My friends were hit by cars and their heads were protected only because of their helmets.

I think this is a terrible idea. period.

@Vicki Morell - interesting stance: laws that apply to children should also apply to adults. Good luck with that.

In my world, we pass laws to protect children from themselves because they're still learning about responsibility and balances of risks. Adults sometimes walk into lamp-posts, and we just let them do that. Sometimes they also get drunk. Oh well, as long as they don't hurt anyone.

Incidentally, helmets are only designed to protect you when falling off your bike yourself. If your friends would otherwise be dead, I'd warrant they weren't just wobbling along the seawall at 10mph? Perhaps they should reconsider their commuting style if they're concerned about their personal safety.

Brothers and sisters! Have you not heard the good news?! Helmet wearing is in fact dependent on your proclaimed religion in British Columbia. And for members of the Church of Sit-Up Cycling it is an essential religious practice to wear normal clothes.

(Believers wholly endorse the use of such accident-preventing safety measures as lights, bells, height, strict compliance with traffic signals, a leisurely pace and the use of dedicated cycling streets and lanes.)

More details here:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/09/church-of-sit-up-cycling.html

Michael (of Copenhagenize) also makes an interesting bet in another post:

"There will never be a city that promotes (or legislates) bicycle helmets that will ever reach double digit modal share for bicycles."

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/09/vanity-myth-go-figure.html

Any takers, Vancouver?

What about safety? If you think adults shouldn't where helmets than why children. I can't believe how many cyclists think their brain isn't worth saving.

I know a few cyclists who would be dead without their helmets.

Abrogate - Mandatory Helmut law

YES.. Thank you.. bicycles are not motor vehicles! If police have time to harass cyclists then we can surely cut the city's policing budget.

Good to see this discussion and even better to review the law after years of experience with it.

One of the troubling things to read is the continued belief that bicycle helmets save lives even when there has been long experience of cyclists dying with helmets on.

The purpose of the law was to save lives and it was stated in the legislature before the law passed, that there was overwhelming evidence passing the law would significantly reduce deaths to cyclists.

What happened? Well helmet use doubled overnight, and deaths to cyclists increased!

In the subsequent years, police enforced the helmet law less and more people started riding, and they were riding without helmets.

Currently, there is an approximate 50/50 split in helmet use, and not surprisingly, there is a 50/50 split in deaths to cyclists with or without helmets.

The reason cyclists are dying with helmets on, is because it is collisions with motor vehicles that kill cyclists, not simple falls. (helmets are made for simple falls with little or no forward momentum)

Even if a helmet was 100% effective in collisions with motor vehicles (which they are not) cyclists would continue to die because in the vast majority of these deaths, even when the cause of death has been determined to be due to a head injury, there are other injuries, aside from head injuries that lead to death. A bicycle helmet even leaves the most vulnerable portion of the skull, with the brain behind it, exposed.

The number of cyclists killed pre- and post- helmet law has hardly changed at all, the only thing that has changed is that there are anecdotal claims of lives that have been saved that are more based on emotion, than fact.

A second problem with helmet legislation and related to the cries of saved lives from wearing helmets, is the lack of context these stories perpetrate.

All of BC averages about 7 deaths to cyclists per year. Vancouver counts some 60,000 trips per day on bicycles and about 1 death per year. That's about 1 death per 22 million trips, or looked at in a more popular way, roughly the odds of winning the lottery.

True, it happens, but if one was to plan to fund their retirement plan by buying lottery tickets, most would say, that's crazy, but to say it's crazy to ride a bicycle without a helmet because one day it may save a life, is equally crazy.

Put things in perspective, pursue more effective means of increasing the safety of cyclists, and get more people riding by rescinding the helmet law.

Let an adult make a choice, don't treat adults like children.

This is a difficult subject and my family always wear bike helmets. However, if a bike share system downtown is to be successful I believe wearing a helmet should be optional. Mandatory for children though.

I wanted to add another point regarding the helmet law (I vented earlier).

The bike helmet law may actually be one of the few that could be effective if enacted properly. The idea of many laws is to prevent or promote certain actions. Yet the laws only offer fines as incentive (or disincentive).

