A provincial law could make bike share impossible

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by IanS

Out of curiousity, do you know if the data concerning the number of cyclists using the Dunsmuir Street bike lane is available anywhere? I haven't seen it. I'd also be curious to know whether there is any data to suggest that the increase in cycle use on Dunsmuir Street represents an actual increase in the number of cyclists or simply more of the pre-existing cyclists using that route.

I've only seen indirect quotes, such as the one by city engineer Lon LeClair in this article: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...bike-lane.html

This is just anecdotal evidence, but in my travels on the Union Street bike route between Clarke and Main the numbers of cyclists look to have at least doubled since mid-June when the bike lane opened up all the way through to Hornby. That's the major east-west route, connecting downtown and cyclists on it used to split up in a few directions west of Main. So I take the fact that the number of cyclists east of Main has increased to be an indication that there are new cyclists using the route now that weren't before.

At the same time, the proportion of cyclists that used to bypass the Viaduct has gone way down, so some of the increase on Dunsmuir is doubtless due to existing riders shifting to that route.

[s211]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This seems like a pretty silly article to me. Of course if you pass a law then people are going to tend to follow it - no surprise there.

What I'd much rather see is some information that says whether or not helmets are actually effective in preventing or reducing injuries.

What I'd like to see is a real breakdown of the stats, and include the rise of cross-country and downhill mountain biking over the past few decades.

Betcha a zillion galactic credits that all this hype about injuries going up over time is totally related to more risky biking activity. Prove me wrong.

[tybuilding]

Bike helmet law premature

http://www.edmontonsun.com/comment/e.../15062636.html
We live in the age of the “easy answer,” of belief dominating fact, because everyone has an outlet for expression, no matter how hideously uninformed they may be.

It’s a real problem when it comes to respecting the balance between individual liberties and public safety and civility.

When the nature of a debate has become so muddied by personal and special interests, it’s usually a good time to step away from it and assess reality. A proposal for an adult bike helmet law in Alberta is one such example.

Much of what we learned about bike helmets growing up is no longer true. Accepted standards for helmet construction have changed multiple times, and even some of those certified by national safety bodies have failed miserably in testing to protect their wearers.

So we don’t really know which helmets to trust. One independent study showed the most common design of modern moulded helmet might actually be contributing to head injuries, due to the hard outer shell compressing the inner foam lining more quickly on impact than it takes for the lining to absorb the head’s impact.

It’s easy for the pro-helmet side of the debate to point to grotesque statistics, like the fact that there are about 70,000 bicyclist head injuries in North America every year. But as one U.K. statistician pointed out, you’re as likely as a pedestrian to be killed in a road accident as you are if you’re a cyclist.

There are a lot of injuries to cyclists, and there are lots of accidents between them and other vehicles. But very few of them actually result in fatalities.

So, as much as safety experts would like to follow the modern trend of framing civil liberties debates as simple black-and-white issues — witness the plethora of half-truths and outright lies associated with the anti-smoking industry, for example — the bike helmet issue is not resolved.

Comparisons with seat-belt laws are not apt. The reality is that mandatory belt laws are demonstrated to lower fatality rates in every jurisdiction in which they’ve been introduced. The same cannot be said of bicycle helmets.

Were they able to concretely provide some evidence not only that helmet laws work but that helmet standards are sufficient, this wouldn’t be a debate. The fact that it is means the word “mandatory” should come off the table.

[tybuilding]

http://www.theurbancountry.com/2010/...n-in.html#more

Photo courtesy of CycleStyle.com.au

This coming Saturday, fellow cycling advocate and renown documentary filmmaker Mike Rubbo will be leading a group of cyclists on a ride in Melbourne Australia to promote bike sharing on Melbourne’s new BIXI system “Melbourne Bike Share”.

Mike and his crew will ride in regular clothes to highlight how these urban sit-up bicycles need not require a change of clothes or special equipment to operate. Controversial however, considering Australia’s mandatory helmet legislation. But a ticket for cycling without a helmet is a small price to pay for promoting utility cycling in Australia.

