City
Ride of Silence
Take Critical Mass (which the organizers of this event - at least on their webpage - don't seem to be aware of) and mix with a funeral procession. The result? The Ride of Silence, a 15km slow ride across the city to commemorate fallen cyclists around the world.
Started in Dallas in 2003, the Ride of Silence has since spread across the US, and has begun to make inroads across the world. Aside from the desire to remember cyclists hit and killed by motorists, the ride also aims to raise awareness of cyclists and to remind vehicular traffic that the roads deserve to be shared safely by all. Laudable goals that anybody can support. I wasn't there though - I wasn't allowed.
In a move that can only be described as foolishly divisory, the ride organisers chose to exclude anybody who doesn't own a helmet (and presumably those who own one, but feel safer without). It is a policy which fails on all counts.
If the goal of the ride is to attract the largest group possible, banning those without helmets cuts them off from huge swaths of the riding population - and even greater numbers in Europe and Asia, where few if any cyclists wear helmets. If the goal of the ride is to demand that the streets be made safe for cyclists everywhere, then the ban sends a poor message; cyclists are not safe until they no longer feel the need to wear body armour just to get to work. It is the countries with the safest riding history, and the most cyclist-friendly public policies where helmet rates are lowest. To send a message that cyclists need helmets is to score a goal for the motorists who likewise believe that cyclists belong on the sidewalks.
This is not an appropriate message.
Nevertheless, the notion of rememberance is a good one. If you really want your heartstrings pulled, do visit the memoriam page of the Ride of Silence - and when you're looking at it, vow to yourself to bike or drive safely. It's a big road, but we all need to share it.
Discussion
8 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
I get that the above is more an argument in favour of helmets than in support of the group's stand here, but I think their point is that if you're going to try and get people to take your safety seriously then maybe you should take it seriously. Does that follow? Maybe not, but I'd be interested to see the statistics on preventable head-injuries. I wonder if there an advantage on the margin such that channelling some of the recent grief into cyclist-centric safety programs would produce a greater return, in lowered injuries, say, than just focusing on (long-overdue) side-guards?
Why don't you own a helmet, btw?
Plus, I can't find a helmet that will fit over my hair.
You say helmets are unnecessary, as if they have no positive benefits (which would anyway be balanced by the negatives of increased road rash, etc.) Do you think the protection is illusory? Or that situations which benefit from a helmet never occur? They seem to occur, as people fall off their bikes, and it's not the case that they always avoid their head. Even if they occurred rarely, head injuries are pretty serious and 'unnecessary' seems pretty dismissive.
I think at some point you're going to have to cite something, because even if road rash injuries increase with helmet use I'd want to see what the rates of all injuries were (deaths are deaths, but a large blow to the head beats an abrasion.) Merely claiming that the people in the Netherlands don't wear helmets, yet are safer, doesn't say much since they have the kinds of safer riding conditions that this event was calling for. The question is whether or not they would be even safer with helmets, and whether or not we'd be safer given our situation.
I don't want to have to wear 'body armour' if it's only to protect against reckless drivers, but even if helmets are only useful against cars (which is dubious) are you saying that I should make the first move?
anyway, please don't make this event into a debate. it is about remembering cyclists who have been killed in traffic.
every day i ride i fear i could be next on that list.
I did not wear a helmet. No one by law
over the age of eighteen is required to wear one in this province. It's a small, slow ride. I hoping to keep an informal ride in terms rules, etc.
Last year we had 60 riders, this year
despite the afternoon thunderstorms.
I hope you'll come out to the ride next year. No helmets required.
You can view photos of the ride here. Ride on.
http://bikelanediary.blogspot.com/2006/05/ride-of-silence-photos.html
Good on you for organizing the ride. I wasn't aware that the Toronto ride had diffent rules than the official ride - I got my information from the website, which states it clearly that riders without helmets are not allowed.
I'm glad you're not enforcing that - probably best to publicise it though. ;)
Seatbelts and anti-lock breaks are very different things from helmets, which if you take yourself out of rhetoric mode, I'm sure you'll see.
Take a look though at sports for another example. When players wear more protection, they are willing to take more risks - I don't have any webstats at hand, but you're free to use google if you want to.
Also, please remember that I've never advocated that you mustn't wear a helmet, or that a no-helmet policy be mandatory. Only that those who choose not to wear helmets be respected equally, and not made to sit out from a memorial for fallen cyclists. That should hardly be controversial.