Just to stir the pot a little... how many lives would be saved if anyone riding in a car was mandated to wear a helmet?
About this topic
|
-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I personally think that all of the bickering over a helmet law is distracting from the issue of licensing cyclists, which is far more important in my opinion.
What is a cyclist's license? What is a bicycle licence? Are the two the same?
In my latest blog entry I take a look at the differences.
- What Would a Bicycle Licence Program in Toronto Mean?
The Public Works and Infrastructure Committee meeting on September 14, 2009 has everyone and their mother talking about cyclist licensing and helmet laws.
However, there's one question that needs to be asked, and one that hasn't been just yet.
What exactly is a bicycle licence or cyclist's license?
There are differences between the two and we need to clarify these first.
As for helmets, personally, I wear a helmet when I cycle around town. I don't look down on those who don't do so, and don't feel that they deserve their injuries should they fall. Helmets can protect cyclists during a collision, but what are we doing to help prevent those collisions in the first place? And just how much money would it cost to change the Highway Traffic Act as helmet regulation in Toronto is dependent upon this. I'm sure you could paint a whole lot of bike lanes with that money and time!
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! - What Would a Bicycle Licence Program in Toronto Mean?
-
Posted 3 years ago #
The Caronto Star sez, "Surely it is possible to do both" when making a case for bike helmets as well as better cycling infrastructure in their editorial.
So why did they oppose the Jarvis bike lanes as well as the Bloor-Danforth lanes? Why do they have more columnists who regularly attack cyclist concerns than support them? -
Posted 3 years ago #
or helmets for walking down the street. that's pretty dangerous. there is also rules for pedestrians, maybe we should license feet.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Excellent idea. And not that foot-licensing is a cash grab or anything but perhaps there should be graduated licenses with additional testing for high heels and platform shoes. And given the additional damage that can be caused by steel-toed shoes we need a special license for those as well.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Let's ask the Danes about cycling helmets:
This Danish campaign poster reads:
"A walking helmet is a good helmet"
"Traffic safety isn't just for cyclists. The pedestrians of Denmark actually have a higher risk of head injury. The Danish Road Safety Council recommends walking helmets for pedestrians and other good folk in high risk groups."The slogan is catchy in Danish since it kind of rhymes. All in all it's a brilliant project. Let's save some lives.
The new walking helmets will be available in the Danish Cyclists Union's [Dansk cyklist forbund] shop. Although, as the Danish Cyclists' Union, the Road Safety Council and Trygfonden have been quick to point out:
"A bike helmet is a fine substitute for walking helmets, so there's no need to take it off when you get off your bike. Keep it on throughout the day for maximum safety."
Indeed, they have a point when they add: "We have almost one million daily cyclists in Denmark but we have 5.3 million pedestrians. It's a group that daily navigates the danger zone and we wish to make them aware of their potentially lethal actions."
Via Copenhagenize
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! -
Posted 3 years ago #
I'm getting fed up with the helmet "debate" - too many knee jerk responses, hyperbole, and logical fallacies. The one argument that makes me chuckle, though, is the one about helmet laws sending a message that cycling is dangerous. As if non cyclists can be fooled into thinking cycling in Toronto is perfectly safe. We'd better stop clamouring for "safe" infrastructure and complaining about the dangeours bike lanes in the door zone of parked cars if we don't want them to figure it out. Shhhhh...
Wouldn't it be relatively easy to find out how many cyclists end up in hospital with a head injury (by severity) that could have been prevented had they been wearing a helmet??? We have absolutely no idea what that is!
-
Posted 3 years ago #
AnnieD... I tried to find that number, it must be available somewhere, no luck on my end though.
And you're right, the drivers who saw my girlfriend skid out and break her wrist on streetcar tracks know that cycling in Toronto is already dangerous. But, are helmet campaigns making it seem even more dangerous than it actually is (it's far more dangerous to drive a car if you look at fatality statistics, or play basketball as I read elsewhere).
There's an article on Treehugger about this today... and Copenhagenize has an ongoing feature on creating the "idea" that cycling is dangerous.
- From Treehugger:
Sociologist David Horton of Lancaster University is doing a five part series on fear of cycling at Copenhagenize, and in part 3 looks at the effect of helmet promotion campaigns. He notes that most UK cycling organizations are against mandatory helmet use, saying that it should be a matter of free choice.