Australia has a disorder that is unfortunately making it very difficult to make bicycles an accepted mode of transportation. Its mandatory helmet law creates a barrier to cycling, and its hunched over lycra-clad racing monoculture makes relaxed European sit-up cycling seem out of place.

Melbourne’s bike sharing scheme – as Mike likes to refer to as “Mixi” – can help treat this disorder. It can help make European sit-up style bicycles mainstream and encourage Australians to use a bike for transportation in regular clothes.

But Australia’s helmet law could prevent the bike sharing system from being successful. The primary benefit of bicycle sharing is convenience – you can hop on or off a bike at any time (or you can walk, or take transit, or drive or take a taxi without having to worry about leaving your bicycle behind).

But helmet legislation all but eliminates this convenience because you need to carry a bicycle helmet with you if you ever plan to hop on a “MIXI”. Suddenly this convenient bike sharing system isn’t so convenient anymore.

Furthermore, renting out helmets is not a realistic way to address this problem due to health and sanitary risk and the logistics would be complicated to dispense and manage helmets.

Thus helmet legislation has always been a wrench in the spokes when it comes to bike sharing. Vancouver, Canada is also challenged with the same constraints due to its mandatory bicycle helmet legislation.

Back in Australia, Rubbo is proposing an exemption to the helmet law for these sit-up style bicycles, and if his helmetless ride on Saturday garners some attention from the media, he just might be able to reach out to the politicians who can help with this cause.

Mike makes a strong case that bike sharing schemes are inherently safe due to the style and sturdiness of these sit-up bicycles. In Montreal, Rubbo says only 40% of cyclists wear helmets, while BIXI – Montreal’s bike sharing system - only experienced 5 accidents (none of which were serious) in the 3.5 million kilometres ridden in its inaugural year - according to a BIXI rep.

A helmet can offer some protection in low-speed collisions, but there is no denying that safe cycling goes far beyond anything a helmet can do. The safest country in the world to ride a bike is coincidentally one where virtually nobody wears helmets.

As Mike says, true cycling safety is under the wheels, not on the head - an obvious reference to great bike infrastructure. But it’s even more than that - it’s about smart, safe riding, education and social acceptance by people using other modes of transportation.

Helmet laws only create one more barrier to keep people from cycling – as if we don’t have enough barriers already.

If you are in Australia and would like to support this cause, meet Mike and the crew at 10AM on Saturday, July 24th at the Bike Share docking station on Melbourne University campus in Tin Pan alley.

[tybuilding]

No helmet for religious reasons? I found this silly article on http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/09...p-cycling.html

The Church of Sit Up Cycling

A resident of Vancouver, Canada has started a new church. The Church of Sit Up Cycling. Cycling 'enthusiasts' have long exhibited a passion for their hobby or sport that resembles religious observance. Now the realm of worship has come to the aesthetic art and act of regular citizens riding upright bicycles. We like this theological uprighteousness.

Reverend James Twowheeler is the 'nom de plume' of the church's founder. As stated on the church's website:

Wearing their normal work and play clothes is an essential religious practice of members of the Church of Sit-Up Cycling. This may or may not include wearing plastic hats.

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.

Reverend Twowheeler discovered a potential loophole in British Columbia's Motor Vehicle Act. British Columbia is one of the few places in the world that has all-ages mandatory helmet laws but there are exemptions from the law. Among them:

3 The following persons are exempt from the requirement under section 184 of the Act to wear a bicycle safety helmet:
- a person for whom the wearing of a helmet would interfere with an essential religious practice;

Among the individuals who could claim this exemption are Sikhs. And now, perhaps, the Church of the Sit Up Cycling.

It's all good fun and tongue in cheek. An attempt to separate regular citizens from the enthusiasts. Cycling in regular clothes and all that.


Funny idea, but it made me think back to a similar idea here in Denmark - and quite possibly elsewhere.

