I’m not surprised that many people aren’t big on mandatory bike helmets; it’s a big inconvenience to wear a helmet when it’s 35 degrees outside. In fact, it’s so uncomfortable that I sometimes consider shaving my head in summer to get some kind of relief.
But here’s the issue: bike helmets can prevent brain injury and death. Unfortunately, we just had a death of a child in this province that probably could have been avoided if a helmet had been worn. The problem with the argument of “common sense” is that common sense doesn’t actually include knowing just how powerful an impact a fall from a bicycle can bring. It’s the same situation with booster seats; we aren’t all born with an inherent sense that seat belts aren’t designed for young children.
So in my mind, the best way to ensure that children are wearing bike helmets as often as possible is to make bike helmets mandatory for children. If expansion of the project to provide children from lower income families with free helmets is necessary, it should take place as well. Adults could be left to decide on their own, although it’s a bad idea for a parent to demonstrate to their children that helmets are only for kids.
The strangest thing about the NDP government in Manitoba is that with bike helmets and booster seats, it is felt that an education program is the right course, while a bill has been drawn up for consideration that fines people who interfere with service animals in any way.
Offence — person interfering with service animal
2(1) No person shall touch, feed, impede or interfere with a service animal, without lawful excuse or authority.
Offence — person allowing animal to interfere with service animal
2(2) No person who owns an animal or has possession or control of an animal shall allow that animal to touch, impede or interfere with a service animal, without lawful excuse or authority.
Penalty
3 A person who contravenes section 2 is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction
(a) for a first offence, to a fine of not more than $5,000; and
(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than $10,000.
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/bills/39-3/pdf/b238.pdf
This is different than laws such as that in the state of Wisconsin:
Act 353, Casey’s Law, creates new crimes related to the harassment of service dogs and requires a person convicted of harassing a service dog to pay restitution for any pecuniary loss, as defined in the act, suffered as a result of the crime. The act defines a “service dog” as a dog that is trained for the purpose of assisting a person with a sensory, mental, or physical disability or accommodating such a disability (Section 951.01 (5), Wisconsin Statutes).
The new law allows any person to provide notice to another person that his or her behavior is interfering with the use of a service dog and to request that the behavior stop. The notice may be given in any manner. After receiving that notice and request, a person may not recklessly or intentionally interfere with the use of the service dog by obstructing or intimidating the dog or otherwise jeopardizing the safety of the dog or its user. In addition, the act prohibits recklessly or intentionally allowing one’s dog to interfere with the use of a service dog. Recklessly interfering is a Class B misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment for 90 days or both. Intentionally interfering is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for 9 months or both. If a person recklessly injures a service dog or recklessly allows his or her dog to injure a service dog, he or she is also guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Under the act, a person who intentionally injures a service dog or intentionally allows his or her dog to injure a service dog is guilty of a Class I felony, which is punishable by a fine of $10,000 or a sentence of imprisonment and extended supervision for 3.5 years or both. Recklessly causing the death of a service dog is also a Class I felony.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/pubs/Lb/06Lb8.pdf
The difference here is not just the wording but also the spirit of the Manitoba bill vs. the Wisconsin law. The Manitoba bill means that if my daughter runs over and pets a service dog she’s guilty of the same offense as a person who kicks a police dog. If my daughter pets a service dog and the handler of that service dog asks that she stop, and I allow my daughter to continue, that in my mind constitutes willful interference. But that’s not how the Manitoba bill reads.
In theory, the legislative process is supposed to allow for improvements in the text of bills such as this before they can be passed into law and given royal assent. We’ll have to wait and see if this law is improved upon before the Premier decides to pass it.
Meanwhile, Liberal bills for mandatory booster seats and mandatory bike helmets were not even considered by the NDP government. There was no discussion of improving the bills, or of compromise… that’s not how Mr. Doer runs his province.
I think the best way to demonstrate the odd approach of the NDP is to quote a comment writer on the Free Press website:
Posted by:ErikW
June 10, 2009 at 7:04 AM
“Healthy Living Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross said during Tuesday’s debate the province wants to opt for an education campaign to encourage all cyclists to wear a helmet. The province also hands out free helmets to many low-income children.”And yet the NDP has no problem introducing a bill to make a first time offender pay up to $5,000 for interfering with a service animal?