- And from Copenhagenize:
Fear of Cycling -
Helmet Promotion Campaigns - by Dave Horton - Part 03 of 05Like road safety education, campaigns to promote the wearing of cycle helmets effectively construct cycling as a dangerous practice about which to be fearful. Such campaigns, and calls for legislation to make cycle helmets compulsory, have increased over the last decade. In 2004, a Private Members’ Bill was tabled in the UK Parliament, to make it an offence for adults to allow children under the age of 16 to cycle unless wearing a helmet. Also in 2004, the influential British Medical Association, in a policy turnaround, voted to campaign for helmets to be made compulsory for all cyclists (for comprehensive detail on these developments, and debates around cycle helmets in general, see The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation).
Helmet promotion, especially to children, has become an established part of the UK road safety industry. In 2005, Lancashire County Council’s road safety team ran a ‘Saint or Sinner?’ tour, with anyone cycling without a helmet deemed sinful; sinners were given the opportunity to repent by pledging to ‘mend their ways’, and always wear a helmet when cycling (Lancaster and Morecambe Citizen 2005).
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! - From Treehugger:
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I don't get this.
If someone gave you a choice to live or die, wouldn't you take it? I ended up with a fairly serious head injury years ago from a bike accident because some ass without insurance made an illegal turn and i didn't have one on. Not wearing a helmet not only caused me years of stress, the fact that i didn't have a helmet caused issue with every insurance agent, police, and judge after. Know that no matter how obviously the car's fault it is, it'll still be seen as your fault if you don't wear one. My friend is a brain specialist at Western tells a huge percentage of people she sees with serious brain injuries are the result of not wearing a helmet. Nice.
Of course there needs to be all the things the cycling committee spoke about but what does that have to do with having your head cracked on the pavement because you chose not to protect yourself? I'm shocked that this is something the Union felt they had to speak out on. I actually think people might feel better if it was mandatory because then EVERYONE would have one and they wouldn't worry about looking like a nerd (god forbid!). The only way that'll happen is if it's a law (Like in Vancouver right and no one's cycling life ended because of it there). You know all it takes is one subway track or car door opened and down you go. You don't see it coming and it's not your fault.
Is your hair or how you look more important than protecting yourself from a potential serious injury or even death? i can assure you that having a brain injury will be MUCH worse than bad hair.If people are too stubborn to wear one, then yes, you should be made to. If you don't wear it for yourself, wear it for your friends and family who will have to take care of you when you get that tragic injury that absolutely could have been avoided. your fight for freedom of choice won't feel so good to those people when they have to feed you through a tube will it? sounds harsh but it's true!! People need to smarten up on this! Go visit a brain injury ward and then see how you feel about this.Why is this even a question??? It's your brain people. You need it. Just wear one.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I also wear an "athletic support"... can't be too careful!
tks
Lock -
Posted 3 years ago #
Why is it a question? I think because folks are doing a risk benefit analysis (however cursory) and determining that the risks of not wearing a helmet are less than the benefits. Likely there's an assessment that the likelihood of needing it (whether because they feel they won't get in an accident or because they feel the accident they get in to will not require it) is low either because the injuries will be to other parts of the body, or in the event of catastrophe that a helmet won't do them any good in the face of massive internal trauma caused by being hit by 3,000 lbs of steel at 50 km/hr.
Helmets are really great at helping with head injuries, and whether we know it or not we are making this sort of analysis all the time. Looking at race car drivers I gather that it would be much safer for me to wear a helmet when I drive or ride in a car. Considering the number of head injuries caused in the bath, we could surmise that a helmet would help there. While you might think being a pedestrian means you don't need a walking helmet, how about when the sidewalk's icy? There is little doubt that a helmet would help in these cases but in every situation it is determined that the benefits outweigh the risks *even* when traveling on a potentially icy road at highway speeds. According to this site, the leading causes are motor vehicle accidents, falls, and sporting injuries. (I suspect a bike accident may be classified as a sporting injury). But of all those leading causes, why is the bike selected as the one place we need to wear a helmet?
My point is not to argue that helmets aren't helpful. I don't ride without one myself. I'm just pointing out that those choosing not to wear them aren't, in my opinion, doing something unfathomably crazy and idiotic. Likely their analysis is just different than ours and I feel that just as I'm allowed to choose to walk, drive, or bathe without a helmet, the choice should be there for me as well when I'm on my bike.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
First off, a disclaimer: I'm not advocating this.
