HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
REGISTERED NURSES' ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
CONTENTS
Monday 2 December 1991
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 124 / Loi de 1991 modifiant le Code de la route, projet de loi 124
Windsor Bicycling Committee
Ontario Medical Association
Barry Fitzgerald
Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Neil Farrow
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Substitutions:
Cunningham, Dianne E. (London North PC) for Mr Arnott
Duignan, Noel (Halton North NDP) for Mr Dadamo
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP) for Mr Wood
White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP) for Mr Waters
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1541 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Resuming consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 124, Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
The Chair: Good afternoon, people. It is 20 minutes to four and we had better get started. There are people here who have been waiting since 3:30.
We are dealing with Bill 124, Mrs Cunningham's private member's bill, which has been referred to this committee. I would again note the presence of Dave Edgar, special assistant to the Minister of Transportation, Mr Gilles Pouliot, and also present is Mike Weir who is a safety policy officer at the Ministry of Transportation. You will recall that reference has been made to the fact that the Solicitor General finally replied to the letter to him from the committee requesting that ministry's comments. The Ministry of Transportation, of course, has been represented every day this committee has met.
The Ministry of Government Services wrote to the committee expressing a position, notwithstanding that one had not been solicited from that ministry. Interestingly, such ministries as the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which one would think would have a strong interest in this legislation, have not. Perhaps they have misplaced the letter that was sent to them, but if they have, then so has the Ministry of Health which one would think would have a strong interest in this legislation, as would the Attorney General, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, although to be be fair, the latter's parliamentary assistant, Dan Waters, has been here at each and every hearing.
I believe I speak on behalf of all the committee when we express our concern that these ministries were contacted some time ago and have not deemed this matter important enough to comment on. I believe it is a particularly troubling thing and I hope that when the whip's office reads the transcript from this afternoon, it might light a fire -- not literally, but figuratively -- under some of these people.
WINDSOR BICYCLING COMMITTEE
The Chair: We have, as the first participant in this afternoon's hearings, Mark Buckner, speaking for the Windsor Bicycling Committee. Mr Buckner, welcome. You have 30 minutes. I ask you to keep your comments restricted to no more than 15 minutes so there is plenty of time left for people to ask questions and engage in dialogue with you.
Mr Buckner: I will try to be as brief as possible, Mr Chair.
I represent the Windsor Bicycling Committee, which is appointed by city council in Windsor, Ontario, to represent the concerns of cyclists, to try and develop safe cycling facilities and to encourage the use of bicycles as a form of transportation.
A bicycle use development study was done for the city of Windsor and this is what we are using as our handbook to develop that plan. Wayne Lessard was a former chairman of our committee and was instrumental in getting this passed.
However, as you can see I have a written document here -- I hope everyone has a copy. Part 1 of that is the motion we passed at our committee opposing this bill. It says although we strongly support the use of bicycle helmets and we strongly encourage their use, we do not feel we can support this bill at this time. The original was actually amended to read that we do not support mandatory bicycle helmet legislation.
We did not add anything else to the motion itself, but the letter in part 2, which I wrote to the Windsor Star at the time, pretty well outlines our position, and the committee felt we would endorse this letter as the basic outlines of our position.
I will go on to part 3 which is just a list of questions that were brought up by members of the committee, by cyclists, by store owners and other people interested in this. I will just go through them as questions and a few suggestions. We do not have a list of resolutions attached to this or anything because basically at this time we are just opposed to this bill. However, we do have lots of things to say about how we would encourage helmet use and bicycle use.
The first thing to say is that helmets do nothing to prevent bicycle accidents. Of course they help lessen injuries and in some cases prevent injuries, but they do not prevent the accidents. We have to prevent the accidents from happening. That is one thing.
One of the problems is, we do not have complete or accurate statistics on bicycle accidents and the causes of them out there. I have some statistics here that the Ministry of Transportation presented at its review of the bicycle policy; however, these statistics are limited to crashes between bicycles and motor vehicles as reported on police accident reports, so they are very incomplete and they do not give the whole picture.
One of the reasons for that is that under the policy that exists right now in the Ministry of Transportation, bicycles are not considered an important part of transportation policy. They really do not keep statistics on them except where they are involved in accidents with motor vehicles. The reason we need those statistics and need to study them is to pinpoint the causes. Where are these accidents happening? How are bicycle accidents being caused? In doing that, then we can direct our enforcement efforts and our education efforts at the actual causes of bicycle accidents rather than at what may be perceived to be the causes, or just a scattergun approach.
I have added some appendices at the back here, some statistics, and I will give one example. These are old statistics and they are US statistics. The first one is taken from a Ministry of Transportation document and the second one from a book called Effective Cycling by J. Forester who is one of the experts on bicycle transportation.
In the first one we see that 37.8% of fatalities occur when a cyclist is hit from behind. However, says Forester, that is really a small percentage of the actual bicycle accidents. The biggest fear among cyclists is being hit from behind, which I think causes a lot of people to ride the wrong way down the road. I am sure you have all seen cyclists riding against traffic, and what they say is that they are afraid of being hit from behind.
Forester says that is not really a big problem except in a couple of areas: one is rural roads and the other is after dark. When you put the two together, rural roads after dark, you get a particularly deadly situation, and that is where a lot of the fatalities come from.
We have a law on the books that can address that. Although there is a law in Ontario that requires lights on bicycles, it is very poorly enforced. If that law were enforced, it would go a long way towards preventing that particular class of accidents. That is just an example of some of the things that can be done if we identify the actual causes of bicycle accidents, injuries and death and if we go out and direct our efforts towards those.
Another thing is, we could pass this law requiring helmet use, and a year from now studies would be done which show that head injuries and deaths have dropped dramatically, and that could prove the law is working. On the other hand, it could just be proof that there is an equally sizeable drop in the number of bicyclists on the road. The problem is I do not think we have the statistics now that will let us really figure that out for sure.
It is very hard to measure bicycle ridership and it is not generally done in traffic studies. I know it is not done in Windsor at all when they do traffic studies. You can measure bicycle sales, but that is no measure of ridership because we know most bikes remain in the garage because people are afraid to ride them. What I am saying is, do we really have the statistics, the numbers to tell us, to be able to study this law to see if it is working?
The other thing is, what are the actual injuries that are happening? I am sure we are going to hear from people who are going to have lots of statistics on how many head injuries there are, and I do not deny for a minute that they are horrible and there is an awful lot of them, but what other injuries are there? Do we know? Do we have the statistics in the cases where there are other injuries besides head injuries, and would the wearing of a helmet have prevented these injuries in a lot of cases? That is a hard thing to know, and of course we are never going to know that completely, but these are the kinds of things that I do not think we have a complete picture of.
1550
I will move on to the next thing which sort of comes out of that, and that is enforcement. I think everybody knows that the existing laws we have regarding bicycles are very poorly and selectively enforced. I pointed out the one about lights, but lots of other things, running red lights and riding the wrong way, I see all the time. I see police sitting there watching people do that. They are very poorly enforced.
There are a couple of things there. If we enforce those laws it could help cut down on the number of accidents. But if the bicycle helmet law is enforced in the same way, I think it is worse than not having a law at all, because if it is widely disobeyed and poorly enforced, it is going to be much harder for us as bicycle advocates to ever get people to wear a helmet and to take it seriously. If it is just a law that is scoffed at, they are going to say, "Why should we wear it just because it is a law?"
Of course if this were deemed something that was really needed in Ontario, that we needed that helmet law, we could make sure it was enforced universally, in other words with a police crackdown. But that involves lots of police, time and money, and do we really have that money and those resources. Is there really support among the public for taking those resources away from other things, especially in light of the rising crime rates that we are seeing now and the limits on police budgets? Are we really going to be able to reallocate those resources?
I also think it is probably going to take more time for the police to enforce a law like that than some of the other ones we have, even motorcycle helmet laws, just because there are so many bicycles. Because of the nature of what we are dealing with, policemen have admitted privately to me that they do not feel the law will be enforced or they do not know how they are going to enforce it. Publicly, police spokesmen say they will enforce it, but they of course know it involves a political will to do that. What I am asking is, is that will there? Is the government going to allocate all the money that is needed for police resources in order to see that this law is enforced?
