Tacoma Repeals Bike Helmet Law

 As readers of this blog know all too well, once a bicycle helmet law has been passed, it is next to impossible to have it repealed. Law makers wipe their hands of the concern, blame is now on the bicyclists, so they simply will not discuss it. That is why any repeal of such a law is a reason for celebration. So sound the horns and lift a glass to Tacoma, Washington - well done! Read the story here.

Malta Repealed Bike Helmet Law as Incentive for More Bicycling

Just two days ago, the transport ministry of Malta announced their repeal of their mandatory bicycle helmet law as part of a package of incentives to increase bicycling. This is fantastic news, not only because it adds Malta to the growing list of places repealing these harmful laws, but because Malta’s officials have recognized the harm their helmet law had caused. This makes Malta an excellent example for other places – cities, regions, and nations – also considering repealing their mandatory bicycle helmet laws.

Monday’s article from Times Malta highlights this helmet law repeal and lists other incentives the government is taking to increase bicycling. The article starts:

A series of initiatives to encourage the use of bicycles was announced on Monday by Finance Minister Edward Scicluna and Transport Minister Ian Borg. Listed among them is the removal of the obligation of using a bicycle helmet, especially when renting pedelecs.

Read the rest of the article here.

Sweden Is Moving Beyond Vision Zero and Helmets

I’ve never liked the concept of Vision Zero. This program, started in Sweden twenty years ago with the goal of preventing all deaths in traffic, seemed to me to set the stage for heavy handed safety initiatives. I could just hear the shouts justifying unjust laws, “If it saves one life, it will be worth it!” This is a common justification for mandatory helmet laws. And Vision Zero seems to create a perfect footing for it.

So you can imagine how impressed I was when I read about a new initiative coming from Sweden that not only recognizes such concerns about Vision Zero, but offers a far more effective approach, including steering away from mandating bicycle helmets. Here is the summary of their key points:

According to the Swedish Traffic Safety Council for Active and Sustainable Mobility the main tenet of Moving Beyond Zero is that the active element of cycling should be included within the road safety/public health discourse. This has these key elements:

1. The socioeconomic models that dictate our infrastructure investments must begin to take into account illness prevention and increased life quality provided by active mobility.
2. The Transport Agency must be tasked with increasing active mobility. It is unacceptable that the Swedish Vision Zero national plan for cycling begins and ends with helmet promotion and lacks national cycling goals. Cycling is currently not mentioned in the Transport Authority’s mission statement nor in the national transport plan.
3. Sweden needs a Vision Zero that saves, improves, and lengthens lives. Modern environmentally sound and healthy transport planning has to create a vision for a more active and healthier population.
4. The Council calls on the Swedish Minister for Infrastructure Tomas Eneroth to develop a new goal for traffic and health that looks beyond Vision Zero. A new goal should lead to traffic that saves lives and improves quality of life in addition to reducing traffic fatalities and injuries by promoting active mobility in the form of cycling and walking.

Read the rest of the article here: Moving Beyond Zero.

Sue

Portugal Drops Mandatory Helmet Study Following Public Backlash

By Mark Sutton at cyclingindustry.news

27 April, 2017

Portugal’s Government has dropped exploratory plans to introduce a mandatory helmet law for cyclists on the back of strong public opposition.

Launched to public consultation over the Christmas break, cyclists responded by organising a march through Lisbon, while over 500 written objections landed with the Road Authority.

Evidence based on studies of countries that have employed mandatory lid laws have largely resulted in a vast decrease in cycling levels, somewhat counteracting the aim of the legislation. (See the base of this piece for more on that)

Almost simultaneously a public petition calling for better conditions for cyclists on the roads surged past 10,000 signatures. On the back of this a meet with the Minister of Internal Affairs in parliament is now to take place with representatives from various Portuguese cycling and road safety organisations set to press cycling’s case for safe infrastructure provision. By law, the discussion has to take place and in theory should now provide legal results for improving active travel conditions, reports the ECF.

