Let's get past the helmet law fear and make a better cycling environment in Ontario

We're only entering the third day after Ontario's chief coroner released the Cycling Death Review, the review of cycling deaths in Ontario between Jan. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2010, so it may be a bit early to assess its impact.

One thing seems to be clear: it was a review with only one recommendation.

That could certainly be your understanding, having read the various media reports. With the exception of a few media outlets (including the story in The Record, written in part by yours truly), Ontario's media, ranging from the National Post to the London Community News, grabbed on to recommendation No. 11: "The Highway Traffic Act should be amended to make helmets mandatory for cyclists of all ages in Ontario..."

According to some of the responses to Take the Lane and on the Twittersphere, those other 13 recommendations in the report were merely smoke to hide this most sinister of bureaucratic infringements on our personal liberty.

Hardly anyone seems to have noticed the two other sentences in that recommendation: "...This should occur in conjunction with an evaluation of the impact of mandatory helmet legislation on cycling activity in Ontario. Such an evaluation strategy should be developed and carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Public Heallth Ontario."

So, first, a multi-ministry study and if the study shows a net benefit, helmet laws. If it doesn't show a net benefit, perhaps no helmet laws. If you truly believe that helmets discourage adult cycling, then you can rest easy. Helmet laws ain't gonna happen. At least, it's pretty unlikely that anything will be in place by the end of the summer.

And few seemed to notice the other recommendations of the review: complete streets approach to planning; an Ontario Cycling Plan; high priority to paved shoulders on provincial highways; a provincial share the road campaign involving the CAA, the Share the Road Cycling Coalition, police agencies and other groups; cycle safety information to be provided to new bike buyers; cycling safety education to be incorporated into the school system; improvements to the driver's handbooks and driver examinations; a review of the Highway Traffic to rationalize sections dealing with cycling (hallelujah!); a review of the Municipal Act and municipal bylaws to ensure consistency; a three-foot passing law; sideguards for heavy trucks in Canada; and finally, co-ordinated collection and sharing of cycling injury and fatality data to help improve cycling education and enforcement in the future.

Haven't these been things that we, as cyclists, have been wanting for a long time? I know that a couple of the recommendations here are things I mentioned when I sent my submission to the review panel. Don't you want to see a better cycling future?

So, say so! Instead of giving letters page editors a flood of anti-helmet-legislation missives to fill opinion pages, write about the aspects of the report that the media missed, and that will make for a better cycling environment. Push your MPP to download the Cycling Death Review and read it. It's only 36 pages. It'll be the easiest thing your local politico will have to do. It's a minority government. Everyone is looking for something to trumpet in their favourite committee. Make your MPP make this his or her issue.

The link to the report online is at the top of this post, or go to www.ontario.ca/coronersreports and download the report.

 

 

 

Comments

[Mike]

I noticed the sentences. I just fear they're too easy to ignore, much like the rest of the report has been.

[Ryan]

Part of the reason helmets have been a hot topic with cyclists, is this is something the media has been focusing on...

Local radio host talked ONLY helmets. Fortunately about 98% of of the callers were against a law. Many were not cyclists, others were cyclists who in fact did wear them.

I believe the side guard debate was already shot down.

The paved shoulders, I believe a member of the PC party (Parry Sound I believe) put forth a private members bill a few years ago on that very issue...Liberals said no.

[Frank Xavier]

Bill, I agree with you 100%. Getting lost in the nonsense of anti-helmet/personal rights infringement is a complete waste. Do focus on the constructive recommendations. At minimum, I would love to see a PR program that emphasized the fact that we are all the same humans on the road. Mutual respect is critical, let’s promote this idea.

On Helmets, I still have my motorcycle rating on my license. Once upon a time before the motorcycle helmet laws, I road raced bikes and saw the carnage of road riding motorcyclists dying unnecessarily. Over the years I have had my share of bicycling accidents, usually related to going around corners on the limit and encountering gravel. Amazing how well bicycle helmets do their job when you clunk your noggin on the road at low speed. I for one would not be without my helmet and am fully aware of how useless it would be in saving my life in a higher speed collision. I don't want to be rendered a vegetable for want of a helmet in a slow lowside crash..

[Bruce Hawkings]

Bill, the link to the corners report is not working.

[Bill]

@Bruce I'm in transit. Will fix the link ASAP.

[Peter Parker]

I agree completely, Bill.

Because I haven't seen any paid journalists comparing the two, I want to point out the recommendations from the 1998 Coroner's report, "A Report on Cycling Fatalities in Toronto 1986-1996"

I don't have the full report, but I found an editorialized synopsis (http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/coroner.html) which lists the following recommendations:

- Improve collision data reporting, collection and analysis
- Collision prevention [is to be achieved] through:
-- cyclist education,
-- law enforcement against both motorists and cyclists [at the moment, virtually all traffic law enforcement is aimed at motorists], and
--- identification of problem sites and improvement in their road design.
- Promotion of helmet use
- Increased cycling content in publications and driver programs required
- Establish a highway traffic law review process
- Development of bicycle routes and bicycle lanes to enhance bicycle safety
- Side guards for trucks

It's hard to say because these don't give full detail, but they're a heck of a lot of overlap with the new report. Maybe the new report gives more specific recommendations which will lend themselves more easily to lobbying? The 3-foot rule and paving shoulders are definitely new.