If it is only enforced selectively, then it has the problem of becoming discriminatory. A lot of cyclists have expressed to me that they feel the police use the bicycle laws to hassle them and to discriminate; only certain people get stopped. That is a perception, but I am afraid that if this law is not universally enforced, that could add to that perception of just another way of hassling people. Other cyclists have expressed the cynical view, "Where is the money for these fines going to go?" It is just going to go into the general fund. Meanwhile we have been asking for money for bicycle facilities and bicycle education and there has not been much forthcoming.
As I said, I think the important thing is encouraging helmet use, and there is a lot of work to be done there and that is where we, as citizens' groups, can fit in. We have tried to do some of that. We have had the bicycle shops in Windsor start a discount program for helmets or offer discount coupons. We have really got to encourage people, but is a law really the best way to encourage them, especially when we are involving children and teenagers? If we brand them as outlaws at a young age, it can make them resent the law and make them rebellious, or the other thing, just give up on bicycle riding.
The problem with that of course is, what are they going to do if they do not ride bicycles? They are going to drive cars in a large percentage, and that is one of the problems. Car accidents are epidemic. A lot more people have head injuries and deaths in car accidents. Of course bicycle use is not going to end all that, but I think it can be a significant factor as a transportation alternative. We really have to encourage bicycle use as an alternative to the problems of cars: pollution, energy waste and all that. If this law causes a large number of people to give up on bicycle riding, I think it is not doing a good thing.
The cost of helmets has been brought up. They are expensive. Low-income people are the people who are more likely to rely on bicycles as transportation. If they have multiple children whom they have to buy helmets for, that is going to be a major cost and also might cause them to lose this form of transportation and not be able to ride bicycles. Helmets have to be replaced as children grow. Also, many bicycle helmets nowadays are designed for one use. In other words, if you land on that helmet once, you have to throw it out and buy another one, because it has been cracked or it is no longer good. That is a very hard thing to try to enforce.
We will not be able to enforce that. People are going to wear those helmets even after they have been cracked, just because of the cost. Some people will. There is a liability question there. Perhaps someone is in an accident and is wearing a helmet that has previously been damaged and is injured because of it. What is going to be the liability?
There is also the question of liability for someone not wearing a helmet. If he is in an accident, is it automatically going to be the cyclist's fault. Even if it is not fully his fault, is he going to be found negligent just because he was not wearing a helmet? Perhaps the helmet might not have played any part in a particular accident. Also, will insurance companies deny coverage because a person was not wearing a helmet? These are all questions that have to be looked at. I do not know what the answers are or if we have even got answers. I think there is a whole can of worms there that has not really been studied.
Bike store owners and retailers have expressed fears to me that people have talked about proposals to regulate the cost of helmets or that they have to sell a helmet whenever they sell a bike. They are really afraid of that. There are a whole bunch of problems with that, and they do not want to see it regulated. They believe people should have the choice if they want to buy a very expensive helmet or buy a helmet separately.
It all gets down to education. We need public education. We need public awareness campaigns for helmet use, but also to encourage bicycle use. We need public awareness campaigns on bicycle safety to make people aware that there are bikes on the road, that they are vehicles and that they have a right to be on the road. We are going to see more and more of them. Also, I think we need campaigns to encourage bicycling as a transportation alternative, one that is inexpensive, does not pollute, does not waste energy and promotes fitness and health.
Education is part of it, but we need training for cyclists. We need effective programs that are going to teach cyclists the rules of the road and how to ride in traffic. They have to start very young, whether it is in the schools or outside of schools. We also need education for motorists to be aware of cyclists, to understand that bicycles are vehicles and have a right to be there, as I said. Bicycling should be part of the driver training. Part of the car driver training should teach people how they are supposed to react when they come upon a bicycle on the road and to understand what their rights and responsibilities are.
I think if we have a helmet law that does not include any of these provisions for education, that does not deal with it, it is like having a seatbelt law without having driver training, as I said rather rhetorically in my letter. It is like hoping that if we just put helmets on everybody and let them go out there, the helmets will save some lives. I think we have to try to prevent accidents. We have to make the roads safer, and I think that involves education first and foremost.
The last thing I have on my list of concerns, which I have touched on before, is the encouragement of bicycling as a really serious transportation alternative. The new mayor of Windsor said that in his campaign. And we are talking about an automobile city here. He believes that bicycles can play a serious role. We are working to get facilities so that can happen. I think we have only really scratched the surface of how much a bicycle can be used and how much it can do.
The Ministry of Transportation is reviewing its policy on bicycles. I spoke in front of that body a couple of times. We have not seen what is coming out of that, but part of that review was encouraged by Metro Toronto and by its traffic congestion and all the problems that cars cause. There is a real need to cut down on the amount of traffic that involves cars and motor vehicles. They identified cycling and walking, along with increased transit, as very important goals. I think cycling can go a long way towards solving some of these problems. We really have to encourage cycling.
Bicycles are not going to replace cars completely of course, but one of the things they can really be used to replace a lot are the short trips like running to the store or going down to the corner. All those short trips are the ones that cause the most pollution and most energy waste. Bicycles could go a long way towards replacing those trips.
In talking to cyclists, and in some studies that have been done, it does not take very much to discourage someone from riding a bike. The smallest factors can be enough to say, "Forget it, I will take the car." I think a helmet is a major social change in Ontario and one that is not widely accepted yet. I think that could really discourage people from riding a bike. Some will give up on cycling for ever, because it is not a priority with them. Others will just say for any given trip: "Oh, I have got to put my helmet on. Forget it, I will take the car." I think it is really a loss if that happens.
Are we just trading off short-term savings now? We are going to reduce the number of injuries in the short term, but what are we causing in the long term with our continued reliance on the automobile, in terms of pollution, in terms of the horrendous number of traffic accidents, in terms of wasting energy use, all those factors that automobiles cause?
1600
That is the kind of thing we are trying to promote as a citizen cycling group. That is the kind of thing we are working towards. We do not feel that this bill, as it is now presented, is going to help our cause at all. Sometimes I think maybe it would easier just to say: "Pass the bill. It will get all those people off the road that are riding the wrong way, causing us all the problems. Then we can go on with the other ones." But unfortunately, those people, when we get them off the road, are going to be driving cars, and they are going to be hostile to us out there riding bicycles. They are going to make our job all that much harder.
We understand it takes a lot of hard work. We are the people that are going to have to do it, the cycling people. We are going to have to get out there and do the work on the education campaigns, the encouragement campaigns, developing programs to encourage helmet use, and we are willing to do that work. But I do not think this law is going to help that at all.
I would like to see a whole package on bicycle transportation come out, together with all these things involved: education, encouragement, programs to encourage helmet use, and hopefully some way of paying for building bicycling facilities. I hope it would come out of the policy review that is happening in the Minister of Transportation's office. I would like to see this forthcoming from this government, but at this point we cannot support this bill.
Mr Lessard: I want to thank you for making the trip to Toronto to testify for the committee. Mr Buckner, I know you probably were not able to ride your bicycle here.
Mr Buckner: No, and I was not able to bring it on the train either.
Mr Lessard: I want to thank you for acknowledging the name of the chair of the Windsor Cycling Committee in the past, but I should point out that I was not the chair at the time the resolution was passed that you put before the committee here today. I was there, however, when the bicycle use development study was made that you referred to in your presentation, and I wonder whether that study made any comments with respect to enforcement of the rules of the road, or with respect to the use of helmets.
Mr Buckner: It did. It definitely encouraged the use of helmets and said that they should be worn, that they save lives and are a good idea. It did not specifically come out one way or the other on a helmet law, but it definitely did dwell a lot on encouragement, on programs to encourage people to wear helmets. Some of those programs involve things such as I talked about, getting retailers to offer discount coupons, rebates from manufacturers. These things are happening in various places.
There are courses offered, like the Can-Skills bike course offered by the Canadian Cycling Association or effective cycling courses as described by Mr Forester whom I quoted earlier. We could tie some of those courses in with helmets, perhaps even convince helmet manufacturers to donate helmets, so that when a child completes one of these courses successfully, the reward is a helmet. The helmet is seen as a reward rather than a punishment, or something that they just have to wear because it is a law. That is the kind of thing the study recommends and the kind of thing we want to do as a committee.
As for enforcement of some of the other bicycle laws, once again we as a committee can work with the police on this to identify areas that are really causing problems. We could, for example, have a week where we announce that the police are going to be looking for people without lights.
