Finally used a helmet

Fell off my bike a few weeks back. The first time after wearing a helmet for years, kept me from cracking my head on the asphalt.

non helmet wearers bond

put up a $5M bond to pay for your care in a vegetative state after you fall off your bike and brain yourself.

Missing the Point

The author points out how the helmet argument is holding us back as a biking city and the first two commenters latch on to it as if it was the only thing in the article.

"Coming into contact with the police [can lead to being] robbed or even murdered"

Come on.

nope

I carry my helmet but I don't use it unless I feel it's likely that I might fall off or be hit by a car. I stay well away from traffic and don't go any faster than 5 mph so the threat of injury is very small.
It should be mandatory for kids to wear them, and optional for adults,
I mean why don't we force people over 80 to wear full hockey gear, 'cause they fall and hurt themselves all the time.
A bike rider should be able decide if they are at risk and act accordingly.

Lawrence

Flawed logic --- nobody can predict when you get hit by a car or have to do an avoidance manuever because a pedestrian suddenly walks into the bike lane?

I believe we had similar argument when seatbelts were first introduced. but slowly people saw the benefits and even if they resent the government meddling, they began to use them regularly

Alive

Thanks to Vision Vancouver you can go from Spanish Banks to Stanly Park without going near a car, the bike lanes are way better now.

I go 5 MPH, If I had a road bike which can go a lot faster than I can, I would wear a helmet.

Really, you have to be responsable for your own safety, I have excellent lights and drum brakes, I need them'cause my vintage bike is very heavy and I'm 225 pounds.I use my bell to warn folks that it would be a rocking bad idea to step in front of my bike

And if

you want to put helmets on somebody, put them on people who step into the crosswalk without looking to see if anyone is coming.

Somehow they've got in their brain there protected by the invisible hand of god.

There are a lot more of these bozos than there used to be.

And don't even get me started on the number of drivers in this town who haven't a clue how to drive.

Didn't used to be that way; now we have thousands of people in expensive SUV's, that don't have a clue, put helmets on all of them, don't mess with guys going 5 MPH

Lawrence

It may be your choice not to wear a helmet (it's not, legally, but whatever), and I'm not going to try to convince you to.

But spare yourself the humiliation of trying to rationalize carrying it and not wearing it. What looks like reason to you looks like lunacy to pretty much everyone else.

I mean, Christ! the easiest place to carry a helmet is on your head.

... the helmets again

I have been cycling for 67 years and do not wear a helmet. Comparing the issue with seatbelts is BS. A car has 100 hp, a bike runs on a few watts provided by the cyclist under his or her control. In Amsterdam nobody wears a helmet, the bike's owner pedals, the rear luggage carrier and the handelbar provide space for passengers, adults, kids and pets. Everybody has a bike, people are smart and make their own decisions and yes, their are fewer head injuries. Bicycles are the most efficient and versatile land vehicles on earth. Anybody who only drives a car or motorbike is not competent to talk about bicycles and cyclists. With any bicycle accident it can go either way. If you wear a helmet and have a serious crash you might survive and be paralysed for the rest of your life. If you don't wear a helmet in the same situation you might be dead. What is preferable for you or society as a whole? If you fall over a ditch a brench might pierce your brain through the ventilation slot of your helmet. Without a helmet it might have missed your head. It is all conjuncture. For every argument you present for wearing a helmet I can present an equally valid one against. Do you wear a helmet walking up- or downstairs in your home? It is more dangerous than cycling. Little kids are playing in the sandbox wearing bicycle helmets. I have seen family photo albums where the kids in every picture wear a piece of of plastic on their head. When and where does this nonsense stop?

In response to above comments...

@Reflections: The most flawed "argument" anyone can make. How about people put up that $5M bond for waking up every morning?
---
@alive. Seat belt comparison isn't the same. I don't know of any motorists who are lugging around seat belts with them all the time. Compare helmets for motorists, with helmets for cyclists.
---
@trylogic...+1. I would like to say that is the best comment I've read on the helmet debate, but that doesn't do your comment any justice!
----

I know a lot of people try to use the "helmet saved me" -- with no evidence it did. A cracked helmet means nothing. I dropped my helmet from half a metre onto a carpeted floor and it cracked.

I also can't say I know of any person who has landed directly on top of their heads (since helmets aren't designed to protect you from side impacts).
I like anyone I know who has fallen off lands on thier side, where the arms and legs take all the 'punishment'.

I suspect those who do land on their heads were either distracted or riding like a fool.

Bring on more cycle routes

This is a good article and a good synopsis of where we're at in this city. And yes, debating helmet laws is a sidetrack. Commenters, it's just irresistible to get into these endless "Is not!", "Is too!" type of arguments, isn't it? 

The first and biggest problem of cycling safety is to avoid  mixing cyclists and two tons of metal travelling at great speed. After that is squared away, then I'd be all over a comment board war on the merits of helmets.

I'd support the City pushing hard for more infrastructure for cycling. And it needs to happen quickly, both because municipal politicians have short mandates, and also because with this type of project, you don't get, for example, 50% of the benefits if you've only built 50% of the project. You end up with lonely orphan bits of infrastructure which few people use.
 
 I'm not professionally vested in this issue in any way, but I am a resident of Vancouver who feels there's been a tangible dividend for me in what's been built in cycle infrastructure in the past few years. I'd like to hear more talk about this aspect of debate about bicycles in Vancouver. I'm a middle-aged guy with kids who is now able much more easily leave the car at home and cycle to work downtown. I truly have used the car less this year than last year. I can cycle with my kids downtown, and have done so to connect to Stanley Park. I've also cycled with them to movies and to (peaceful) Stanley Cup events last year. I am not a diehard, don't want to cycle in pouring rain, but I'm more likely than a couple of years ago to take my bicycle downtown for shopping or to meet a friend for drinks. It's not because this is now my cause and I've got religion—more like I don't like paying for parking and it feels better to start my work day with a ride than to sit on my ass in traffic. Most of this change for me is because of the changes made by the City in the past three years. It is tangible in both finances and quality of life, and is a dividend of sorts for the higher cost of living right in Vancouver. I think that further out in the burbs a family like ours would be a two-car family driving about 35,000km yearly. We're a one-car family driving about 8000km yearly. Without even getting into time spent, that's a real savings.
  
That's just a personal perspective, but I think there's all kinds of big-picture perspectives that make for the same conclusions - the city should bring on more cycling infrastructure, and should do it now.