Open Letter to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee
September 10, 2009
Dear members of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee,
I am writing regarding councilor Walker's recent motions concerning mandatory helmet legislation and licensing of cyclists. There are a number of research articles that underscore the need to approach mandatory helmet legislation and licensing of cyclists with caution. I would urge councilor Walker and the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee to take this research into account before any decisions are made on this matter.
There are several recent research articles that provide a very good overview of the potential problems that can occur when mandatory legislation such as helmets and licenses are simply imposed on cyclists without the input and “buy-in” of the cycling community. Piet de Jong's 2009 article entitled "Evaluating the health benefits of bicycle helmet laws" and D L Robinson's 2006 article "No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets" provide very good overviews on this subject.
As these articles point out, when mandatory legislation is simply imposed on cyclists without engaging the cycling community first in order to determine how to design and implement the legislation effectively, the legislation can have the unintentional effect of significantly discouraging cycling. Sometimes this happens because it is too costly or inconvenient to comply with the legislation. In other cases, it may be because the legislation sends the unintentional message that cycling is an inherently unsafe and dangerous activity that should be avoided.
As this research demonstrates, poorly designed legislation can actually do more harm than good. Based on de Jong’s calculations, ill thought out cycling safety legislation may actually be counterproductive in terms of net health, and can also be very costly.
Furthermore, there is a growing body of research to suggest that poorly designed cycling safety legislation can actually make cycling less safe for cyclists. One of the best studies in this area is Jacobson’s 2003 article entitled "Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling". What this study points out is that the risk to cyclists is very much affected by what is known as the "safety in numbers effect". This "safety in numbers effect" is used by traffic researchers to describe the observation that the risk of an individual pedestrian or bicyclist being hit by a motor vehicle decreases as the number of pedestrians or bicyclists increases. The reason for this, according to Jacobson as well as many others, is that when there are more walkers and cyclists around, motorists tend to drive more slowly and more safely. For this reason, a badly designed piece of legislation which discourages cycling can actually make cycling less safe for the remainder who still ride their bikes.
Based on the research, I believe the "take home messages" for councilor Walker and the City should be the following:
1) Helmet and cycling license legislation needs to be approached with caution, since badly designed legislation may have significant unintended consequence of discouraging cycling.
2) Any legislation that does discourage cycling is likely to be counterproductive. Available evidence suggests that measures that discourage cycling (even unintentionally) tend to have a negative economic impact, as well as a negative impact of the net health of communities, and a negative impact on the safety of cyclists.
3) If the City of Toronto does decide to proceed with either mandatory helmet legislation, licensing of cyclists or both, there is an urgent need to ensure that this legislation does not unintentionally discourage people from cycling.
4) If the City of Toronto does decide to proceed with either mandatory helmet legislation, licensing of cyclists or both, it needs to engage the cycling community in order determine if and how the legislation can be implemented without discouraging people from cycling.
5) Given the potential risk that helmet and cycling license legislation may do more harm than good, it is essential that the City of Toronto incorporate an evaluation component into the introduction of this legislation. This evaluation component should look at both rate of accidents involving cyclists before and after legislation, and the overall rate of cycling before and after legislation.
6) If the evaluation concludes that the rate of accidents is worse after legislation or that the overall rate of cycling goes down, then the legislation should be repealed.
Respectfully yours,
Chris Cavacuiti BA, MD, CCFP, MHSc, ASAM, FCFP
Staff Physician, St. Michaels Hospital Department of Family and Community Medicine
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto
Co-Chair, Toronto Cycling Advisory Committee
Board Member and Director of Research, Share the Road Cycling Coalition