We as a committee do the education work, the public awareness campaigns, to encourage people to have lights. The police are the ones that are going to be out there enforcing this law. But we work together, so it is not seen as a heavy-handed police crackdown, but rather as something that cyclists are promoting and encouraging. With helmet use, I think it is very important that people see this as something we as cyclists want you to do, rather than something you have to do because the police tell you to.
One problem is that if this law just comes in without that work being done beforehand, then we get to be the bad guys. "You are the guys that made us have to wear a helmet." It makes our job all the harder to try and encourage bicycle use, to try and encourage these kinds of things, to encourage the people who make the choice to make it safe.
Mr Cleary: First, how many years has your committee been in place? Second, are you encouraging bicycle paths, bicycle routes, bicycle trails in the Windsor area?
Mr Buckner: Yes, we are. We have a whole system mapped out for all those things, bike trails in parks, bicycle routes that would be signed on the roads as recommended routes and bike lanes where there would be lanes on the road. We see a role for all those things and we are encouraging them. As for how long the committee has been in existence, I think it is seven or eight years. Is that correct, Wayne?
Mr Lessard: Five.
Mr Buckner: Five. I thought I went to meetings before that. Anyway, the actual committee has existed for five years as an official committee.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Buckner, I wanted to thank you as well for attending here in Toronto and appearing before us. I agree with you wholeheartedly when you say that we in this province have not yet begun to fully explore the potential of bicycling.
You said that making helmets mandatory would discourage bicycling. I gather your evidence was based on your experience in the community and speaking with people. To your knowledge, has there ever been any kind of a poll taken or any kind of a scientific assessment of whether people will or will not buy their bikes if they are compelled to wear a helmet?
Mr Buckner: Not specifically on that question. There are very few scientific polls taken on anything to do with bicycling. I know I have seen, I believe in the book by Forester, a list of people's reasons for not cycling in general. They range the gamut, very minor things some of them, that people perceive as large obstacles to not cycling.
The major one, of course, is that they do not perceive the roads as safe, but they get right down to the weather being perceived as too cold, or just the wrong shoes or whatever. It does not take much to discourage people from riding a bike. I know that also from my own personal experience as a cyclist. Sometimes putting my helmet on is just too much of a hassle. I will walk to the store instead, which is fine from an environmental standpoint, but someone else might take a car in that case.
Mr McGuinty: As I understand it, one of the main thrusts of your argument is that helmets do not prevent accidents. What we really require are education programs to better educate cyclists and car drivers as to what each other's responsibilities are on the road and how to abide by the rules of road. Why could we not do that in conjunction with a mandatory helmet program?
Mr Buckner: My point is, if we do that properly and we do those campaigns, maybe we will not need a helmet law at all. If we can get compliance to a very good level, maybe we will not need the law. Maybe we can reduce the injuries to -- I hate to get into the very thorny matter of acceptable risk, but everything in society carries risks and bicycling is really way down the list. I have something here I did not Xerox because we always have to be very careful with studies like that. You have to know what they are based on. On the list of risks, cycling is way down the list. You have more chances of dying as a pedestrian than a cyclist. Of course, there are more pedestrians. So these questions are very hard.
But I believe there is a case to be made that not every cyclist needs to have a helmet on at all times. I believe that someone going very slowly on a one-speed bicycle in a park may really not need a helmet. To pass a law, we are going to say that all those people should be wearing helmets all the time. If we can get all the cyclists who are riding on roads and who are in danger to wear helmets, and if we can really cut down on the injuries and deaths, if we can really do that, and really conduct the campaigns to do that, I do not think we will need a law.
Mr McGuinty: I will just make a comment, then I am going to ask you a final question. Even if everyone does follow the rules of the road, there are going to be what we call accidents, and someone is going to sustain some kind of injury. My question is this: One of the things we are trying to do here is balance rights, rights of a cyclist not to wear a helmet --
Mr Buckner: Versus rights of society.
Mr McGuinty: -- versus rights of society to keep medical costs down. I think we heard from an expert last week who told us that if you look at this strictly in terms of dollars and cents, the costs associated with administering medical treatment and some kind of a recuperative program for someone who sustained a head injury are really tremendous. What if we could be convinced that it is cheaper to put helmets on people and to implement and administer that program than it is to treat them once they have been hurt? Whose rights should be paramount here? Society's rights to keep the taxes down as low as possible by minimizing expenses in all areas including health care, or the cyclists' right not to wear a helmet?
1610
Mr Buckner: I understand that, and it is a very hard issue to deal with. But, as I said before, we have a huge problem with head injuries in car accidents. People have brought up to me the seatbelt law. We decided that was another case of individual rights versus society rights, but to me it is an admission of failure -- failure to keep car speeds down, failure to deal with the accidents, failure to convince people.
Now we have a situation where car companies advertise cars that will go so fast you will lose your driver's licence. Why are we allowing things like that in society? There is a real problem. I really believe bicycles can be a solution, to get a lot of those cars off the road, to convince people that you do not take a car everywhere. It is a balance. We have to balance what we are looking at. Do we really have a right to drive everywhere we want to go, to have millions of cars on the road? If we really want to cut down the head injuries to nothing, we will ban bicycles. But there is a balance there too.
Mr McGuinty: I am going to ask you one more little question.
The Chair: Mr McGuinty, I wish you could. My apologies. Perhaps Mrs Cunningham will leave some time, I am not sure.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I would like to thank you for coming before this committee. When I first thought seriously about asking for this legislation, probably seven years ago, I did not at that point feel qualified. Nor did I feel we had the statistics, at least in Canada, to support such legislation. In the last couple of years, I feel strongly that we do.
I am looking at a letter you wrote to the editor of the Windsor Star. You made a couple of points. You talked about us saying -- when I say us, I am talking about myself, because I consider myself such a great person that nobody would dislike me for any reason in the world, even though I am presenting this legislation and there will be differences of opinion. I am trying to come to some conclusion in the interest of prevention and good health and all those things.
Mr Buckner: I understand that, of course.
Mrs Cunningham: Although you and I may have a difference of opinion, I want you to know that I am going to try to persuade you before you leave this room that I am right and you are not.
Mr Buckner: I have never had any doubts about your sincerity.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, you mentioned the numbers 85% and 88%.
Mr Buckner: I have used those numbers myself.
Mrs Cunningham: Right, and we all have used them. We, people like yourself and myself, usually use numbers because we read them somewhere and we take a look at where we read them. Perhaps we read them in a pamphlet put out by the Head Injury Association. I do not feel that an association like that can print those kinds of numbers without having some pretty good backup. But I went further than that in looking at the numbers and I have gone to the sources of many studies. I feel that the New England Journal of Medicine is a periodical most of us would love to have our own publications in. Of the studies we are quoting, a couple are in the New England Journal of Medicine, and they cross-reference their quotes. Those numbers are well documented.
I suppose the numbers you and I should care about are the Statistics Canada numbers from 1986. They have been certainly looked at since, and duplicated in studies. The one that really impacted on me was done by a Dr Brian Morris. It is called Promotion of Bicycle Helmet Use Among Schoolchildren: A Randomized Clinical Trial. It says, "In Canada, 63 children died from injuries received in bicycle mishaps in 1986." That is the Statscan stuff that I used.
Mr Buckner: In Canada, not Ontario.
Mrs Cunningham: In Canada. I think those numbers are Canadian numbers. If the newspaper got it wrong, I cannot help it. I do not even read the newspapers. I would like to read newspapers. I just do not have time. I read clippings.
Mr Buckner: No, those are the figures I have heard too. I agree with you on that.
Mrs Cunningham: The Morris study says, "In some surveys, bicycle accidents were the single most common cause of serious head injury in the paediatric age group," and it gives the source of the quote -- I will leave this with you, "as well as the most common cause of death in childhood outdoor injuries. Boys age 10 to 14 are at highest risk of death from cycle injuries, while younger boys age 6 to 12 are most often involved in non-fatal bicycle mishaps."
The next paragraph really had an impact on me: "These figures have led the US Consumer Products Safety Commission to place bicycles at the top of its list of consumer products most frequently associated with emergency-room-treated injuries."
It goes on to say at the conclusion of the study, "Our results imply that efforts to prevent head injuries by encouraging bicycle helmet use cannot rely on education alone. The solution might lie in subsidies" -- because he looked at subsidies, giving people subsidies so they could afford these helmets -- "or might require legislation, as has been so effective with motorcycle helmets." They are simple statements, but the result of a lot of work. It says this big trial took place here in Ontario.
