Mandating Safety

Opinions collide over helmet law

By Adam Stewart with reporting by James Walling

There was a time in the not-too-distant past when it was a little easier to get yourself hurt. The dangers of modern life were all there, of course, but it was still possible—advisable even, from time to time—to take risks.

As this city has grown and evolved, it has become progressively more cautious and has taken measures to shave the sharp edges off of life for Vancouverites. Needless to say, the edges are still a little too sharp to save any one of us from our own inevitability; but in the meantime, it’s a whole lot safer to live until we die.

The question is, just how safe do we expect life to be, and at what cost? Safety is important, and common sense is a fine thing, but at what point do both collide with limitations on our personal liberties?

These and other questions lie at the heart of the current conflict surrounding the implementation of a new ordinance that will require all cyclists in Vancouver to wear bike helmets, regardless of age.

The law (which was affirmed after a fourth public hearing on Feb. 25) also covers riders of other human-propelled vehicles, such as skateboards, scooters, and roller skates. Violations could result in fines up to $50.

The idea had been in consideration on and off for the past ten years, but it was the tragic death of a five-year-old cyclist last year that prompted community and council members to ask why there wasn’t already a law on the books.

The Clark County Youth Commission was assigned to research the issue, and came up with a proposal for an 18-and-under helmet law. After a reading and a public hearing, the law was adjusted to encompass all ages, an amendment which necessitated the Feb. 25th hearing.

Virtually all polled agreed that children should wear helmets, and that helmets are a sensible idea for bicyclists and other sports enthusiasts in general. However, passionate disagreement has erupted over the idea of amending the ordinance to include safety measures for citizens over the age of consent.

“I don’t think this is going to prevent people from riding without their helmets,” said Leah Jackson, a Vancouver resident and Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) member. While Jackson and her children always wear helmets when riding, she believes there are other actions the government can take to better ensure safety for cyclists.

“I think the real issue is the speed of traffic on the road and making it safer for cyclists,” she said. “I think [such concerns] would have a much bigger impact.”

“I think it’s beneficial to wear bike helmets,” said Jan Bader, program and policy development manager for Vancouver.

The mayor put it more bluntly.

“My view,” he explained at the Feb. 25th meeting, “is if we can save one child with this ordinance, if we can save one adult with this ordinance, then the statistics be damned.”

Mayor Pollard keeps a cracked helmet—a souvenir from a past spill—in his office.

While there is not as much debate on the safety merits of helmets, there are many in Vancouver who feel that it isn’t the government’s place to compel rider safety with city ordinances. Some feel the law would be a violation of individual freedom, and the wrong answer to safety considerations.

Chris Jochum, a local business owner, voiced some concerns about the motivation behind the proposed law.

“It doesn’t have anything to do with helmets,” she said. “It has to do with the role of the government and what they’re going to use our police and our tax dollars for.”

Jochum rides frequently around her neighborhood and wears a helmet only when taking longer trips. “I believe helmets are a good thing,” she said. “But I also think there are situations where I choose not to wear one, and I think that’s perfectly fine. I don’t think that a cop should pull me over and ticket me. It’s crazy.”

Many area residents have expressed fears regarding the potentially negative effects of the ordinance.

The BTA shared their concerns about riders becoming frustrated with the legal and financial obligations of wearing helmets, resulting in an overall decline in the number of cyclists on the road.

In an attempt to offset such costs, the Vancouver Police Department distributes free helmets and offers helmet-fitting clinics and bike rodeos during warmer weather.

The city has allotted a $5,000 budget for safety education—a reserve some feel will dry up all too quickly.

“That will go a long way,” Jackson said with no small degree of sarcasm. “If the goal is to get all of these children in helmets, I think there needs to be more programs. $5,000 is not going to go very far.”

Clearly, the new law seems almost as menacing to some cyclists as rush hour traffic, but officials argue police involvement need not be detrimental. Frequent offenders and those engaging in more dangerous activities (such as stunt-biking) are among the most likely to be stopped, according to police spokespersons.

According to representatives of the VPD, most encounters will likely be for educational purposes, particularly in the early days of the law’s implementation.

“What I envision [for] a first offense, the officer is going to warn them,” said Kim Kapp, of the VPD. “Our main focus is to educate them, to let them know.”

“Really, most people are very law-abiding,” said Bader, “and if they recognize that it is a regulation, they’re going to follow it.”

“I don’t foresee any issues,” said Officer Ryan Martin. “Once the information gets out there, I think people will be compliant, as they were with seatbelt laws.”

While riders may indeed prove to be generally compliant in the end, opposition to the ordinance was palpable at the Feb. 25th hearing.

“I am an avid cyclist,” explained James Bloom, Vancouver resident. “I log over 1,000 miles a year and I wear a helmet. I have a brother who experienced a head injury in a bike accident, and yet I am still opposed to this ordinance. Please don’t let the habits of a few burden or infringe upon the rights of the rest of us.”

To date, Council members remain steadfastly in favor of the ordinance.

“I was in favor of this ten years ago,” said City Councilwoman Pat Jollata, “and I’m in favor of it now.”

City Councilmember Pat Campbell proved the sole dissenting voice on the Council, which approved the ordinance with a vote of 5-1.

“We cannot keep everyone from killing themselves,” said Campbell. “I’m sure we could require runners to wear helmets and kids to wear life jackets when they walk along the river [...] I don’t want to live in a society where we’re hogtied.”

Time will tell how the cycling community here in Vancouver will respond and whether compliance with the ordinance will eventually become as ubiquitous as adherence to seatbelt laws. Whether or not a helmet ordinance is a significant infringement on our liberty is another matter. However, in the ever-shifting balance between public safety and personal liberty, the scales of justice have fallen decidedly in favor of prudence for now...within city limits, that is.