Copenhagenist talked about a new, likely tongue in cheek, ad campaign in their city suggesting that A Walking Helmet is a Good Helmet. Given the recent news in Toronto, it does make one think a bit.
In just a few days, a woman was struck and killed by a sidewalk-riding cyclist, and a sidewalk-riding cyclist was hit and seriously injured by a car outside Yorkdale Mall.
If one steps back a little, one could suggest that maybe both people needed a helmet (there was no discussion as to whether or not the cyclist hit outside the mall was wearing one but he suffered head injuries which either means they weren’t wearing a helmet or possibly they were wearing one and it may have saved them from a worse fate). But my point is not to suggest that bike helmets are a bad idea (I wear one) or that pedestrian helmets are a good idea (though statistics might suggest so). My point is that the common thread between these incidents was that they were likely preventable with better infrastructure and education. Cycling is dangerous because it has been engineered to be so by an auto-centric city design. And right or wrong many ride on sidewalks because of the perception that it is more dangerous to ride on the road (and in many cases outside the downtown core, I can see why)
The helmet is not the answer, but the question. What is it about cycling that is so dangerous and what can we do to make it safer? When a neighbourhood experiences a number of shootings we don’t lobby for requiring flak jackets in the area, we try to address the issue. Why does our culture look at cycling, an activity that shouldn’t be much more dangerous than walking through a neighbourhood, and decide to do everything but address the problem?
Recent Comments