I just wanted you to know that when I used the numbers you cited in your letter to the Windsor Star they were basically backed by some good solid research here in Ontario.
I have been involved in education for bicycle helmet use as a member of a home and school association since 1973. This is not new to me, as a mother of a kid in Brownies and another one in Scouts and on and on. It is the same with some of my colleagues; some of them are almost as old as myself.
Then you went on to talk about the number 60.
Mr Buckner: Right.
Mrs Cunningham: The number 60 is the number that is used in many places.
Mr Buckner: But that is across Canada. The newspaper article made it seem like it was in Ontario. I was not questioning your statistics.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, you go after the Windsor Star.
Mr Buckner: I was going after the reportage of it, not your statistics. I was pointing that out to them.
Mrs Cunningham: Good for you. You had a couple of questions, though, I thought quite serious. It is going to be our responsibility to go through your list at the appropriate time and be able to answer every question. If we cannot answer the questions, I feel we should probably not be in the position of recommending this legislation. But I wanted you to know that we are not planning to do this overnight. At least, that is not my intention. My committee colleagues -- this is a non-partisan issue -- will sit down and think about what is fair.
One of the pieces of legislation we looked at was from Howard county, in the state of Maryland, as a result of a couple of students dying in the school there. A couple of mothers there saw this legislation through in probably six months because they felt so strongly, given the statistics they had. It was phased in over months not years. It was phased in with no fines in the beginning. They shared your concerns with regard to laws being implemented.
Certainly, in our phone calls in the last couple of weeks involving co-operation with the public education you talked about, things seem to be going very well. We feel here in Ontario that this is very important. The government has told us it does not have much money, so it is up to some of us to make certain that the private sector comes up with that money in these tough times. Insurance companies have shown a very serious interest in doing that.
There is some last compelling evidence I wanted to give to you, and then you can respond to what I said. We are now getting verdicts of coroner's juries where kids have died in these accidents. This is not new, by the way -- people are so desperate. The one I have in front of me concerns a 15-year-old child by the name of Michelle Contin, who died of a head injury. In this case, just last month, the coroner's jury made three recomendations. The first one says that mandatory CSA-approved cycling helmets be worn at all times when cycling. The jury refers to the Australian experience and the success they have had in prevention in Australia in less than two years. The second recommendation concerns education and the third concerns public awareness.
If we take a look at our own success in seatbelt legislation in accident prevention in this province --
Mr Buckner: Accident prevention or injury prevention?
Mrs Cunningham: Injury prevention. Thanks for correcting me. You really are articulate on that one. I will become more articulate.
We just have to take a look at what the medical people are telling us. Most of the good evidence we are getting is from people who work in trauma units and from parents. I am just saying that I have been involved for almost 20 years in education, and it has not been particularly successful.
Mr Buckner: There are a large number of points to argue there. It has not been successful of course, because, I think, we have not put the resources and the money and the time needed into that encouragement program.
I have to question you on one statistic you quoted. I believe you said, talking about children and head injuries, that bicycles were the consumer product most responsible for head injuries? Is that how you put it?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that is the American experience.
1620
Mr Buckner: Did they include cars as a consumer product in that study?
Mrs Cunningham: I would not know.
Mr Buckner: If they are including a bicycle as a consumer product rather than as a vehicle, which is how it is defined in the Highway Traffic Act, I think we have a different problem. As for the law in Maryland, if Bicycling magazine is correct, I believe the law there applies only to children on bike paths. They have different ways of legislating in the States.
You are talking about children in a lot of these cases. Now, your bill is an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. Is it really addressing the problem of children? The Highway Traffic Act cannot really deal with bike paths and parks and sidewalks. How are we going to get the helmets on kids in those places? Obviously we have to get the parents to get the helmets on the kids, to educate the parents that the kids should be wearing them in the parks and on the bike paths, because in a lot of cases they are probably in more danger there than on the roads. They are generally not on the roads. I do not know if this bill, as it is, is really going to address that problem.
We all have lots of anecdotal evidence, and we can all point to things. I know cyclists who have died. But I think we really have to be careful with that, and really look at the real statistics, at the real numbers, and compare them, balance, as Mr McGuinty said, the risks to society and the individual.
Mrs Cunningham: I can assure you that seven years ago I would not have introduced this legislation, because in my view the evidence was not there. Statistically I feel very strongly that it is now. What I would like to do is to send you the Hansards and see if you have any problems with the witnesses that come before the committee, because I consider you a particularly credible witness.
Mr Buckner: Thank you.
Mrs Cunningham: You are a cyclist, you are the chairman of a cyclists' club, you are the kind of person that we want to have support this kind of legislation. I am sure the questions you have asked today can all be answered. Perhaps I can entrust Mr Lessard with that tremendous responsibility. But I can assure you I have certainly taken my views to people from the cycling club in London and they will in fact be supporting this without my having to speak to them individually.
The Chair: I have to interrupt you now before we take up the time of the rest of the people who wanted to speak to us this afternoon. Mr Buckner, thank you very much on behalf of the whole committee. Your contribution has been a very valuable one. We appreciate hearing what you have had to say. Mrs Cunningham is going to send you Hansard, put you on our mailing list. The word processor is going to be spitting out mailing labels like you have never seen before. Have a good trip back to Windsor. Take care.
ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next presentation is by the Ontario Medical Association. Will the presenters please take a seat. For others who have come in, there is coffee and other beverages, not all of them from Ontario, least of all the orange juice. That is a matter of contention between me and the whip's office and has been for a number of months now, but they seem disinclined to do anything about it.
Will representatives of the Ontario Medical Association introduce yourselves and make your comments briefly. Please leave us time for questions and discussion.
Dr Boadway: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Ted Boadway, and I am the director of health policy of the Ontario Medical Association. With me is Dr Rocco Gerace, professor of emergency medicine and the chairman of the division of emergency medicine at the University of Western Ontario. Furthermore, he is the chairman of the committee on accidental injuries of the Ontario Medical Association.
What we are to bring to you today is, first, support for this bill. Secondly, I will tell you that it is the considered opinion of physicians across this province that bills like this should be supported. Some time ago, we did a policy analysis of this kind of initiative and presented it to our governing council, which is represented by population from across the province, and this is supported by physicians right across the province, top to bottom, side to side.
I personally approach this from several points of view. First as a father, second as a physician, and third as a policymaker. As a father, I had the misfortune to experience every parent's nightmare in that I actually witnessed an accident to my youngest son and saw the moment of impact, unfortunately. It was a very significant impact and would have resulted in a head injury of the most grave condition. His body took some time to convalesce but his head did not, and the reason for that was the helmet he was wearing at the time. Head-on-metal has quite an effect on the head, but metal on helmet had almost no effect on his head. It was quite remarkable to see it, to gratefully hear his scream of terror and pain from the rest of his body as soon as he could catch his first breath. It was the most welcome sound I could have, because I expected from the head injury he had that he would never scream again. But he did not have a head injury. It is an explosive event in one's life. It turns you into a bit of a campaigner, I will confess. I am not entirely unbiased in this particular point of view.
As a physician, you see the carnage and the results thereof, and not just at the time of injury. I was a family doctor before I came to work for the medical association. You see the long-term effects. You live with them in their convalescence, and then you live with them for ever in the community. You live with their disabilities and you try to help families cope with them. It is a long-term issue.
And last, as policymakers, we have analysed the situation in the context of public health for the people of Ontario, in the context of saving health care dollars, in the context of preventing wasted and spoiled lives, because so many of them are young, and we see the public health benefit in bringing in health legislation in this regard.
Dr Gerace: Thank you for allowing me to make a presentation this afternoon. I bring to you my experience as an emergency physician and a member of the trauma service at Victoria Hospital in London, and also as a teacher in emergency medicine. In my practice I have ample opportunity to see people who have been victimized by trauma of all causes, and trauma is devastating, both to the victim and the family. In my role as a teacher, I tell my students that trauma, although the third leading cause of death, because it is so prevalent in the younger age groups, is the leading cause of lost life years in our society. Bicycle injuries are among the highest causes of traumatic injuries, and among the bicycle injuries, head injuries lead the causes of death.