Ceri Woolsgrove, the ECF Policy officer on the Portugal victory; “Excellent lobbying activities in Portugal has seen some great results for cycling safety and promotion. Dropping the mandatory helmet proposal will remove a barrier to the uptake of cycling and the new road code will improve cycling safety. It is to be applauded that the Portuguese public authorities have listened to public pressure and cycling associations. We sincerely hope that this dialogue continues in order to improve cycling safety in the future, particularly regarding vehicle speeds which are a major road safety factor and are being reduced throughout Europe.”

Portugal saw Europe’s largest drop in road deaths between 2010 and 2015, delivering a 37% drop, some 20 points higher than the average 17% decline in cyclist deaths. Bicycle use has been steadily increasing in the region in recent years.

Aside from cycling levels, Portugal’s reputation as a heartland for industry manufacturing got a shot in the arm recently with the news that Fritz Jou will set up a manufacturing plant. 

Why helmet compulsion very often has undesired effects:

• Helmet compulsion in Australia and the negative effect on numbers cycling. The compulsion law came in during 1991 and numbers immediately dipped.
• Motorists more at risk of head injury than cyclists, says study.
• Senate told to remove mandatory helmet laws as they’re harming cycling.

Link to original article

Bosnia and Herzegovina Repealed Their Bicycle Helmet Law!

With the recent repeal of their mandatory all-ages bicycle helmet law, Bosnia and Herzegovina has become our best model for similar efforts. Congratulations to all their citizens and visitors for the return of the freedom to ride bikes normally, without a helmet.

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws undermine efforts to increase bicycling by making bicycling seem more dangerous than it is, then putting the blame on cyclists if a crash does occur. If we expect more people to ride bikes, these laws must be removed from the books. Such repeal efforts usually seem impossible because of the emotional, overblown rhetoric that caused their passage in the first place. Mexico City is one rare example of a successful total repeal. Israel is a partial example by repealing at least the adult portion of their law. But there were no nationwide total repeals. Until now!

Join with us in celebrating this important victory by forwarding this post and reposting the press release from the Centre for Environment, pasted below:

Repeal of obligatory bicycle helmet law in Bosnia and Herzegovina

After six long years of campaigning for the abolition of the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets in Bosnia and Herzegovina the Centre for Environment welcomed the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on traffic safety on the roads of Bosnia and Herzegovina. With exceptional joy and pride we can confirm to all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina that they can now choose whether or not they want to wear a safety helmet. We would especially like to thank Mr Zoran Andric from the Ministry of Communication and Transport of Bosnia and Herzegovina who proactively informed all stakeholders as well as gave us opportunity several times to explain our facts and figures that were against obligatory bicycle helmets. The conduct of the representatives from this ministry during the public hearing process and decision making is a model for all public institutions. 

Tihomir Dakic, Transport Program Coordinator at the Center for Environment: "This is a major step towards greater and easier promotion of the use of bicycles as a means of transport. It returns the focus from reducing the consequences of crashes, to minimizing the causes of traffic crashes. Since 2006 until now cycling was incorrectly presented as a dangerous activity. In fact the health benefits of the daily use of the bicycle outweigh the traffic risks by around 20:1.  Now it is up to the local communities to pay more attention to the traffic regulation, demotivation of the use of motor vehicles, promotion of healthy ways of movement and reducing air pollution. We invite all those who stopped using the bicycle due to the helmet law to return to it, to respect traffic rules and enjoy all the benefits that cycling provides. "

Milenko Dzever, Associate for roads and licenses at the Agency for Traffic Safety of the Republic of Srpska: "On behalf of the Agency we welcome the changes to the Law, and we wish to note that Article 102 does not prohibit the wearing of helmets, but gives the choice to people whether they want to use it or not. Of course, we recommend that children wear helmets until they master riding a bicycle well enough. So far the old article of the Law discouraged bicycle use, and it should be the opposite, to discourage users of motor vehicles, especially in urban areas. Since the motor car is still seen as a status symbol in our country about 80% of trips are made by personal motor vehicle. This urgently needs to be changed. By investing in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure for the local community we will significantly improve traffic calming, increase the level of traffic safety, which in turn will significantly improve the health of people and economic development of local communities".