I did find a website that appears to speak to helmets. In that, they feel helmets are, umm, unnecessary.
Everyone, breathe and count to ten before opening the link.
http://www.frot.co.nz/sift/helmet.htm
They tell me that I have ADD. They just don't underst...Hey look! A Chicken!! -
Posted 3 years ago #
Following Todd's comment I looked for a bit more hard evidence on risk benefits. This is still a little cursory but what I found suggests it's wrong and maybe irresponsible to dispute the benefits of helmets.
This study found that only 4 per cent of cyclists killed in Ontario during 1986-91 were wearing helmets. If helmet use at the time was around 25 per cent in general (e.g. this study) then the odds ratio is around 8. That's right: you are 8 times more likely to be killed if you get in a serious accident and are not wearing a helmet.
Some people think wearing a helmet causes more accidents because motorists then don't give you as wide a berth. Whether that's true or not I don't think it could be a big enough effect to make up for the benefit of the helmet once you get in the accident.
There may be other arguments against helmet laws but we probably should not be going around telling people that helmets won't protect them from injury.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
k10ery:
I don't think too many people disagree that helmets do improve safety in the event of a fall that results in impact to your skull.
In the study summary you link to, while only 4% of the cyclists killed were wearing helmets "In 91% of the cases death occurred as the result of a bicycle-motor vehicle collision." Without getting gory here, I'm willing to bet that styrofoam and plastic may have done little to save these individuals lives.
I think the major argument against a helmet law is simply the cost of implementing this. In order to make this viable the province has to change the Highway Traffic Act. That means research, which is costly, bureaucratic work, again, costly, and then a campaign to educate people on the new law and more costly stuff I don't even know about... all of this is money that could be spent on cycling infrastructure and far more constructive uses.
I wear a helmet, I don't judge those who do, nor do I believe they're "asking for it" when someone without a helmet suffers a head injury cycling.
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! -
Posted 3 years ago #
I also want to add that while we're worrying about adults not wearing helmets on bikes now, in 10 years we may not care at all.
That's because we're currently raising a generation that is required to wear helmets. I doubt that someone who started wearing a bike helmet at 2 years old is going to reach the age of 18 and just toss their helmets aside. I'm guessing that a majority of people who learned to drive when seat belts became mandatory have made it such a part of their routine, should the law be lifted, they would continue to use them.
Our time, energy and money should be spent on adapting infrastructure and the values of drivers, cyclists and everyone using our roads. There's no overnight, band-aid solution that will prevent head injuries as many seem to believe this law will create.
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! -
Posted 3 years ago #
Another site that's not for helmets:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ -
Posted 3 years ago #
^ Thanks for the comments on the helmet study, Duncan. I'm not an expert on this and others here might know about other better evidence. But I do know a little statistics - and I could have explained that part better.
If helmets don't save lives in a crash then we would expect to see the same proportion of dead cyclists wearing helmets as in the general population. But since the proportion is only 4% that is pretty good evidence that some people got into serious crashes and survived because of their helmets.
But I agree that these risks are small, and the costs of a helmet law are high. Let's be "hard-headed" :) and even say that a helmet law in Ontario might save a few cyclist deaths per year (and a few more serious injuries I guess). Against that gain we have to weigh the money for all those helmets, the cost of enforcing the law, the possibility that people will be discouraged from riding, and the infringement of personal freedom.
It's reasonable to come down either way on the law but I for one would like to see a lot more people wearing helmets on my morning commute.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I also want to add that while we're worrying about adults not wearing helmets on bikes now, in 10 years we may not care at all.
When I read this at the start of your post, Duncan, I thought you were going to launch into evidence to support that in 10 years our cycling infrastructure would be so improved, and the number of cyclists on the road so increased that the risk component in the risk:benefit analysis of helmet use would have gone way down. I plead temporary insanity with co-morbid optimism.
The proportion of kids wearing helmets at Northern Secondary doesn't support your theory though (roughly 50%, and only about 5% female cyclists). I wonder if the way in which the youth helmet legislation is (not) enforced in Toronto is any indication of how adult helmet legislation would be addressed? I haven't seen any scare campaigns to support helmet use in kids, nor does there appear to be any enforcement.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
AnnieD
Without a child of my own I don't find myself near children too often. On the weekends the majority of families I see on bikes seem to all be wearing helmets. However, your observations of Northern are of a much bigger group of kids than I'm ever around, so I definitely thank you for your insight on this.