It is incumbent on us as physicians to look for ways to prevent these injuries from occurring. I was delighted to hear the New England Journal article quoted already and, to my mind as a scientist, that is credible research and it is credible information. Indeed, the article says that 85% of head injuries can be prevented if bicycle riders wear helmets. I think that is an important statistic to be aware of, and it will go a long way in helping to prevent many of these injuries from occurring. That is one of the main reasons why we in organized medicine have taken on the issue of bicycle helmets and have been very active in promoting the use of bicycle helmets. We have undertaken a number of campaigns.
Dr Boadway: We analysed the situation at the association and in 1984 had a policy statement passed by our governing council. It represents about 250 doctors from across the province who are elected to our governing council. This policy statement supporting mandatory use of helmets was passed at that time along with a great number of other initiatives which would enhance bicycle safety in the community.
Following that, we were involved in campaigns to encourage bicycle safety, with particular regard to helmet issues. We were involved in a very extensive campaign in Ontario which was quadripartite in that it involved government, manufacturers, retailers and the medical profession. In that campaign in 1989 every family physician and paediatrician's office demonstrated or displayed this stand-up poster. Also, posters that we provided were put in schools and used by the police around the province in their campaigns. That was done co-operatively with the police, as well, and accompanying this was a tear-off coupon that would provide a discount for parents when they went to buy a helmet for their child.
This was a very successful campaign. It was so successful that the Canadian Medical Association asked to take the campaign nationally, and we of course were very pleased to help them do that. This past year, the result of this was a similar kind of package that went out to every family doctor and paediatrician's office across the country; once again, a very successful campaign in that 40,000 helmets were sold through this campaign this year alone. So if you add that up to previous years' campaigns, just the encouragement to wear helmets has been very significant. We have significantly increased the number of wearers -- not alone -- in concert with a lot of other people, and we believe that increasing the amount of education right across the spectrum is important.
Next year the campaign will continue. It is not something you can do once. We have been in it for seven years. We intend to stay in it. I have just given you some highlights. We have worked with other groups in this area, local groups which are interested in working with us and provincial groups.
1630
Dr Gerace: Perhaps I can talk about some of my frustrations as an emergency physician. Many of you have heard from my colleague, Peter Lane, about the frustrations in dealing with trauma. Probably the most frustrating aspect of dealing with trauma is dealing with head injuries. Head injuries are devastating. There is often very little we can do to reverse the damage that has been done, and these injuries are devastating not only to the victim but to the victim's family.
We have been hearing a lot of statistics on the incidence of head injuries and the incidence of accidents and I find it frustrating because I do not feel these statistics capture entirely the number of accidents that occur and the amount of devastation that occurs with these accidents. There are kids who fall off bikes who are presented to hospital emergency departments but who never get captured in ministry statistics and in a whole host of other statistical analyses. Although these children may be out of hospital in just a few days and may not seem to suffer permanent disabilities, in fact there are subtle changes that often occur, and these subtle changes will go on and cause behavioural abnormalities, problems in the family, problems in their schooling and things that are just not measurable.
I would like to share with you a victim of a bicycle accident that I saw. This was a racer who was racing, thrown from a bicycle, and rushed into the emergency department, fortunately along with her helmet. The helmet's polystyrene lining was shattered. In fact, that patient got up and walked out of the emergency department later the same day. I shudder to think of the injuries that would have occurred without a helmet, and it certainly convinced me that helmets are effective in preventing head injuries in bicycle riders.
I would encourage all of you to look upon this legislation positively. Ted's son was fortunately prevented from having a serious injury. I want to see my son and his friends all have their injuries prevented, as well, by the use of helmets.
I will close by reading a quote from the New England Journal article, which has been distributed to you. In referring to the use of helmets, they say it is inconvenient, but so is not being able to think or talk because your head has been pounded into jelly. Helmets will prevent injuries and will improve the health of the citizens of Ontario.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, doctors, for appearing before us. You have confirmed -- I do not want to say this in any particularly harsh way -- that helmets serve to effectively minimize the kinds of head injuries people can suffer. You have heard me ask questions of the earlier witness there, and he raised a point, if I can paraphrase him, that in society we should be entitled to assume risks, and governments should not be seen to be intruding into our personal lives unnecessarily. How do you respond to something like that?
Dr Boadway: People do assume risks, and sometimes in society we do make collective decisions on assumption of risk. But I would suggest that one of the groups that assumes the greatest risk here is children, and we pay special attention to the welfare of children in our society, because children are frequently not able to speak for themselves in a way which is heard by lawmakers or governors. Children bear this injury particularly; we see it, and yet the child was raised in an environment in which either he was wearing a helmet because of that environment or was not because of the environment, not because of any choice he had.
I suggest that maybe we should ask children when they are 20 if they would like to have worn a helmet when they were four or six. We cannot do that, but we are 20 and more. Maybe we could ask if we would like to wear helmets. I personally believe in helmet-wearing.
Dr Gerace: I would just like to make a comment on personal rights. I think we have dealt with this issue in other areas, especially as it relates to trauma, and that is with motorcycle helmets and seatbelts. People maintain they have a right not to wear seatbelts, but we have shown I think quite clearly that they prevent trauma due to accidents and death due to accidents. I cannot help but think that the same situation applies with bicycle helmets. Who is to bear the cost of an injured person in that society? As Ted says, we have a responsibility to protect our children from these injuries.
Mr McGuinty: What if we were to have a law that simply said we were going to make helmets mandatory for children or for someone up to 16 years of age, when presumably they have reached an age when they can then decide of their own accord what the merits of bicycle helmet-wearing are?
Dr Boadway: In that case what you will do is make a perverse incentive for children not to wear helmets because it will be seen to be part of being grown-up, that you get not to wear your helmet. I suggest that is not quite the way to go on it. I would like them to think it is part of responsible behaviour that you wear your helmet, so I would like dad, who is 27, to be wearing his helmet when he takes his son or daughter out for a bicycle ride.
Mrs Cunningham: This gives me an opportunity to thank you on behalf of lots of parents across this province for the work you have done and your public awareness and prevention campaign and also for the paediatricians who had the little vouchers in their offices that people could fill in. How many helmets did you say were distributed, some 40,000 or something?
Dr Boadway: There were 40,000 helmets this year alone, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: My question relates to the previous witness, because I could not have answered it either, his argument about riding these bicycles at night and that just 18% of the accidents happen in the evening, or whatever. I do not know what you think about that, but that is the reason for the headlight on the front of the bicycle. There is a fine if you do not have a headlight on your bike half an hour before dusk and half an hour after sunrise. We were talking about this in committee last week. It does not seem to be much of a deterrent and it is not enforced. It is a concern of his and it is a concern of ours. How do you feel we are going to do in enforcing this legislation and what would your recommendations be?
Dr Boadway: Enforcement of these things is not a simple thing. If you look at the spectrum of people, there are some who, just thinking about it, will start to wear a helmet, because they think it is the right thing to do. At the other end of the spectrum there are people who, no matter what logic there is, refuse to wear their seatbelts. It escapes me how this can happen, that people would not wear their seatbelts, but they do. Fifteen per cent of drivers are absolutely recalcitrant, not responsible in my frame of reference. You will have the same thing with bicycle helmets. You have recalcitrant non-wearers.
In the middle is a whole bunch of people who may not be particularly thoughtful about it but are not particularly recalcitrant. This group of people in the centre looks for flags in society. They look for how society flags the issue and they are swayable by it. When you as legislators flag this as an important issue, you say, "I care about this." When you make public statements about it and you make the laws of the land responsive to these public statements, that is a signal some people will follow. That alone will shift the limit up. We are not going to have perfection, but we go for what we can, and I hope that when the system comes in it is not a particularly punitive system, because that will have some spinback. We need a lot of years further of education. But we have done a lot and now it is time for the Legislature to take its stand on this and signal society how important it thinks it is. That will give us another leg up and maybe over time we will get where we need to be.
Dr Gerace: I would like to make a comment as well. Looking at the differences between legislation, enforcement and education, my epidemiology colleagues make it very clear that education can only go so far. Unless the education is enforced, we will not catch a large number of people who will be resistant to any issue, let alone bicycle helmets, so I think it is important.
1640
Mr Lessard: I really want to commend the Ontario Medical Association for the efforts it has made in this regard. It has probably done more to encourage people to wear bicycle helmets than almost anything the government could do, save and except pass a law. You made some comments about the acceptance of risks by children and of course, children sometimes accept risks without the knowledge of the risk they are accepting. It is my understanding that right now there are not really any standards for children under five years old, or very small children. Would it be your position that maybe children under a certain age should not ride bikes if we do not have helmet standards that are going to protect children?
