The Gazette received an email recently from a reader, upset that he had been issued a ticket for breaking the bicycle helmet bylaw. This reader has started a one-man campaign to get the St. Albert bylaw rescinded.
While winter is on the horizon and cycling season, for the vast majority of riders, will be over for many months, one suspects this campaign may not be. Which is unfortunate for a number of reasons.
It never ceases to amaze medical people how supposedly intelligent adults can have so little respect for their own brains, for their own health and for the future of their families.
Why is it that parents will put their children into suits of armour — helmets, elbow and knee pads, gloves, etc. — to protect them from any little injuries while refusing to protect themselves? Sure, each rider considers his or herself a safe, efficient cyclist, but what about those others on the paths and roads who are not?
Many of us St. Albertans have walked, ran and/or ridden the Red Willow trails and know there are a number of dangerous corners where one has no idea what’s coming from the other direction. So the risk is there. Why heighten the risk by not wearing protection?
This 48-year-old individual says he worked as a professional entertainer and part of his act involved riding an eight-foot unicycle while juggling fire, without a helmet.
Good for him. He did so under controlled circumstances, likely with no one else in the immediate vicinity to worry about. His only danger was his own abilities. Such is not the case when riding a bike on trails or streets.
St. Albert may be the only location in the country where bike helmets are mandatory for adults, but is that a bad thing? Of course not. Common sense dictates we should want to protect ourselves from serious head injuries. And that means protecting ourselves from others.
This bylaw making bike helmets mandatory for adults is not dissimilar to the use of helmets for hockey, skiing and snowboarding.
When helmets became mandatory in hockey back in the late ’70s, few players welcomed the change. It turns out the rule makers were right: helmets are saving players from serious head injuries.
There was huge opposition to any suggestion of making helmets mandatory on the slopes. But helmets became acceptable as skiers and snowboarders came to realize the issue was not about their own ability, but their protection from others who either do not possess similar skills or simply ski or ride in a reckless manner that puts their safety at risk.
No matter how great one may be at a chosen sport — including cycling — accidents do happen. Who would have thought a minor hockey coach, who for the most part is not involved in scrimmages or hard skating drills, would die because he fell and hit his head on the ice? Or that an expert skier, stopped on the side of the slope, would become an paraplegic when hit by a snowboarder flying out of the trees?
Yes, there are statistics out there suggesting helmet laws haven’t made a significant difference in head injuries and others that suggest the laws deter people from riding. Well, as many a sporting coach has said: statistics are for losers. Anyone can play with statistics to serve their own purpose. And if someone wants to give up doing something they enjoy just because they have to wear a helmet to protect their brains, well that’s just sad.
And if they ride without a helmet, well, they should make sure their insurance is paid up and their family is prepared to deal with the possible consequences.
City council should stay away from reviewing this bylaw. It has far more important issues to deal with.