Copenhagen Lads is a fan group who support F.C. Copenhagen. A few years back they put in a serious application to the Danish Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs in order to have their fan group recognized as an official faith. Well, there was a certain irony to the application, but they gave it a shot. They ended up featuring prominently in theologist Povl Götke's book From Buddha to Beckham – Karisma and Suggestion in Spot and Religion. There is also a Maradonian Church / Iglesia Maradoniana with 100,000 members in 60 countries who worship the Argentine footballer Diego Maradona - of questionable Hand of God fame.


Their application made it past the first firewall protecting the application from crackpots but it was eventually rejected because they failed to describe some concrete criteria like wedding rituals and suchlike. Another recognized religion in Denmark is Forn Sidr, which is the pagan faith of the ancient Danes and the Vikings - The Asa faith.

Anyway... The Church of Sit Up Cycling? Why not? Reverend Twowheeler is of the opinion that since;

"I've been unable to come up a list of recognized religions in BC, this loophole seems wide enough to drive a truck through. Indeed the government seems most keen that citizens workship in whatever way they want". As per this website.

All praise the Sit Up Bicycle. I'm eagerly awaiting my annointment.

Feel free to brainstorm in the comments about what kind of rituals the Church could integrate into their dogma.

The Church of Sit Up Cycling has a website, a Facebook group and a Twitter account.

The Onion has an amusing article about Fictionology.

[BCPhil]

Is it just me, or is that kind of insulting towards the tradition and value of the turban for Sikhs? To come along and compare your new found hatred of wearing helmets to the turban seems completely ignorant.

One is a 500 year old traditional article of faith that represents honour, self-respect, courage, spirituality, and piety; the other is a crass, opportunistic attempt at not doing something you don't want to do because it slightly annoys you.

P.S.

As another analogy, it's like a 10 year old saying he doesn't want to finish dinner because Muslims are fasting for Ramadan, when in fact he's not trying to seek nearness to God, to express their gratitude to and dependence on him, atone for their past sins, and to remind them of the needy; but he just doesn't want to finish eating his peas and carrots. It's selfish instead of sacrificial.

[sacrifice333]

I don't think it's really a comparison. No one would think to do that.

The law was set up to accommodate Sikh's, but in doing so allowed for basically complete religious freedom. Religious freedom is the point. And that there's no strict definition of 'religious freedom'.

It just so happens that some clever peops have brainstormed on this loophole as their way to avoid the helmet law... and in the same manner... potentially give our purported bicycle share program a legitimate chance at success.

As a man of faith I say more power to them! I don't find this blasphemous but rather a clever way to sidestep bureaucracy.

[twoNeurons]

If it's the case, isn't declaring one's religion "Jedi Knight" on a census an insult to religion out there?

In any case, in my experience, I have met far more people with a distinct apathy for religion, even among those that consider themselves adherents.

[tybuilding]

I am actually a firm believer in wearing a helmet. I think I may have to wear one even for playing ball hockey in a gym (after breaking my nose for the 2nd time). I even believe they are a good idea for recreational riding on the seawall after I saw a guy do a header into the edge of the seawall path 2 weeks ago when he bumped his friend beside him. He was ok besides the cuts to his hand hand his eyebrow. I gave him my first aid kit.

I hope that the bike share program will be a success and if I was to participate in it I would bring a helmet with me or keep another one at my office or car or whatever. But this forum discusses the helmet law and its possible complication to the bike share program so if I find an article about it I forward it and I don't necessarily believe in it. Churches like this are really a joke and no one should take them seriously.

In reality though it seems to me that in some places maybe only 50% of people wear helmets. People not wearing helmets are also very likely to be biking on the sidewalk even though this is a dangerous place to cycle with vehicles suddenly leaving properties on hidden driveways. Again cycling infrastructure should feel safe for ALL people to ride and there needs to be education to give people confidence to ride (something that should be taught to all kids in school) and be offered by the cities in free courses for adults.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Is it just me, or is that kind of insulting towards the tradition and value of the turban for Sikhs?

I certainly didn't take it that way - I took it more as a swipe at the law and loopholes in general. I suppose if I sat down and thought about it awhile I could come to the conclusion that it's a comment about religions and Sikhs in particular, but I prefer not to do that. Just as I wish others and their religions would be tolerant of me, I prefer to be tolerant of others and I generally try to them the benefit of the doubt.