Dr Gerace: I appreciate there are no standards for the very young who are going to be riding bikes or are on bikes, but I do not know if that suggests helmets are not effective. I think we are looking at different anatomical features, different physiology, but I cannot help but think intuitively -- and I know that is not science -- that helmets will still be of benefit in this age group and I think more research needs to be done in finding out what kind of helmet is best. I would be reluctant to suggest, because there are no standards, that helmets are not effective.
Mr Lessard: You mentioned as well that one of the roles of legislators is to flag certain issues the great percentage of the public may not have thought about, and how they should behave. In this case we would be encouraging them to wear helmets when riding bicycles. I think you might have been here earlier when Mr Buckner from Windsor spoke. He expressed some concerns about the implementation of this legislation and dealt with problems of enforcement and the fact that the cost might actually discourage people from riding bicycles and might not encourage bicycles as a form of transportation. Do you think we are really at the point where we are ready, or the public is ready, to accept this type of legislation, or should we give people such as yourself more time to continue with your campaign? Do you think there are other people who should be involved in the campaign you have undertaken? Are there other people who should be doing what you are doing?
Dr Boadway: We would be tickled pink if anybody wanted to take up the cause. We were really delighted when the CMA asked us to take our program nationally as well as to keep it in Ontario, so that would be fine with us. That is why we work with other groups. Is it the right time? I do not think there is ever a time that would be perfect. It would be perfect if 100% of bicycle riders were wearing helmets, then you would guarantee a no-fuss introduction. Would that be perfect? Only from that point of view. I suspect in these things it is always a matter of trying to decide. We have fussed a lot in the last years about when we should. In 1984 we had in our books that we recommended mandatory helmet legislation and yet for many years we really have not done much about it. We have gone the educational route. Some of our doctors have said: "What is this? This is nonsense that the OMA is not being more aggressive in this. What's the matter with you people? We're still seeing the carnage and we're fed up with you taking this limp-wristed approach to this kind of thing. Get on with it."
On the other hand, we wrestle with exactly that. Is it the right time? Now is the right time. It is the right time because there is an initiative going on. You have to seize the moment. It is happening, the bill is here, it is in committee; now is the right time. If we blow this one, we might wait for another seven years before somebody gets up the courage to do it.
The Chair: Mr Klopp, briefly, so that Mr Waters has a chance to ask a question too.
Mr Klopp: I want to be on record to support that it has to be over 16 -- the peer pressure. I grew up with no seatbelts, no helmets. I fell, we bounced around the car, all those good things. My children give me heck when I get in the car and forget for half a second to put my seatbelt on and they cry if they do not have the seatbelt on. It drives me crazy, but I think that is due to positive education.
My daughter got a helmet. I said: "What does she need a helmet for? I didn't have one when I was getting my training wheels." But one day I saw her out riding around, and she fell off. You know, you hit that pavement pretty good. That just confirmed right there that you wear it all the time. There is no such thing -- accidents: That is why they are called accidents. I hope we can figure out some ways to get some excellent people doing it. I think if your organization is that strong to help promote this kind of action, I am looking for your support.
Mr Waters: I have to commend you for all your work in my community. My doctor organized one of those campaigns last year. It went over quite well. I am going to take the lead from our Chair here, so I will lump three questions into one. I would like some comments, first, on enforcement: How you feel we could enforce a law when we are dealing with children? What happens if you catch a young child on a bike? What do you think we should use in the line of enforcement? Enactment: Do you feel it should be staged in, or enacted on one given day for everybody? The other thing is children in the seats behind their parents. I am really concerned because quite often parents, should they have an accident, can always clear themselves from the bike, but the children are strapped in. It is not only their heads; I am thinking about the neck injuries they would receive. I will leave it up to you. Thank you.
Dr Boadway: I will do the first one, and Rocco will do the second two. Enforcement: On the way up here, Rocco and I were talking about that very thing. We thought the perfect solution was a children's prison. It would help with the parenting problems, okay? You can quote me on that.
Mr Lessard: You are quoted already.
Mr Waters: You are in Hansard, it is done.
Dr Boadway: That is right. Enforcement is not going to be easy because you do not want to slap kids in irons, not lots of times, anyway.
Mrs Cunningham: It is a good day, we can see.
Dr Boadway: That is right. This is going to require some sensitivity. The police do a very good job, they are going into the schools. My kids come home and tell me about the policeman or policewoman who told them about the things. The kids think this is great. The police approach to this is not going to be draconian. I think they are going to be sensitive about it because they have been sensitive in their approach so far. I think we need to give those campaigns a chance. The police can say to the kids: "This is really important, so important, it's the law. But, gee, kids, we don't want to really do it to you." The fact that it is the law gives us an opportunity to educate in a whole new way.
Yes, there may come a time when irresponsible behaviour has to have some consequence. I do not think we can stop that. The day may come when irresponsible behaviour has to be stopped. Irresponsible behaviour will occur most likely with us -- the adults -- who set a bad example, not with the kids. It is time it was enforced on us so the kids see that is the way to do it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Cleary, really brief, please.
Mr Lessard: There is another part of the question that did not get answered.
The Chair: I understand that, but people have been waiting here well beyond the time they were scheduled to make their presentations. Mr Cleary, really quickly.
Mr Waters: Mr Chair, does the Speaker do that to you every --
The Chair: On occasion, you had better believe it.
Mr Cleary: Regarding the support you had in our part of Ontario, the chairman of the medical academy and I used to meet two years ago at 6:30 in the morning. He was just about ready to retire. We used to have our meetings prior to starting his operations at 7 o'clock in the morning. He always drove up on his bicycle in his helmet at 6 o'clock or 6:30 in the morning. He was a strong believer.
The Chair: Gentlemen, the committee wants to thank you very much for taking time out of what we know are hectic and busy days to come here. Your interest is appreciated as is, of course, that of the association you represent. Please keep in touch with the people involved and let us know about any other concerns you might have.
BARRY FITZGERALD
The Chair: Mr Barry Fitzgerald is from Welland in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula.
Mr McGuinty: Where is that?
The Chair: Welland is in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula, equidistant from any one of the border communities there.
1650
Mr Fitzgerald: I am here as a private individual.
The Chair: Please go ahead. Try to restrict yourself, though, to five to seven minutes and then we will have some time for questions and dialogue.
Mr Fitzgerald: I am sure I can handle that. One of my prime concerns is an issue of religious discrimination. As most of you will probably know, if this bill is enacted it will effectively ban baptized male Sikhs from riding bicycles. I think that is an issue you have to deal with. I wrote to Mrs Cunningham regarding this concern. She agrees it is a problem but she could not offer any solutions to it.
Another problem is that the aim of this bill is to minimize injuries after the accident has happened. It would be better to focus your attention on reducing the accidents in the first place. I suggest you accomplish this by rider training and perhaps by building bicycle pathways, following the European model.
Our present system allows anyone to use the road with no training or knowledge of the road. They can use any road, except posted four-lane highways. I think that is an unacceptable situation. Before riders should be allowed the privilege of using a road, they should demonstrate that they can do so responsibly. Should this bill become part of the Highway Traffic Act, I have a concern about enforcement, particularly with regard to young children under 12 years old. As you should know, the Provincial Offences Act states that children under 12 years old cannot be charged with an offence. This group of cyclists is the most inexperienced, the least knowledgeable and thus the most likely to have an accident, yet they are exempt, for all practical purposes, from the bill. I take serious issue with any attempt to attach culpability to the parents.
As we move upwards in age group, between 12 and 16, they can be fined and ultimately their licences can be suspended -- that is the most severe punishment available under the Highway Traffic Act -- only they do not have licences, so there is no real enforcement possibility that I can see.
I have discussed this bill with many people in the community. I have found that, while some non-cyclists are more likely to favour it, the cyclists I spoke to were almost unanimously against it. Some female cyclists said they would sell their bicycles before they would wear or buy a helmet. They cited reasons ranging from the expense of the helmet to such trivial things as messing up their hair. I think it is trivial, but they do not; they are serious. They also want to know what they are supposed to do with their helmets once they arrive at their destination. Listening to the presentation from the Windsor cyclist group, I can see it is not just the people of Welland who feel they may get dissuaded. I think cycling should be promoted, both for environmental and health reasons, not discouraged.
