![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldOf late in Toronto the issue of biking--bike lanes, bike etiquette, bikes as iconic of a particular view of city life--has been rather heated, so heated that rational discourse isn't especially possible. I've hopes that such is possible, mind, since it's something that we all need to do, whether cyclist or not.
To this end I thought I'd share two blog posts, each dealing with the matter of cyclist responsibilities. Both create convincing arguments that cyclists who care about their safety and other's safety--and by extension, with the reputation of their chosen method of commuting and recreation--should be subject to stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws and stricter regulation.
First is Andrew Barton's simply-titled post "Brain, Meet Helmet".
The second is a post from the Toronto Star's Cycling hub, an interview with a woman twice hit by cyclists who argues that cyclists should be subject to stiffer fines in the case of collisions. They and their bikes aren't as massive as motor vehicles and their drivers, but they still have plenty of kinetic energy.
To this end I thought I'd share two blog posts, each dealing with the matter of cyclist responsibilities. Both create convincing arguments that cyclists who care about their safety and other's safety--and by extension, with the reputation of their chosen method of commuting and recreation--should be subject to stricter enforcement of existing traffic laws and stricter regulation.
[U]nder Ontario law, all cyclists under the age of eighteen are required to wear a helmet - but for the last fifteen years, helmets have been mandatory by law for all cyclists in British Columbia. Doesn't stop 'em, though. It's not unusual to see someone zipping down the Dunsmuir bikeway with just some hair between their skull and the sky.
The letter columns in recent issues of the Georgia Straight have seen something of a back-and-forth regarding helmet use, and the Globe and Mail makes reference to Vancouver drivers "whinging on talk radio about bicyclists... who ride without helmets" in the context of the city's gradual transportation culture shift. Helmetless riding is something I noticed frequently in Toronto, though at least there people aren't breaking the law when they do it.
No, they're only running the risk of breaking their own heads. I ride with a helmet not because it's the law - to be honest, I had no idea helmets were mandatory in BC until this writing - but because I am not a moron. Incidentally, yes, I am totally intentionally implying that if you ride a bike without a helmet, you are a moron.
For me, it's simple arithmetic. Bicycles are potentially unstable frames that frequently share road space with speeding hunks of metal, the drivers of whom have been demonstrated time and again to just not register the presence of bicycles on the road, and if you hit something or get hit there's a good chance of your braincase absorbing the punishment. Personally, I think of my brain as important - realistically, since my brain is what I am; everything else are just mechanisms to allow the brain to interact with the world. I kind of want my brain to keep working for as long as it can. So when I'm on my bike I wear a helmet, so that if I take a spill or get rammed or whatever, there is something before that crunchy bone to absorb the punishment of impact.
I don't understand why more people don't see this sort of attitude in the same light as anti-seatbelt attitudes. It's the same damn thing, just expressed differently - people are making a choice to proceed with limited or no regard to their personal safety. I've seen letters in the Georgia Straight arguing that mandatory helmet laws discourage people from bicycling, but honestly, if a person could be discouraged from biking by having to wear a helmet, that smacks of utter laziness to me - and lazy people, I think, would not be able to stick with the program.
For Emily Niedoba, June 5 is pretty much a blank slate — she has no memory of being mowed down around noon by a 240-lb. cyclist who ran a red light at Yonge St. and Rosehill Ave.
“I don’t remember anything about getting hit — my last memory was being back at the gym having a shower,’’ she says.
The 31-year-old had been on her way home from a fitness gym when she was hit by a cyclist who was charged with failure to yield under the Highway Traffic Act. It carries a set fine of $150, plus $30 surcharge, upon conviction or guilty plea.
Not only is the fine for a cyclist running a red light “completely inadequate,’’ she says there is a need for regulating bikers.
What she would like to see are changes requiring all cyclists over the age of 16 to be licensed and carry insurance.
“They are travelling with velocity — they have the potential to cause a lot of damage,’’ says Niedoba who is considering a civil suit against the cyclist.