About changes in the law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they said:

Ceri Woolsgrove, expert on traffic safety, the European Cyclists Federation, Brussels:

"European Cyclists Federation (ECF) believes that cyclists should be able to choose whether to wear or not to wear helmets and reflective vests. We do not agree with the mandatory use of helmets and reflective vests. We welcome the excellent work of the Centre for Environment, a member of the ECF that highlighted this important issue representing the interests of cyclists to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cycling is not an overly dangerous activity and brings tremendous health benefits for individuals, and has a positive effect on the environment and society as a whole. Defending cycling in all its forms, helmeted or non-helmeted, is important to the development of cycling and the use of all its benefits. We welcome the work of the Ministry of Communications and Transport for allowing citizens the freedom to choose their clothing with which they want to ride a bicycle. We also expect that the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina contribute to facilitating the development of safer traffic, especially for cyclists and pedestrians".

Sue Knaup, Executive Director of the international association One Street, Prescott, Arizona, USA:

"Bosnia and Herzegovina has set an important precedent with this repeal. Any law that mandates the wearing of helmets or other articles, criminalizes the use of bicycles as an efficient and affordable means of transportation. We at One Street applaud this important repeal and look forward to showcasing Bosnia and Herzegovina as a model for jurisdictions ready to remove their own unjust laws against bicycling."

Before the campaign started the paragraph about bicycle helmets in the Law adopted 2006 was:

“Article 102

Riders of bicycle, bicycle with a motor, light motorcycle or motorbike and persons transported on those vehicles must wear protective helmets while riding.“

During these years the police rarely fined cyclists, but they started to lobby to integrate better definition of bicycle helmet wearing as well as impose reflective vests.

Then police and transport safety experts lobbied for defining it further to protect cyclists and Ministry of Communication and Transport changed it in 2010 to this:

“Article 102

Riders of bicycles, mopeds, light motorcycle, motorcycle, tricycle, light quads or quads and persons carried on those vehicles must properly use safety helmet while riding, and in the period from dusk to complete dawn, as well as during the day in case of low visibility, cyclists must use reflective vest.“

This was the moment in which we started to investigate all Laws on traffic safety from different countries and soon we found out that we were “The worst”.

We spent countless hours and days over six years lobbying with no funds, only huge enthusiasm and energy to repeal this most serious negative impact on cycling promotion.

Then, with the help of the authorities noted above, this was the result of our struggle:

“Article 102

(1) The rider of a moped, light motorcycle, motorcycle, tricycle, light quads and quads, as well as persons transported on these vehicles must carry on his head buttoned protective helmet.

(2) The rider of the bicycle during the period from dusk to complete dawn, as well as during the day in case of reduced visibility, they need to use reflective vest or reflective appropriate equipment that provides adequate visibility of the rider or the bicycle.”

We succeed to exclude the word “bicycle” from paragraph (1) and the protective helmets became history. Meanwhile in paragraph (2) we added second part after reflective vests to allow a choice of ways for making us, cyclists, more visible and with more comfortable accessories.

For more information contact Tihomir Dakic at tihomir.dakic{at}czzs.org or visit Centre for Environment's website at www.czzs.org.

#   #   #

Bike Helmets Least Effective for Safety

Today's article on Tree Hugger jumps on a ridiculous bike helmet ad by the American Auto Association (always good for botching bicycle safety).

The great thing about this article is that the author offers a far better way to look at bicycle crash prevention--construction zone safety. Here's an excerpt:

"...So on a construction site one makes sure that there are safe routes, protection from dangerous equipment, picking up the crap and keeping everything in good order, and lots of fencing to keep people who are not construction workers away from those who are. Then there is education and training of the workers, strong enforcement of the rules, and good maintenance of the tools..."

Nice insight.