Mrs Cunningham, I understand you have had a personal tragedy in your family regarding a head injury. You have my deepest sympathy, but I do not believe this is the way to try to rectify the situation. As I understand the information, your son was injured while riding in an automobile and he was not wearing his seatbelt.
The Chair: I am loath to interrupt anybody who participates, but Mrs Cunningham has not put her family circumstance as an issue here and I am not about to ask her to. We must restrict ourselves to the bill. I will take direction from the committee in that regard, but I will not tolerate Mrs Cunningham's personal matters being discussed here by way of speculation. If the committee members disagree with me, they can tell me so right now.
Mr Fitzgerald: Very well. My concern is, what is next? What next restriction will be placed? Will drivers of automobiles and passengers be required to wear helmets? Will we start banning sports, making regulations for people in sports to wear helmets or actually banning some that are considered dangerous? It opens quite a can of worms and I think it should be avoided. Therefore, I would like you to consider withdrawing this bill.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Fitzgerald, thank you for appearing before the committee. The reason for these hearings is to get some good advice on whether or not Ontario is ready for this kind of legislation. I have to tell you that my very first concern in presenting this bill was that I am a Conservative and I have never, ever been one to support intrusions into people's family lives, so for me this has been a very difficult piece of legislation to bring forth. It has been based on improving the quality of life of so many people, not unlike the people who presented the seatbelt legislation; we have gone on in this province and in North America to benefit significantly with regard to the quality of family life and the quality of individual life because of it. I can tell you this was not something I wanted to have to bring forward. Some days I wish the whole thing would just go away. I am now talking about accidents with children and adults on bicycles. I share your concern significantly.
Second, with regard to my own child, I do not mind talking about that. I could not have done it seven years ago; I probably could not have talked about it three years ago. That is not the reason I am bringing forward this legislation. I can tell the people in the audience that if you talk about prevention of trauma and about death due to accidents and about modern medicine, I can speak as a parent who watches, on a day-to-day basis, a child who used to be an athlete and who used to read and write but does not any more. If I can speak with more compulsion or with more compelling reasons for supporting this law, I wish I did not have to do that but I do, but it is not the reason I presented it. You are quite right, Kevin was injured in a car accident and he did not have his seatbelt on. I can assure you we have had mothers here whose children were injured in bicycle accidents and who did not have helmets on, and I know how they feel. They are trying to do what they can.
With regard to your question about our office not responding or not having the answers, you are quite right. If I had all the answers we would not have public hearings. We have public hearings so that people like yourself can come before this committee and help us with this legislation. I thank you for the efforts you have made today. I do not have any questions because I understand why you are here.
Mr Klopp: This is a point of clarification. You mentioned something about other sports they would not allow, or would stop or ban or make you wear helmets for. I understand that in the junior hockey leagues, or whatever, when it started, they could not go out and play tykes unless they wore helmets. So there are rules already. I think organizations do that for head injuries.
Mr Fitzgerald: That is true in many cases, but those are rules of the organization, the league or whatever. It is not legislation.
1700
Mr Klopp: Maybe that is a way we can somehow do this. It is a point we can think about.
Mr Fitzgerald: I hope so.
Mr Klopp: The point is there has to be some kind of enforcement because maybe you need that to protect even the innocent. Nobody likes to tell people what to do, but you sometimes have to protect people from themselves. It always seems a bit too late when it happens to you, and then you want to try to make improvements. A lot of us are trying to think ahead for the next group. I think that is what we are trying to do. I appreciate your comments, but I think that is where we are coming from.
Mr Lessard: You were talking about children under 12 and the difficulties with enforcement with that age group. Before you made your presentation we heard from the Ontario Medical Association. They talked about acceptance of risk. That is something we hear a lot when we are listening to presentations to this committee. There are some people, mainly children, who are exposing themselves to risk without the full knowledge of the consequences of their behaviour. For consenting adults, if I can use that term, if they think they are fully aware of and are willing to accept that risk, I might accept your argument, but what about for children? They do not have all the information to make that decision. Why should we not require them to wear helmets?
Mr Fitzgerald: I thought I covered it. I do not believe a person should have the privilege of using the road until he can demonstrate he can do so responsibly, so I think training should be mandatory as such.
Mr Lessard: You would say you might have to have a licence or something like that if you wanted to ride on the road.
Mr Fitzgerald: I would not be averse to that as long as the licence fee was reasonable and did not turn into a tax grab.
Mr Lessard: Would you not think that would discourage the use of bicycles?
Mr Fitzgerald: It could even be free.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Fitzgerald, you made reference to the potential of this legislation, if this bill was to become law, discriminating against the Sikhs. Were you contacted by Sikhs in this regard?
Mr Fitzgerald: No, but I have talked to one Sikh individual who expressed some concern about this.
Mr McGuinty: I am going to ask you something here the answer to which you are probably not certain of, but you can try in any event, or tell me if you can answer it. Can they wear a helmet on top of a turban? Is that permissible?
Mr Fitzgerald: I understand it is quite difficult to find one that would fit. I do not claim to be a spokesman for the Sikh community. Actually I hope somebody will come and speak to you specifically on the situation. It is my understanding it is a problem of finding one that will fit.
The Chair: Mr Fitzgerald, if you want to wrap up or respond to something, go ahead.
Mr Fitzgerald: I would like to leave you with one final thought. Our taxation system generally is discriminatory in the way you put a tax on something you do not want people to buy, like cigarettes and alcohol. Yet safety equipment is fully taxable as well. It is something for you to think about.
The Chair: Good point. For a lifetime I have thought the taxation system was discriminating against me, but I suppose each one of us feels that way.
Mr Fitzgerald: We share that view.
The Chair: I want to tell you we have been impressed by the number of individuals who have come forward and expressed opinions with regard to this legislation, some pro, some con, all of the comments interesting, all of the comments useful to us. We appreciate you coming. Have a safe trip back. If you are leaving Toronto now, godspeed.
REGISTERED NURSES' ASSOCIATION OF ONTARIO
The Chair: Perhaps the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario would come up to the microphones, tell us who you are and then proceed with your comments. We have half an hour, and if you will, please leave us time, perhaps 15 minutes or more, for questions and dialogue.
Ms Miller: Thank you for seeing us this afternoon. My name is Coleen Miller. I am here with two of my colleagues from the Pediatric Nurses' Interest Group, which is the subgroup of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario: Shirley Avery, who is the chairperson of the interest group; and Kathy Martin, the recruitment and membership co-ordinator. I am the trauma liaison for this particular group, as I am the trauma clinical nurse specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children.
I believe there is a mistake on your agenda for this afternoon. Rather than the Hospital for Sick Children, we would like to say we are representing the RNAO. I would like to start by telling you a little bit about our organization and then go on to the position we hold around Bill 124 and the proposed amendments.
The Pediatric Nurses' Interest Group or, as you may hear it referred to, PedNIG, is an interest group of the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario, as I mentioned. It was established in 1987 and currently represents more than 350 members throughout Ontario. We think it is an important point to make that we are not specifically representing Toronto, but see this as a provincial issue.
Members of the Pediatric Nurses' Interest Group consist of registered nurses and nursing students from a variety of clinical settings. Our areas of expertise include community health as well as acute and long-term care. Our mandate is to look at paediatric clients and their families within their environment. I make the point that we come from a variety of backgrounds because we have the experience of seeing trauma children and families from the immediate trauma room all the way through to the long-term care they receive in the community.
PedNIG has therefore taken an active role both in providing education related to bicycle helmet use and in lobbying for support of this proposed amendment. We have done that through a letter-writing campaign. We are also members of the bicycle helmet coalition through the Hospital for Sick Children and the Kiwanis injury prevention program. I believe you will hear more from them next week or later this week.
Having said that, I feel I can make my point now in about 30 seconds. My point is that we very strongly support the proposed changes in Bill 124. Clearly, bicycle helmets are an effective and inexpensive approach to preventing head injuries. That is the bottom line: Bicycle helmets save lives. It seems it would just be incredibly irresponsible to disregard these facts and not promote injury prevention throughout the province.
We would also support that there is a need for ongoing education around bicycle safety in general. This, however, does not prevent accidents, as I think the committee seems to be aware and has addressed. It is those accidents we aim to avoid.