This morning I was down at the new skatepark at Ashbridges Bay. The children under 5 all had helmets, but once you got closer to the teens the percentage of helmet wearers on bikes and skateboards certainly dropped.
I think, if all the money is spent to make this a law, and after the first "blitz" to catch people not wearing helmets is over, it will be back to normal and enforcement will be lax. While I certainly can't devalue any life saved by a helmet I'm just hoping a lot of money isn't wasted on this.
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! -
Posted 3 years ago #
do we really need more insulting nanny state legislation infantalizing us all. I mean where does it end. whatever happened to personal responsibility and thinking for yourself.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
From the Globe and Mail: Why licensing cyclists just won't work
Is the answer to make every person who pedals down to the park take a road test, pay a licence fee and hang a plate from his bike seat? The proposal is wildly impractical. The city has looked at bike licensing at least three times over the years: in 1984, 1992 and 1996. Each time city council rejected it, for several good reasons.For one, how do you decide who needs a licence? If someone pedals across the municipal boundary from Mississauga, does she need a licence? And what about kids? You wouldn't want to make 11-year-olds get a licence to ride round the neighbourhood after school, but, logically, they need the instruction in bike safety more than adults do.
Then there is the cost. With hundreds of thousands of cyclists in the city, it would be a massive project to set up and administer a new testing and licensing system, with all the new databases and test examiners required.
The Ontario Ministry of Transportation rejected the notion in 1996, advising the city that “such schemes, apart from being administratively and financially burdensome, do not increase bicycle safety practices.”
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Jim Bradley, Ontario's Transportation Minister agrees with us... education, not legislation is the way to make things safer:
Cyclists and motorists must learn to share the road: transportation ministerEducation and partnerships, not the heavy hand of government legislation is the way to boost safe bicycle use, says Ontario Transportation minister Jim Bradley.
It’s not a case of forcing people out of their cars, but encouraging other transportation options — like cycling.
“We’ve got a way to go on that, but we’ve got a good start,” he told a luncheon meeting at the first Ontario Cycling summit held at the Waterloo Inn Sunday, Monday and Tuesday.
Provincial cycling rules and policies are under review, for the first time since 1992, he said while guest speaker at Tuesday’s luncheon
LINK
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Terence Corcoran in the Post, though apparently conservative and opposed to big government, apparently wants all the bureaucracy involved in taxing cyclists... because apparently we don't "pay our fair share":
-
Everybody knows that drivers of automobiles must pay their way. To drive on city roads, they pay heavy gasoline taxes to offset the cost. Drivers pay to park. They pay for car licences and driver's licences, which are all taxes. They pay heavy third-party liability insurance fees in case they run somebody over or ram into another car. All this is fair and just, right?
But bike riders pay nothing, even though the cost of urban bicycle infrastructure, operating risks and potential liabilities are mounting. Bikers are getting a free ride that all non-bikers are paying for.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent bulldozing, levelling and paving hundreds of kilometres of bike trails across the GTA. Trail maintenance costs are also borne by taxpayers. Even more costly are special bike lanes on city roads. Setting aside a four-foot-wide lane looks like a free lunch, but often these lanes displace automobile parking spaces or force the shutdown of an automobile corridor. There's a cost to all of this, in addition to maintenance, and bikers should pay for it.
Terrence, would you like to tell me where my property taxes go? My provincial and federal income tax? The PST and GST I pay?
-
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I can't tell - is he serious? It's just out there enough to be tongue in cheek, and yet still something I could believe would come from that side of the fence.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
I think this is just really, really, really poor satire.
Kuitenbrouwer rebuts:
- Tax cyclists? Yes, and pedestrians, too
Terence Corcoran, in today's post, calls for a $100 tax on cyclists, to help pay for the roads and bike paths they use, and the carbon footprint they leave by all that exhaling of breath. Now that Mr. Corcoran applauds the principle of tax-and-spend government, my question is, why stop there? Other infrastructure-using freeloaders need to start paying their freight, too.