But whenever I read an article about bicycle helmets, even if it starts off showing how ineffective helmets are, I wait until the end to rejoice. For some sick reason, authors of articles that expose the truth about bike helmets, tend to wrap them up with a guilt-ridden paragraph or two stating their ingrained opinion that cyclists still should wear a helmet no matter what the facts show.

Not this one! To my joy and relief it ends with this:

"...If the American Automobile Association was really concerned about cyclist safety, it would be telling its members to slow down; it would be supporting the installation of bike lanes even though they might lose a driving lane here and there; they would work to get people out of giant pickup trucks and SUVs with big flat fronts that are disproportionately deadly, and they would support Vision Zero campaigns. But instead we have this."

How refreshing.

Read the article and enjoy!

Aussie Fund for Helmet-Free Cyclists

Seems like Australian bicycle advocates are gaining some momentum in their fight against their mandatory bicycle helmet law. I posted about a potential overturn of the law last summer in my post called Australian Mandatory Helmet Law Challenged. That decision has been deferred until June 2016.

But that doesn't mean it's nap time for the advocates fighting the law. They've started a fund to pay the fines of cyclists ticketed for riding without a helmet. Here's their intro to their fundraising page:

"Help us make bicycle riding normal in Australia again.

In the early 1990's Australia introduced an all ages, nationwide ban on bicycle riding without a helmet.
The result on normal bicycle riding has been devastating. Thousands of everyday people simply stopped riding. Only sport cycling has survived.

It's now 26 years later, and despite a mountain of evidence against mandatory helmet laws , the Australian government has never actually evaluated the effect of the law and the ban is still in place..." READ MORE

Take a look and drop them a donation to keep their spirits up as they wait for that next big challenge to their unjust law.

Australian Mandatory Helmet Law Challenged

Readers who have followed bicycle helmet initiatives over the years will be familiar with the Australian law. Australia and New Zealand are the only two countries with all-ages, fully enforced mandatory bicycle helmet laws. These laws have been central to arguments opposing proposals for similar laws because of the evidence showing significant reduction in cycling after the law was enacted.

Well, after many years of calling for a repeal of their law, some Australian bicycle advocates are thrilled to announce that it is being seriously challenged. I received the below call to action in my inbox last evening. I’m not sure if non-Australians are welcome to respond, but if you are Australian, please submit your response by August 24^th. Also, please forward this on to any Australians you know.

It’s been a long, dull slog to this point, but suddenly your action could make an enormous difference!

Sue

The Australian Federal Senate has appointed a committee to inquire into “Personal Choice and Community Impacts”.  The Inquiry, instigated by Senator Leyonhjelm, is better known as the Nanny State Inquiry.  The committee is currently seeking submissions from the Australian community.

Senator Leyonhjelm has singled out mandatory bicycle helmet laws as the foremost example of where the State exceeds its proper bounds by interfering in a matter that should be left to the individual.  It would be a pity to miss out on this opportunity to be heard, and to influence government policy.

I understand that many of our supporters may be reluctant to become involved, on account of political differences with the inquiry’s instigator.  It must be pointed out that this is a Federal Government inquiry, and that Senator Leyonhjelm’s role is as a member of the committee, and that it is not a vehicle for any particular party or point of view.

My understanding is that the committee do not want to restrict discussion to submissions from the usual health and safety professionals. Rather, they are seeking a broader input to include members of the public who can bring before them an understanding of the impact of a range of “nanny state” regulations on their day to day lives.

I know that many of our supporters have the knowledge and skills to include detailed analysis of the many failures of our mandatory helmet laws, and I would encourage them to include this in their submissions.  But please, if you are just someone who has been put off riding a bike, fined or harassed by the police and the courts, or are just plain upset by the dead end path that mandatory helmet laws have taken us down, please make your voice heard.

The closing date for submissions is 24^th August.  There will be some opportunities to be heard in person by the committee in all State and Territory capitals in the ensuing months. It would be best to make it clear in your submission if you wish to be invited to appear in person. Details of how to make a submission are at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice

Thank you for your support.

Alan Todd
President, Freestyle Cyclists