Much to ponder over mandatory bike lids

By Mark Tonner, The ProvinceMay 10, 2009 Police officers become accustomed to being labelled. This month I find I'm wearing another, square on the forehead.Apparently I'm a "Liddite." An unthinking proponent of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.I'm not sure I'm done with it yet, though I am willing to think. Bicycle helmets don't offer genuine safety, according to the anti-lid set. Most bike fatalities involve collisions with cars, not falls onto hard surfaces. Helmets are rated for simple falls, not collisions at speed.The natural response, a call for better helmets, is said to be misguided. Studies on more robust motorcycle helmets show mandatory laws elevate crash rates, even cause fatalities. Something in a false sense of security is said to bring trouble, while an elevated sense of danger actually providessafety for the helmet-free.Helmet laws are said to cause perceptions of danger, making people afraid to cycle. Fear-driven preference for auto transport brings congestion, raises the risk to pedestrians, other drivers, and you guessed it -- cyclists. The fewer cyclists on the road, the more dangerous it is for those who do ride.Social engineers would have us trained from childhood, to want to ride, and to obey the law when we do. They'd have motor vehicles made to slow down and respect cyclists, rather than impose helmets on riders.It's no surprise to see anti-liddites pointing to the Netherlands. Drug liberals have been bowing that way for years, though the bicycling issue may benefit more clearly from Dutch insight. They restrict auto access to residential and shopping districts. They support public transit, subsidize cycling, and you guessed again, they don't insist on helmets.Almost half of Netherlanders pedal to work without helmets, yet the country has a uniquely low rider-mortality rate. They've addressed the real problem, as they see it. The cars.The extreme side insists that mandated helmets equal legislated fear. Auto manufacturers sell more cars when people fear cycling. Oil companies sell more fuel, helmet manufacturers sell to a market held captive by regulation and fear.Past a certain point, the anti-helmet manifesto reads like a Michael Moore script. Cigarettes kill 400 times as many people as bicycles, but smokers aren't made to use filters. Skin cancer kills ten times as many as bikers, but sunscreen isn't compulsory.Add an alien and we'd get David Duchovny back. For my part, I'll admit to being swayed. Police officers aren't lawmakers, but we're being asked to think carefully about enforcement of helmet laws as weather improves.The new Burrard bridge bicycle lane will provide some interesting moments, almost certainly. I can guarantee a major portion of bridge riders will be helmet-free. It's the same everywhere. A sizeable segment within the cycling community simply isn't buying into this law.I think about proposed bicycle exchange programs, with cycles available in strategic locations around town. Spontaneity would be entirely removed if one needed a helmet to take advantage.I think about the will of the community, both riders and drivers, and whether or not this law expresses majority beliefs. Is it time to reconsider? Let me know, at the address below.Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer, whose column appears biweekly in the Province. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police department or board. Mark may be contacted at [e-mail].© Copyright (c) The Provincehttp://www.theprovince.com/Cars/Much+ponder+over+mandatory+bike+lids/1582097/story.html