Let's start with pedestrians. Toronto and other cities devote two sides of every street to sidewalks; far more space than the few city's scant bike paths occupy. Clearly those who use them should face some tax. Perhaps a $5 surcharge on each pair of shoes should do it. (Motorists who don't wear out sidewalks would get a rebate on their vehicle registration fee). And then what about runners? They pound the sidewalks and the pathways. Like cyclists, they (to borrow my colleague's phrasing) "burn up a lot more carbohydrates, whic their bodies convert into carbon dioxide and exhale, adding to their carbon footprint." That leftist jogger, David Miller, is among these polluters. Runners and inline skaters should cough up too. Would $20 per pair of running shoes or blades do it? Taxes for everyone!
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! - Tax cyclists? Yes, and pedestrians, too
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Yeah... it's a hard call on whether Corcoran is completely serious.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
As a daily driver in the city I find that it would be quite nice to actually share the road with cyclists in the city. I see 99% of cyclists every day riding dangerously and without any regard for many laws of the road. Running reds, passing stopped ttc street cars with open doors, and swerving on and off sidewalks are only a few of the lawwless things I see everyday on my drive home. I think licenses for cyclists is a step in the right direction actually. Hopefully licensing and more importantly police enforcment of the rules will help road safty for everyone. Maybe a cyclist ticket blitz in the city would be a good idea every once in a while? Until cyclists can follow the rules of the road are we going to be able to share the road.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
@BC333 - I doubt many on here would disagree on the subject of following the rules with the possible exception of the rolling stop (and after spending many hours standing at a street-corner (Nassau & Bellevue) volunteering on several Pedestrian Sundays I can say with certainty that this is not a unique behaviour for cyclists by any stretch). In fact, in about 6 hours on 2 separate occasions I not only saw the majority of drivers roll through the stop signs, I saw a couple cars driving the wrong way on the one way street, about half a dozen cars drive the wrong way by going backwards up the one-way for over a block ("But officer, the car was *pointed* the right way!"), and several outright blowing the stop sign without even slowing. There is nothing on your list I haven't seen motorists do on a daily basis. I would assert that when taking offenses such as speeding into account, drivers and cyclists are equal scofflaws - and something tells me pedestrians are also on equal footing as well ;-) . In other words, a percentage of human beings are law breakers, some drive cars, some ride bikes, and some walk or take transit. Most do a little of each. That said, even if there were a difference between levels of respect for the law, that gives nobody an excuse for not sharing the road properly or arguing against infrastructure. That'd be akin to my saying "Your neighbour got a speeding ticket therefore I'm going to have to remove the seat belts and air bags from your car."
As for the licensing, how's that working for preventing DUI, street racing, speeding, or using one's car as a weapon? I'm not convinced, given the number of folks driving with suspended licenses, that that little laminated paper is doing a whole lot. And bear in mind also that its purpose is to show that you are competent enough to drive a 3,000 lb projectile capable of easily reaching speeds of 120+ km/hr. This is also why various commercial licenses are required - the vehicles are even bigger, more dangerous, and have more rules to follow.
It isn't the paper that brings compliance, you're absolutely right in your 'blitz' comment, it is enforcement, which is done regardless of whether or not someone has the paper to go with it. And I'm all for enforcement.
What I'd like to see to address your 'share the road issue':
- Update the Drivers' Handbook to more adequately address cycling. Given the number of folks reporting being yelled at to "Get on the sidewalk!" being passed too closely or being blocked by parked cars in the bike lane, I think there's a definite need for more education on the part of the motorists.
- CAN-Bike or CAN-Bike style courses should be added to school physical education curricula. There needs to be education along with enforcement.
- Continue to build infrastructure to provide an integrated cycling network. I just made a cross-town move and made several trips by car across town and what I liked the same streets as a driver that I like as a cyclist. It is much easier to share the road on Harbord where there's a bike lane than Bloor or Queen where there aren't lanes. It also seems as if there are more law-abiding cyclists on these routes than elsewhere.
- And of course, continue to enforce the law. Given the number of fatalities caused by motor vehicles in the past 5 years relative to the number caused by cyclists and pedestrians I can see why the focus has been on the vehicle, though.
