politics

Mandatory helmet laws make me wonder if politicians haven't already sustained severe head trauma by Grey Gallinger

Jon Bovi, from the Winnipeg Free Press comments:

... mandatory helmet laws have clearly been shown to dissuade people from using bicycles as a mode of transportation, which is strictly contrary to the goal of encouraging a healthy lifestyle and reducing public medical costs.

I'm not going to argue that helmets don't prevent people from sustaining serious head injuries, however I argue that these injuries are less prevalent than the media and the medical health community would have you believe.

Since Manitoba has been toying with the idea of mandatory bicycle helmets I've heard all kinds of facts about how helmets save lives, though none of these articles mention the percentage of bicycle accidents that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

I've been in several bike accidents over the years, the most serious of which I broke several teeth and my nose, but did not sustain a "head" injury. I was not wearing a helmet and based on how I was injured (my face was impaled by the handlebars) a helmet wouldn't have made any difference.

But I digress, I realized that my own experiences are not an exact reflection of the rest of society. In many cases I don't doubt that people have been saved because they were wearing protective headwear. Helmets are probably a good idea, especially for young children, but should not be mandatory for several reasons.

As the commentor mentioned mandating helmets tends to discourage the everyday use of bicycles as a means of transportation. This is counterproductive for a society that needs to start weening itself off fossil fuels, and start seriously thinking about how people will get around in the cities of the future. Promoting simple, cheap, and accessible forms of transportation, such as the bicycle, is one of the most effective things we could be doing.

For evidence just look to the countries with the highest percentage of bicycle use.

The Government of Hong Kong Transport and Housing Bureau report on the use of safety equipment among cyclists:

France, Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom and Singapore do not impose any legislative requirements to mandate cyclists to wear protective helmets. Authorities in these countries generally consider that enhancing education and publicity to encourage voluntary wearing of protective helmets by cyclists is a more appropriate approach. In the United Kingdom, there are views that a mandatory requirement mayleadtoareductionincyclingactivities. Suchameasure may also not be generally accepted by the public, and there are practical difficulties in enforcement.

Another reason helmets should not be mandatory is that it is simply impossible to enforce such regulations. City Police and RCMP have higher priorities than chasing down cyclists who opt to take responsibility for their own safety. Even those pushing to make helmets mandatory admit that having the police enforce such laws is useless.

Jim Rondeau, Healthy Living Minister:

"We don't want to have police chasing kids to give them a ticket. What we're trying to do is look at innovative approaches."

How are mandatory helmet laws innovative?

An innovative approach would be an all incompasing plan for promoting bicycles, bike education, safe riding workshops, driver education (yes, motorist should be held accountable for cyclists safety!), and streets designed to make urban cycling safer, and while we're at it why don't we make the streets safer for pedestrians too (or maybe we can force them to wear helmets instead!)

Helmet laws, like so many other safety regulations, are a waste of resources, they don't work and they contribute to discouraging the very activities they attempt to make safer.

Running reds and amber light durations by Grey Gallinger

Buried within this Winnipeg Free Press article about photo radar at intersections is the mention of Winnipeg's shorter than average amber lights.

The best piece of journalism in the Free Press' story is actually in the comments section (much to the dismay of this writer who has not been shy to voice his distaste for comments on news sites).

Todd Dube:1

The City of Winnipeg is the only city in Canada that does not adhere to the formula for determining minimum, safe amber times. Winnipeggers "run" red lights at our 80kph camera intersections at a rate of 600% more than the other camera intersections - for the simple reason that those ambers should be 5.5 seconds and not 4 seconds. That is not only profitable but dangerous. The increase in collisions is due to the unnecessary crisis presented to drivers due to the short amber itself. Winnipeggers must read the facts to learn that our true safety has been traded for profit.

As a pedestrian I witness drivers speeding through amber lights and running reds on a daily basis. The southbound lane of McMillan / Corydon Ave. at Osborne St. is one of the worst intersections I've seen. Stand there for five minutes and you'll likely witness more than one car blow through the red.

Frankly I'm shocked their haven't been more accidents involving pedestrians who started crossing when the pedestrian light came on without first checking to make sure there wasn't a car still barreling through the intersection. I personally have become accustomed to waiting a couple seconds after the light to start crossing, even still I've had several close calls where speeding vehicles have disregarded the already red light.

I'm not sure if it's actually as nefarious as some City Hall plot to increase profits, but it is another example of the City's disregard for pedestrian safety.

UPDATE: The City published a report a year ago on March 8th, 2011 that states

Today, the Public Service recommends maintaining the current practice of having four seconds of amber light time and adopting a formula to calculate the all-red light time, as this provides a safer scenario than having a longer amber light time.
They go on to reference research from the State of Georgia legislation. Why are decisions being made based on data from a foreign State, especially one that is geographically different than Manitoba?

1 It should be noted that Todd Dube is no stranger to this issue, he runs the site WiseUp Winnipeg which is dedicated to "publicly expose the deception within the photo enforcement program and to draw attention to Winnipeg’s traffic infrastructure inadequacies (including amber times, speed limits and signage) that are being deliberately exploited by the program to generate maximum “violations” from otherwise safe driving behaviours."

Don't confuse anarchy with apathy by Grey Gallinger

David D'Amato, writing at South Coast Today:

The way to change society is not to willingly allow yourself to be folded into the systems of political authority, but to counterbalance and neutralize the importance of those systems through the way you live your life. There's nothing apathetic about that.

I hate to quote only the last paragraph of an article, but D'Amato really does a nice job of summarizing his premise. His conclusion articulates what I believe are my own core values. Be the world you want to be.

Support our troops — or else by Grey Gallinger

Tyler Shipley, writing at Uptown

It seems even the mildest deviations from the ‘support the troops’ mantra are disciplined quickly and intensely. Ironic, since we’re routinely told those troops are fighting for our ‘freedom.’

You may remember Shipley's reaction to the new Winnipeg Jets military inspired branding, also featured in Uptown. Tyler, along with other advocates for social justice such as John K. Samson, and myself, were all at the receiving end of the status quo's guffaws when we expressed our discontent with the co-opting of sports by a pro-military agenda.

It's easy to brush off Shipley and Samson's opinions as sensitive liberals who want the whole world to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but I believe the type of criticism being directed at them is indicative of Canada's growing role as a jingoist nation, much like our neighbours to the South.