The Moyle View

Two days ago, a child was struck by a car on a city street – the second time an accident involving a child on a bike and car was reported in less than one week.  The boy was in critical condition on the day of the accident and we can only hope and pray that the young fellow will pull through.

The Spectator, in the second sentence of their report, tells us that “the boy … was not wearing a helmet”.  We are told nothing about his injuries or the impact, nor of the possible relevance of his not wearing a helmet.    Last week, when a child ran into a car (and was more-or-less OK), we were similarly told that the child wasn’t wearing a helmet, though there was no indication that he had head injuries.

For some twenty years now we have been hearing the loud and persistent (and in some cases legislated) mantra of “wear a bike helmet!” and it seems that we have come to feel that wearing a helmet is the beginning and ending of cycling safety.  So when a cyclist is in an accident, the first thing we ask is “was he wearing a helmet?”  And if he wasn’t?  Well, as absurd as it sounds at first blush, I believe that we have been conditioned to answer “well, I guess it’s his own fault, then.”

If the police and the media are serious about cycling and cycling safety, then they need to stop telling us about helmets unless it seems likely that not wearing a helmet contributed to an injury.  Otherwise, they are just perpetuating the “all that matters is that you wear a helmet” myth and implying that a helmet would have made a difference – and allowing us to draw the inevitable conclusion when the cyclist wasn’t doing that sole, important thing.

Stopped at the very-cute looking Domestique Café Cyclo-Sportif in Dundas for lunch today on my bike.  No bike racks; nor anything remotely convenient to lock up to.

I guess “cycle themed” is not the same as “cycle friendly”.  Disappointing