Licensing has been proposed no less than three times and each time it was determined to be impractical and a waste of money. I don't see things changing as a result. If I run a red light today, and an officer sees me, I get stopped, show ID (that's required though it doesn't have to be a driver's license), and get a ticket. The only difference with a license is that the taxpayer pays a bit more, I may pay a little out of pocket, and then instead of showing *any* ID, I show my 'cyclist's license' (or more likely my driver's license as I suspect that will be considered equivalent in any plan).
That said, I think if someone offered me the opportunity to pay $30-60 every five years for a license and Toronto were a world-class cycling city with a real network of year round lanes and paths, I might consider it worth it. But really, paying money for the privilege of dealing what we have now wouldn't be worth it, IMO.
-
Posted 3 years ago #
That is by far the best rebuttal to the "cyclists are all scofflaws" argument that I am *so* sick of hearing. Any chance you can get it out somewhere where non-cyclists could read it?
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Thanks! I have a blog but rarely post there (and most readers, I think, are out of town). It might work well retooled as a letter to the editor but I think the media's attention span has moved on. That said, perhaps if I polished it in time for Bryant's trial at the end of the month...
-
Posted 3 years ago #
hear hear!!
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Todd, send it to the Star as a letter to the editor. Sometimes they print things that are well written like your post is. :)
-
Posted 3 years ago #
Bob Mionske weighs in on licensing cyclists at Bicycling Magazine:
- License to Ride
By Bob Mionske
The transition from summer to autumn has been a tough time for Toronto cyclists this year. On August 31, bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard was run down by a driver in what was apparently a violent incident of road rage, begun when the driver—prominent Toronto politico Michael Bryant—rammed the cyclist with his car, and ended when, apparently deliberately, according to eyewitnesses, he slammed the cyclist into a mail drop off box. The mortally injured cyclist died soon after.
Two weeks later, following on the heels of what has been widely believed to be a media spin campaign to shift the blame away from Michael Bryant, and on to the victim, Toronto Councilor Michael Walker proposed legislation requiring that cyclists be licensed and helmeted. To be fair, the city had been working on the idea since May.
Nevertheless, the timing of the proposal was questionable—was Walker taking advantage of public sentiment now that anti-cyclist hysteria had been whipped up in the media? Or was he merely unaware of the raw feelings of anguish raised by the lethal act of road rage that had just been played out?
Regardless of whether Walker was deliberately playing to anti-cyclist sentiment, or just shockingly unaware of cyclists’ grief and anger, his call for licensing cyclists struck a chord with cycling’s detractors. In an op-ed piece, National Post editor Terence Corcoran took up the call for licensing cyclists, opining that it’s “time to stop giving bicyclists a free ride.” Many readers believed that Corcoran’s support of licensing was satirical—he argued that the real reason bicyclists should be licensed is to capture a fee for the “carbon footprint” of their increased metabolism. Regardless of whether Corcoran’s op-ed was serious, or satire, Walker’s proposal was serious.
...
But what about the argument that requiring bikes to be registered will help the public report scofflaws, and enable law enforcement to enforce the laws? Again, this argument is divorced from reality. To understand why, proponents should try this experiment—the next time you see another driver going 10 miles over the speed limit, or changing lanes without signaling, or not coming to a complete stop behind the crosswalk, phone it in to law enforcement, and demand that an officer come out and apprehend the miscreant. When they’re done explaining that they have more pressing problems to deal with, you’ll get a sense of what would happen if you reported that you just saw a cyclist violate a traffic law. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that most of what drivers see as “law-breaking cyclist” behavior is actually law-abiding behavior. Furthermore, law enforcement already has the means to enforce the law—they can and already do ticket cyclists for traffic violations.
...
Today, motorists are universally required to be licensed, while non-motorists are not. This fact is virtually always misunderstood by motorists to mean that they have a greater right to the roads, when in fact it means the opposite—they have a lesser right to the roads, because their use of the roads is by permission of the state, and subject to revocation. In contrast, non-motorists’ use of the roads is by right, and subject only to a duty that they observe the rules of the road.
Nevertheless, the public perception that we don’t observe our duties under the law is one of the greatest dangers confronting cycling. I’ve been warning for some time now that the more problematic aspects of cyclist behavior may be addressed in ways that we will not like. Already, demands that cyclists be licensed and insured, bikes be registered, extra taxes be imposed on cyclists, and more directly to the point, new legislation be enacted limiting our rights to the road, have entered the public discourse.
