then pedestrians and drivers should be required to wear helmets as well. They suffer more head injuries than cyclists do. Maybe we should all just wear bubble wrap from head to toe.

It is much better to devote limited enforcement resources to crack down on dangerous driving and cycling. That will save the taxpayers far more money than forcing cyclists to wear helmets. Lets focus on preventing crashes, not making crashes a bit safer.