Let me get this straight: an education campaign aimed at getting kids to wear helmets would work, but an education campaign aimed at informing people about the dangers of interfering with a service animal would not work? I admit I don’t have the statistics, but I suspect there are fewer injuries incurred when a service animals is interfered with than there are from children being hurt while riding bicycles.
It would seem that injured children need a better lobby group within the NDP.
I’m not opposed to the passage of an appropriate and properly-written bill for the protection of service animals, and if proper amendments were made such a bill could be a good thing. But it is ridiculous that for service animals legislation was chosen without education even being considered, while for child safety education alone is considered the only reasonable solution by the NDP.
What’s next? Perhaps the NDP should tell MP Joy Smith that she ought to change her federal human trafficking bill: rather than a five year minimum sentence, people who buy and sell children should just be forced to attend a weekend seminar, complete with instructional videos and a framed certificate of completion. That should stem the tide.
I think that the mistake being made is assuming that this boy died from a head injury. Thought that seems likely, so far that hasn’t been reported as being the actual cause of his death.
That being said, he was hurt in his own backyard, not on the public street. I don’t feel helmets should be mandatory, it should be up to the indivudals to choose. One case of someone getting killed in circumstances we aren’t sure of, and making the leap to mandating kids wear helmets when they are on bikes 100% of the time, even in their own backyard, that is the definition of a knee jerk reaction.
//the best way to ensure that children are wearing bike helmets as often as possible is to make bike helmets mandatory for children//
I disagree. The best way is for their parents and peers to be good examples to them.
@Freedom: CBC did report that the parents are convinced that the helmet would have saved him, but it’s not official at this point.
I suppose this disagreement is based on the fact that I am willing to lessen the parent’s freedom to choose whether or not their children wear helmets, while you are willing to lessen the child’s freedom from bad decisions by parents (I assume, of course, that such legislation would work, which is not assured). I doubt our respective positions will ever change.
//CBC did report that the parents are convinced that the helmet would have saved him//
Yes, I saw that update.
//I am willing to lessen the parent’s freedom to choose //
I think that the problem here is that you assume that making a law changes behaviour, and that is generally not true, but it will punish people for not adhering to it.
I think that a law can change behaviour for a reasonably large number of people if it’s a law that is deemed by those people to make sense. It obviously depends on the law and on the person. I think it’s hard to argue that there are not significant numbers of parents who would start to enforce helmet use for their children simply because legislation is put in place. You could argue that you don’t believe that parents should be swayed by the dictates of the government, but in reality, many parents are.
Regan – I wear my bike helmet and I shake my head when I see a family out for a ride and the kids have helmets, but not the parents. I often wonder why parents think they are immune to brain damage from a head injury.
My issue with mandatory helmet laws is that it will give some people a false sense of security – both the bike rider and people walking or driving near cyclists. If the helmet is not fitted and worn properly, then the helmet is of little value. I often see people with helmets on incorrectly.
I don’t think mandatory helmet laws would save lives because I don’t believe that people who don’t wear helmets now would take the time to correctly fit their helmets or ensure they are being worn correctly.
@Colleen: I can certainly understand your concern about the lack of education on properly wearing bike helmets. It’s true that an improperly worn bike helmet is effective only half as often as a properly worn helmet, but that is still significantly better than no protection at all. Mandatory legislation would function as part of the overall education campaign, and I think it would be a good idea to bring bike helmet safety into schools at regular intervals.
It’s true that there will always be people who just throw the helmet on because they don’t want a ticket, but I don’t think that should discount from the people who will take this safety issue seriously once the government makes it clear that helmets aren’t a nice option, but a necessity.
I suppose I feel that persuasion is better than force. Making a mandatory bike helmet law (including while people are in their own backyards!) requires a penalty for breaking that law, and that is a threat; I don’t think it’s nice to threaten people.
Persuasion, education, influence; much better for making lasting change since people would choose it rather than be forced to do it.
People would wear seat belts whether there was a seat belt law or not, the evidence shows that. In New Hampshire for example, where there is no seat belt law, has as much seat belt use as neighboring states. 30 years ago that might not have been the case but time changes people; most often the laws come after a practice is already being adopted by the public.
The politicians do it to make it look like they’re doing something, it’s theatre.