An effective way of making such a law useful is to issue the fine, but then refund/cancel the fine if the "offender' purchases a helmet and produces a receipt. If you "forgot" your helmet then you get a warning (or 2).

There is no doubt that helmets save lives and until this city completely separates vehicle and bicycle traffic the helmet will continue to save lives. But the city needs to offer more support than fines for "helmet offenders".

Removing the helmet law doesn't make wearing a helmet illegal. I fin it funny how bent outta shape people get about this, as if the only reason people wear helmets is the law. The law doesn't work, as is obvious to anyone who sees every second biker not wearing a helmet. All the law does is prevent bike sharing.
Lets switch from punishment to education.

I agree with Brad that it is hard to imagine a public bike program coexisting with mandatory helmets, so we should look at the trade off between the two. Is anyone aware of any holistic studies on this? I would like to see the city study this issue before jumping in. I do not have a fixed opinion. Meanwhile, when I am on my bike I am wearing a helmet.

One more reason to repeal (or exempt Vancouverites from ) the law - publicly shared bicycles.

Translink has such a program planned for Vancouver and programs like it have been successful all over the world and none have required the use of helmets.

The only large scale program that has required helmet use has failed.

The obvious risk category to put me in would be urban cyclist. I ride pretty much every day and have averaged 480 km per month so far this year. Over the past ten years I have been hit by cars three times and have also fallen four times (in three cases this was on ice in Boston). Helmet helped in three of the seven incidents. I have ridden without a helmet in Paris, Copenhagen, Tokyo and Montreal, but would prefer a helmet. It is common sense to wear a helmet while cycling and I doubt that the requirement to wear a helmet discourages people from cycling any more than the requirement to wear seatbelts discourages people from using airplanes or cars. The only real issue in this debate is whether the benefits of a community cycling system out weigh those of mandatory helmet legislation and if a work around can be found. I have an open mind on this and think the decision should be data driven.

Those individuals who make comments about the medical care costs associated with not wearing a helmet, please note: Cycling has a health benefit/risk ratio of at least 9:1. There is a strong, positive improvement to individual and public health from cycling. Therefore, it is much healthier to ride without a helmet, then to not ride at all. The danger is NOT cycling.
I would also like to add that motoring is dangerous and severely damaging to human health, both from direct and indirect causes. Please don't think you are in danger from cycling, and safe while driving. It is very much the opposite.
Our universally accessible health care system pools the risk from all individuals. Those who partake in risker activities (driving) and require more medical care, are subsidised by healthier people performing safer and healthier activities (cycling). If we followed your logic Steven, then we shouldn't pay the medical care costs of people injured in car crashes, because it is so dangerous; or for smokers; or people who overeat--the list goes on and on. I'm sure I could put you in one or more risk categories...let us see if we can get out of paying your medical care costs?

This is the worst idea I can imagine!!

The goal of this forum - I'm pretty sure - is to make Vancouver more green.

How many people don't ride because "the man" says they have to wear a helmet? Seriously? That makes no sense. "I'd ride, but the helmet ruins my hair"? "I'd ride, but I don't want the state dictating what I put on my head"?

Get over yourselves! Helmets save lives. What's the big fricking deal in wearing one?

I've survived two bicycle accidents in Vancouver, with cars who didn't see me, and my helmet(s) cracked and saved my life. Anyone who says they don't work is ignoring reality...or perhaps suffering the consequences of helmet-free accidents.

Repealing helmet legislation will do nothing to make the city more green. Next!

well, Steven, the fact is, regular cyclists liver longer and healthier lives than most people so what we need to do to help everyone is to get more people riding.

And on that note, here's a bet I saw yesterday morning at the bottom of the daily blog that
directly relates to Vancouver and it's goal of a 10% cycling share

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/09/vanity-myth-go-figure.html

"There will never be a city that promotes (or legislates) bicycle helmets that will ever reach double digit modal share for bicycles."

Yeah, but should the rest of us have to cover the additional insurance if you decide not to wear a helmet? Why do you think I should pay for you?

Repeal! Get people on bikes.

Repeal. It's all down to person choice and the freedom to decide for oneself.