129 cyclists were killed in Ontario, Canada between 2006 and 2010. The Chief Coroner for Ontario has just
released a thorough investigation of them,
and come up with findings and recommendations that have lessons that
are applicable everywhere. Significantly, the first and most important
one is for Complete Streets. Before I start looking at the broader
reccommendations, I have to note that all the local headlines are
screaming "Ontario Coroner calls for mandatory helmets for cyclists".
Herb at Ibiketo writes:
The
media has latched onto the helmet recommendation like it is the magical
talisman that will solve all that harms cyclists. Drivers won't have to
change anything, it's all up to the cyclists!
Except
that the report didn't call for mandatory helmets, it is a nuanced recommendation that calls for helmet laws "within the context of an
evaluation of the impact of this legislation on cycling activity," which
is a very different thing. But more on this later.
What's an Accident Anyways?
Right at the start, the coroner notes that there is no such thing. It
is important to note that deaths resulting from cycling collisions,
just like motor vehicle collision deaths and pedestrian deaths, are not
“accidents” in the sense that all of these deaths were
predictable, and therefore
preventable.
Surprising statistics
The
vast majority of cycling deaths were male (86%) and more than half of
the cyclists killed were over 45 years old. Peak time of day was between
8:00 and 10:00 in the evening. in 83% of the deaths, conditions were
clear. Only 4% of deaths happened during periods of poor visibility.
So
those most at risk appear to be boomer men riding in the evening, not
the usually blamed hipsters riding through stop signs in rush hour.
The
great majority of the accidents involved the cyclist being hit by the
bumpers, hood or windshield of cars. The coroner infers from this that
"the majority of collisions took place when the driver was attempting to
pass the cyclist." Clearly, there is an issue here of sharing the
road; the great majority of accidents are cars hitting cyclists, not
cyclists hitting cars.
Trucks
In fully half of the 18
deaths where the cyclist was killed by a truck, "In half of these, the
cyclist impacted the side of the truck, resulting in the cyclist being
dragged, pinned or run over by the rear wheels."
Helmets
In
71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which
caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head
injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death.
Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less
likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of
injuries.
Whose Fault is it?
The coroner found that
cyclist's behavior contributed to 71% of the accidents, through
inattention, failure to yield, or disregarding traffic signals. Drivers behavior contributed to only 62% of the accidents, mainly by speeding,
inattention or failure to yield, but the coroner suggests that this is
possibly a significant under-representation of the facts because, by
definition in this study, the cyclists are all dead and can't defend
themselves.
Recommendations:
Significantly, the first recommendation, without qualifications of any kind, is for complete streets.
The
concept of ensuring that cyclists could share the road safely with
motor vehicles and other road users was a prevalent theme. Literature
was reviewed that emphasized urban design principles that were
inclusive of all road users, not just motorists. In the United States,
the term “complete streets” has been coined to describe such principles.
In such a model, a variety of strategies are used to ensure the safety
of all road users. Such strategies include cycling networks (segregated
or non-segregated bike lanes; bike paths), and other means to permit
safe access for all road users, including vulnerable road users such as
cyclists and pedestrians. Other strategies include low-speed “community
safety zones” in residential areas with increased fines for speeding.
Formal Recommendation:
A
“complete streets” approach should be adopted to guide the
redevelopment of existing communities and the creation of new
communities throughout Ontario. Such an approach would require that any
(re-) development give consideration to enhancing safety for all road
users, and should include:
• Creation of cycling networks
(incorporating strategies such as connected cycling lanes, separated
bike lanes, bike paths and other models appropriate to the community.)
•
Designation of community safety zones in residential areas, with
reduced posted maximum speeds and increased fines for speeding.
Side-guards on Trucks
The findings from our study indicated that half of those cyclists
killed in collisions with heavy trucks impacted the side of the truck,
where side guards could have potentially prevented or deceased the
severity of their injures. Because of this, the Panel supported the
recommendation for the introduction of mandatory side guards on
appropriate heavy trucks.
Mandatory Helmets
Here,
the report is very careful to note the controversy over mandatory
helmet rules. In fact, it is one of the best summaries I have seen of
the discussion about helmet laws. I quote a lot of it because it is
important:
There were three general arguments advanced
against mandatory helmet legislation….The first related to the
potential for mandatory helmet legislation to decrease the overall
number of cyclists. Proponents of this view cited the experience in
Australia, where the introduction of mandatory helmet legislation was
associated with a drop in cycling activity. Some research exists which
suggest that the health benefits of helmets may be outweighed by the
detrimental effects on overall health in the population through the
decrease in cycling activity in jurisdictions where helmets have been
made mandatory.
The second argument against mandatory helmet
legislation relates to the view that government may see mandatory helmet
legislation as “the answer” to cycling safety, with the result that
other measures recommended in this Review (improved infrastructure,
legislative review, education and enforcement activities) are
de-emphasized or not acted upon.
The third point raised by members
of the Expert Panel is that helmets are, indeed, the last line of defense and of value only after a collision has occurred. Instead of
mandating the use of helmets, it was argued that efforts should be focused on preventing the collision (through strategies such as
improved infrastructure and expanded public awareness and education
programs) – in other words, if one prevents the collision, helmets
become unnecessary. In addition, some stakeholders felt that mandatory
helmet legislation sent the message that the responsibility for safety
rests with the cyclist alone, rather than being a shared responsibility
of all road users.
While there may be differences of opinion with
respect to the value of mandatory helmet legislation, the key message to
all Ontarians is simple:
Helmet use by all cyclists in Ontario should be encouraged and supported.
Notwithstanding
the varied perspectives on helmet legislation, the Office of the Chief
Coroner for Ontario takes the position that helmet use by all cyclists
can and will decrease fatal head injuries. We feel that this is
supported by the findings from this Review, and as such are recommending
to the Ministry of Transportation that the Highway Traffic Act be
amended to make helmets mandatory for all cyclists in Ontario. In
recognition of the controversy that surrounds the issue of mandatory
helmet legislation, both within the Review’s Expert Panel, and in the
cycling community as a whole, this recommendation indicates that the
implementation of such legislation should occur within the context of an
evaluation of the impact of mandatory helmet legislation on cycling
activity in Ontario.
Now that is a
nuanced response, showing that the Coroner certainly is aware of the
issues, and given the statistics on the number of deaths that might have
been prevented, I am not certain he could have come up with anything
else. There are other conclusions; wearing headphones is not a
good idea (possibly contributing to 21 deaths) nor is drinking and
riding (possibly 30 deaths) or riding with shopping bags on your
handlebars or heavy backpacks on your back.
In the end, the
coroner's report pretty much calls for what cycling advocates have been
calling for: Better infrastructure, complete streets, paved shoulders on
highways and side guards on trucks. Everybody is complaining about the
helmets without actually reading the report, which is why I include so
much of it here. Ride safe!
I know there's controversy around separated bike lanes—they're expensive, and it'd be preferable if we could "accomplish the same thing just by
squashing this ridiculous notion that cyclists are somehow “second
class” road users." But the fact is, they work. My friends who don't
bike in New York almost always cite safety reasons. I don't blame
them—I've nearly been clipped by swerving sedans plenty of times. To get the average citizen
interested in biking, it has to seem like a safe, easy proposition.
Posts