[duener]

I wonder how this could possibly play out. E.g. guy rides a bike without a helmet. Cop tickets bike rider. Guy claims that as part of his religion he can't wear a bike helmet.

I guess it would have to go to court to be worked out. Surely age doesn't define what a religion is, because I can think of some like Scientology were only started recently.

At the same time couldn't anyone just claim to be Sikh if a cop tried to give them a ticket? What makes someone a member of a religion? attendance at a ceremony? certain dress? having certain beliefs?

It's an interesting can of worms...

[WarrenC12]

Sikhs don't have to wear motorcycle helmets, so I'm pretty sure that's an easy call.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I certainly didn't take it that way - I took it more as a swipe at the law and loopholes in general. I suppose if I sat down and thought about it awhile I could come to the conclusion that it's a comment about religions and Sikhs in particular, but I prefer not to do that. Just as I wish others and their religions would be tolerant of me, I prefer to be tolerant of others and I generally try to them the benefit of the doubt.

That is the definition of Ignorant. Not trying to be insulting, but really, that is the technical definition of the word.

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective
1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy"

You can't get more ignorant than intentionally trying to avoid thinking about how you might insult someone's faith. I'm really trying to not be insulting, and I'm not saying you are racist or stereotyping in anyway, but that posture is lacking awareness and empathy for other peoples feelings and a lack of knowledge of their traditions and its significance, and a lack of desire to better you knowledge and awareness about the situation.

I'll admit that I don't know everything about the turban, and am ignorant to it's deeper meaning to Sikhs and many of their other traditions, but I would never compare their spiritual belief and daily routine to my unwillingness to do something (basically) trivial.

A loophole is like using an exploit in a Healthy Choice promotion and amass a million frequent flyer miles by buying large quantities of pudding. Or, using your credit card to buy US Dollar coins for $1 with free shipping from the mint, then taking the coins to the bank to get dollar for dollar back what you paid and using the money to pay off your CC bill before you get interest, thus getting free air miles.

This is an exemption in a law that allows people of faith, who make personal sacrifices to show and follow their faith, to continue their traditions. Comparing that level of personal commitment to an annoyance with wearing a helmet, is insulting towards their tradition, and to the spirit of the law.

Is not wanting to wear a helmet because it's annoying on the same level as the commitment it takes to wear a turban every single day? That's what's being implied, that both are equal. It's a lack of respect for their religion, and for the law and our process.

If people want to argue against helmet laws based on an individual's complete freedom of choice, then that's fine, there is a debate there; but comparing one side's desire at an easier life to other people's faith and devotion is not done in good taste.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Is not wanting to wear a helmet because it's annoying on the same level as the commitment it takes to wear a turban every single day? That's what's being implied, that both are equal. It's a lack of respect for their religion, and for the law and our process.

Sounds like you think people should have differing rights based on which particular guy-in-the-sky they choose to believe in. That's a much more expansive definition of respect than I subscribe to.

I'm personally bothered by the notion of rights being dependent on beliefs, so I'm all for this workaround. Nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

You can't get more ignorant than intentionally trying to avoid thinking about how you might insult someone's faith.

My point is that I don't go out of my way to take offense at things that other people do or say. I find it hard to believe that someone would take offense at that.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Sikhs don't have to wear motorcycle helmets, so I'm pretty sure that's an easy call.

Yes, well that's because they wear turbans. It's pretty clear that Sikhism isn't trying to avoid helmets per se, they're maintaining their right to their traditional religious headwear.

Unless you come up with a religion that requires you to wear silly-arrows-through-the-head of the sort that are incompatible with bike helmets, I suspect you're going to be out of luck.

[tybuilding]

I found another article about the helmet law, it gives its history so it is fairly interesting. Keep in mind that I support wearing helmets (I do every day) but I think it could have implications to the bike share program which I really hope takes place, helmet law or not.

http://www.richmond-news.com/health/...978/story.html

[tybuilding]

An article in the 24 about the UBC bike share: "Helmets, finances issues in UBC bike share plan". I can't find this one online.