Focusing on easy way-out; Helmet Laws for Cyclists

Should we discuss mandatory helmets laws instead of discussing how to improve our cities for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists

By Lucila Spotorno

@lucilaspotorno

This particular issue has been discussed for many years by a wide range of experts. As you can imagine, there are two opposite strands, those who are in favor of mandatory helmets laws, and in the flip side of the coin, those who are against. To be honest, I am not trying to do research about the effectiveness of these laws, first because I consider that there are many reasonable documents which explain both documents very well and secondly because I consider that it should not be the central discussion.

So, what I would like to show you is that the debate about mandatory helmet laws does not have any sense. Furthermore it is a waste of time that makes us not to think in long-term solutions. If governments want to reduce injuries, I am pretty convinced that the main solution is improving and planning cities for the safety of pedestrian and cyclists, we need to increase the number of cyclists. If we are becoming more and more, the debate about wearing helmets is secondary.

If we consider the case of Australia and New Zealand, two vehement countries that have introduced compulsory helmets laws to reduce head injuries, we realize that since the implementation of these laws, the number of cycling casualties has decreased, but it has also been accompanied by a significant reduction of cyclists.

I wonder what would happen if we had compulsory laws concerning the use of helmets and meanwhile government does not pay any attention to the safe accessibility and mobility of cyclists.

On the other hand, well recognized experts in traffic, mobility and cycling recommend not voting for bicycle helmets. Indeed, many European countries have already rejected bicycle helmet law proposals. Among them are the UK, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and Norway. 

A clear example illustrates this is the case of Denmark, along with the Netherlands, the world's safest bicycle nations. The number of head injuries keeps falling in Denmark and has been so since the 1960s. This is due to better infrastructure, traffic safety initiatives, the "safety in numbers" principle and people paying better attention. However, few people wear helmet. In fact, when I was in Copenhage I only saw children with helmet, and almost no adult. 

The emphasis is not on the use of helmet, but on the safety and on habitual cycling, and also on speed limits, borderlines, exclusive lines, education for cyclists, pedestrian and cars for their better cohabitation.

This does not mean I think that no one should wear helmets; I believe the choice of whether to wear a helmet or not or what kind of helmet to wear should be up to the cyclist. From my own experience in some circumstances I put on the helmet when I feel a bit unsafe on the streets, generally when I am not riding on an exclusive lane. On the contrary, when I feel confident and safe I do not feel the need o wear it and I ride without it. 

What we should do?

When we are dealing with something as important as public health and sustainable transport forms, the documentation has to be watertight. We need to increase number of cyclists and we can't do it with helmet legislation, but by creating better and safer conditions for the nation's cyclists.

We should, instead, discuss what kind of cities we wish to live in. If we wish to do something positive for safety, health and the environment we should arrange our cities so that they are safe for pedestrians and cyclists and we should give these groups priority in our planning.

Changing the model in the urban mobility

CITIES PLANNED FOR PEOPLE

by Lucila Sptorno

@lucilaspotorno

The phrase “Copenhagenize” is frequently used by the Danish urban planner Jan Gehl to describe his vision of how urban centres can embrace bicycle culture and urban cycling. Little by little, several cities around the world are recovering their public spaces and implementing plans to improve the movement of pedestrians and cyclists. Some cities are more concerned about this new vision of the model that promotes non motorized means of transportation and the accessibility to all the opportunities that the cities offers. By contrast, other cities are still addressing their traffic problems by increasing the capacity of road network in order to facilitate traffic flow instead of looking for mobility solutions. This article analyzes the change from the traditional model of urban planning, which places emphasis on cars, to the new concept in urban mobility that promotes non motorized transport like bicycles.

THE TRADITIONAL VISION OF THE CITY

The popular view, focused on the car, assumes that cities can expand and disregards the cost of the necessary infrastructure to support such pattern of mobility. The mobility pattern is based on the car without considering the negative costs of externalization like congestion, pollution, traffic jam, bad quality of life, health problems and accidents. Moreover, these negative effects are redistributed across all members of society, including those that do not have their own car.

By prioritizing this pattern of mobility based on motorized and private transportation, government and planners tend to implement measures concerning the traffic jam and the necessity of fluidity in the transit.

That is why some cities address their traffic problems by increasing the capacity of road network in order to expand traffic flow. However, this causes a vicious circle: more highways intensify the use of cars, thus increasing traffic jams and so on.

CREATING MORE LIVABLE CITIES FOR PEOPLE

On the contrary, cities planned for people are those who tend to recover public space for society.This model promotes non-motorized means of transportation, the construction of public paths, the incorporation of bicycles, and the accessibility to all the opportunities the city offers. This latter set of measures, already a reality in various cities around the world, greatly improves the conditions of urban life and brings about direct benefits to the quality of the local and global environment.

The new vision adopted consists of replacing private by public transportation, bikes, and pedestrian routes-all of them properly integrated. Non- motorized means of transportation improve the quality of urban life, reduce congestion, decrease local and global pollution, create small businesses, reduce traffic accidents and fuel consumption, and enhance public health. Among the gains more easily perceived, there are social benefits like the universal accessibility, the socialization and democratization of public space for every citizen.

A city planned for people emphasizes accessibility for everyone to move and to be connected with the city without class distinction; rich and poor alike have the opportunity of enjoying all the city has to offer. Moreover, it promotes equity and social inclusion. For instance, in rural areas the bicycle has given laborers the opportunity to extend their travel circuit and find jobs in towns and on farms farther away.

The bicycle has liberated women as well. There are no longer “men only" or "wealthy only" signs hanging on bicycles in the bike shops. Only a price tag with a number that is accessible to everyone.

Copenhagen pictures

A new model of city is possible and, by its nature, the bike is and should be the base of this revolution. There is clearly a growing problem of mobility in cities. It has been proved that the bicycle is the best, most sustainable alternative in cities with traffic congestion and also for short trips. A healthy conveyance that promotes a civic-mindedness, physical activity and, among many other benefits, does not produce pollution.

Non-motorized means of transportation imply more sustainable and livable cities where people can have access to equal opportunities. Moreover, it promotes democratization of public space and fosters accessibility for everyone, thus ensuring all citizens have the right to the city.