These demands are not a rational response to a perceived problem; rather, they are vindictive in nature, and rooted in a deep-seated desire to remove us from the roads. Nevertheless, we should all be aware that restrictions on the rights of motorists were imposed by government in response to a problem, and those restrictions were upheld by the courts. Whether government will respond to the demands of those who would remove us from the roads remains to be seen, but it’s in our own best interest to not feed the perception that we are a problem that needs to be addressed.
In fact, we would be better served if, instead of feeding that perception, we could work to shift the public discourse to where it properly belongs. First, policies that promote the safe integration and expansion of cycling into our transportation infrastructure must not only be adopted, they must also be implemented. Second, traffic laws should be sensible, actually recognizing and reflecting that the needs of cyclists are different from the needs of motorists. Third, the traffic laws need to be enforced, by officers who actually understand the laws they are enforcing, with attention shifted away from petty violations, and focused instead on the most dangerous violations. Finally, when cyclists are injured or killed by negligent drivers, the statutes, and enforcement, should reflect the seriousness of the incident, with law enforcement attention directed to the behavior that actually caused the harm.
If we want to see a rational response to real problems, this is where we need to direct government’s attention. If instead, we want irrational vindictiveness distracting us from the real problems, Toronto Councillor Michael Walker is leading the way.
Duncan's City Ride - That's my blog about cycling in the city of Toronto, natch! - License to Ride
-
Posted 2 years ago #
Wow, this thread is information intensive... In order to contribute I would like to share some more information,
Have you experienced riding any vehicle and you feel like you are as free as a bird? Do you remember Jack of the Titanic when he went over the edge of the ship and said that he was the king of the world?
Riding a motorcycle can almost feels like that.-you feel you are free and you can go and drive freely. It would also seem like you are the king of the road.
So as you enjoy your ride, make sure that you do not sacrifice your convenience and safety.
You need to learn how to choose the bike and take note of the motorcycle seats. The seat should be comfortable enough to give a convenient ride but also safe so you can reach your destination in one good piece.
Also, there is a need to choose the item where you can put your stuff and other personal belongings and gadgets safely. You will need a good bag to fit all your things into but one that is not too hard and too big or else it won’t fit anywhere your bike. Most probably, Willie Max saddle-bags can help you best – with features that no other bags offer. These bags are so light and flexible as they are made from synthetic leather so they can fit even into the seat of your bike.
Another helpful gadget you can have so you can really drive and ride freely is with the use of Cardo Scala headset system – Bluetooth or just phone device. Cardo Scala can be considered the authority in the manufacturing of motorcycle standards that conform to convenience and safety standards.
So now, there is n more reason why you cannot enjoy your ride, there are products that can help you out, now the rest is all up to you. -
Posted 2 years ago #
Thats some useful information, thx fr sharing :)
-
Posted 8 months ago #
coach outlet sell all types of coach factory outlet leather products and coach bags at really discounted prices. Any one who would like to get a coach outlet store online, purse, wallet, baggage or any other coach outlet online, at significantly lower prices than normal, they should visit coach factory.
-
Posted 7 months ago #
Coach Purses Outlet
louis vuitton belt
coach factory outlet online
Louis Vuitton Bags
coach factory online
coach outlet handbags
coach outlet store online
Louis Vuitton Handbag
coach outlet online
Louis Vuitton Purses
coach outlet store online
Louis Vuitton Purse
coach purses outlet
coach factory
coach handbag outlet
Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet
coach factory
coach purses
coach factory online
authentic louis vuitton
coach outlet online
coach outlet online
coach outlet
coach store online
coach factory store
Louis Vuitton Bags Outlet
coach factory outlet
coach store online
coach outlet online
coach outlet
coach outlet
louis vuitton sunglasses
Louis Vuitton Outlet
coach outlet store online
coach factory
coach online outlet
coach factory outlet
Coach Purse Outlet
coach handbags new 2012
Louis Vuitton
coach handbags
coach factory online
coach outlet
coach factory outlet
coach factory outlet
coach handbags outlet
louis vuitton shoes
louis vuitton wallets
coach outlet store online
Louis Vuitton Store
coach outlet
coach factory outlet
Coach Purses Outlet
Louis Vuitton Handbags
Louis Vuitton Purses Outlet
coach online outlet
coach factory outlet online
coach factory outlet
www.louisvuitton.com
Reply
You must log in to post.
|
|
|