I would like to give you a few statistics now as to why we support this proposed amendment, although I think a lot of these will probably be repetitive from information you have heard from other sources.
Fewer than 5% of children wear bicycle helmets. That is an alarmingly low statistic. However, interestingly, significantly more children wear a helmet when riding with an adult who is also wearing a helmet. Therefore, children look up to their adult role models. I raise this point for two reasons. First, it is an extremely low statistic. That statistic was gained from Toronto data collected in a study done in the summer of 1990. With an intensive education campaign, that number was increased to roughly 14% to 16%. However, it is still considerably low. I also raise the point because I believe the changes to the Highway Traffic Act should include all individuals, not just children under the age of 16, because of the role-modelling factor. As the Ontario Medical Association pointed out very nicely, it certainly is a deterrent or an indication of childhood versus adulthood if the legislation is stopped at age 16.
The second point I would like to make is that the long-term costs of caring for a child with a serious head injury are immeasurable for both the health care system and the child and family. Again, I think both these issues have been addressed, but as the health care system is once again at the forefront in the media, it seems to make sense that our money should be directed more towards the promotion of health and prevention of injury, rather than the incalculable costs of caring for a child who has sustained a head injury.
The psychosocial impact from a traumatic experience is devastating for the child's family, and I think that was also addressed by the Ontario Medical Association. Certainly as a nurse in this province and as a trauma clinical specialist, I deal with families waiting outside the trauma room to see their child. I am not sure you can appreciate the emotion and the anxiety and the fear they are experiencing at that moment unless you are sitting there with them, going through the issues they are going through.
At the same time, their child is in a trauma room, which is a room that consists of very high-tech, very expensive medical equipment. It is a very scary environment. They are strapped to a board. Their necks are restrained. They cannot move, they cannot look around. There are roughly six to eight people poking and prodding them -- truly a very scary experience. It would be nice if that child could get up and walk away from the trauma room to the comfort of his or her parents.
1710
The third point I would like to make is that injuries are the leading cause of death in children aged 5 to 14 years; and in 85% to 95% of bicycle-related injuries, head and neck injuries are considered most severe. I think that addresses a point that was raised earlier, that we do not really know: Is it primarily head injuries that are the problem or are there other injuries related to bicycle trauma that are also severe? Certainly there are, but the morbidity and mortality is most severe with head injuries. Approximately 15 children a year die from head injuries caused by a cycling accident, and this is very frustrating for health care providers, because often these are head traumas that could be avoided.
Finally, just like everyone else, I would like to quote the New England study by just reiterating that the bottom line is that bike helmets are effective in reducing injuries by 85%. We know that, and it just does not make any sense to ignore that.
On the more up side of this issue, I am also very pleased to be able to tell you that as a provincial organization we have been very active in providing education and support for education in the communities we are involved with. Educational activities have been occurring throughout the province at public schools, and this ties in very nicely with the department of public health's mandate for health promotion and injury prevention. I think that is an important point that is of value that the province has taken on and I believe this amendment sits nicely with that.
We have also been involved with bicycle fairs and rodeos, which have been held in conjunction with the police, so I am very pleased to say that education has been very active. It is certainly an objective we have as an organization and one of our mandates. If the legislation were passed, I think we could very safely say we would be there to support any efforts in terms of ongoing education regarding the introduction of this new law in the province.
There are lots of issues that come up around this particular proposed amendment. They include the cost of bicycle helmets, the availability and the enforcement. I think I will just touch on those issues, in that I think the overriding point to be made is that the issue is, should we or should we not be wearing and using bicycle helmets, and the answer is yes. These other aspects are things that need to be considered and may need very creative approaches. However, the issue still remains that bicycle helmets save lives and therefore we should be using them and education is not encouraging the use of helmets to the level it should be. I think I will stop there and see if there are any questions on those issues.
The Chair: Are there any comments by any of your other panellists?
Ms Avery: No, our colleague has said it all, and we are here to answer some questions if you have any for us.
The Chair: I am sure there are.
Mr Lessard: I just want to run by you the same issue I brought up with the Ontario Medical Association. Earlier today we heard a presentation from the Windsor Bicycling Committee and there were some reservations expressed, and the speaker before you expressed his lack of support, really, for this legislation. They both brought up problems with enforcement and the problems of dealing with younger people; the cost, which is something you addressed as well; the fact that maybe by doing this it might actually discourage people from riding their bicycles when something we would like to do is to encourage people to ride.
I know you have been involved in trying to educate children and others as to the benefits of wearing a helmet when they are riding, and I want to commend you for that and I hope you keep it up, but do you think the public in general is really prepared to accept that, given those reservations, or do you think this might be something where perhaps we could pass this legislation but delay its implementation for some period of time to encourage acceptance? Do you think that is something we should do, or should we just pass this law tomorrow and say, "Okay, everybody wear a helmet"?
Ms Miller: I think it is probably quite realistic to say there needs to be some sort of time line for implementation, from the perspective of availability of helmets to meet the needs of the province and the education required. I would say that no, all of a sudden tomorrow we should not start snatching bicycles and enforcing right away without the needed education.
However, some of the comments I have heard, that it may deter cyclists, I find maybe a bit shortsighted. There seem to be the same number of people driving cars.
Interjection.
Ms Miller: Okay. I think it is just a change in attitude. I also grew up not wearing a helmet and not having a seatbelt, but I would not go two feet on my bicycle without a helmet now. That is really just a change of attitude and something I have become used to, and yes, it messes up my hair, but I would have to say that if someone is really opposed to wearing a helmet, then they really should not be cycling. I am an avid cyclist and I love the sport and I would not want to suggest that to anyone, but I really think that would be the bottom line, that they are best not on the road for safety's sake -- for their own safety.
Mr Lessard: You mentioned the campaign or the support you have been providing with respect to this issue. Is that something you undertake province-wide? I am from Windsor myself and I do not know whether your group has been involved in any programs in my area.
Ms Avery: I can speak to that. I must say that the recent lobbying efforts have just recently been picked up by our group over the last year. Our activities have probably been in selective pockets across the province, but our stand is certainly provincial and it has been supported by our members across the province.
You have noticed that our membership is currently at about the 350 mark, which has meant a steep growth over the last couple of years, but it really is not that high a percentage of nurses across the province, and we still have some growth in relation to paediatric nursing population, so we have yet to move out into a variety of areas across the province.
Mr Lessard: I am sure Mr Buckner and the rest of the Windsor Bicycling Committee look forward to your undertaking your activities in the city of Windsor.
Ms Avery: And we are moving down to Niagara. Our annual meeting is next April, so we will be heading in that direction as well.
1720
The Chair: Mr McGuinty.
Mr McGuinty: You have answered all my questions.
Mr Cleary: Thank you for your presentation. I take it that you support helmets for all age groups?
Ms Avery: Yes.
Mr Cleary: Right down to the three-wheelers?
Ms Miller: As you are well aware, Mr Cleary, there are no standards currently in place for bicycle helmets for children under the age of five. My understanding is that those standards are being developed and helmets are being looked at. Until those standards are in place, I would not support the use by children under that age group.
Mrs Cunningham: I would like to thank you, as I have some of the other groups, but especially the RNAO, for a lot of work you do in this province. We all know how busy you are, but for this piece of legislation it has really been great to know you were coming and we were looking forward to what you might say, and you have not disappointed us. I think it is great that you have 350 members. I did not realize the group had that many. That means you can spread the good word. We will get this one done, and then there are so many other areas I know you are interested in.
Ms Avery: You do have to be clear that the membership is paediatric nurses. We are an interest group of the RNAO, but indeed the RNAO has many more members than the 350.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I meant the paediatric nurses.
Ms Avery: That is fine.
Mrs Cunningham: There are so many things I know your group is interested in and we value your good advice. Bringing it to this committee is exactly what we were looking for and we were not certain what people would say. Obviously I am personally pleased.
I wondered, in your work, as you deal with families and children -- one of the great concerns we have heard from a couple of the parents who have come before the committee is the lack of opportunity for rehabilitation services within their own communities. I know we are talking about something here because we want to save costs, certainly improve quality of lives, but is that what you experience within your own group with regard to the head injuries you witness?
Ms Miller: I think that is an excellent point, and perhaps we could get into a big discussion about allocations of funds in that area and long-term care reform, but I will hold back from that right now.
Certainly many of the families of head-injured children say they have very limited supports available in the community. We are currently looking at developing a support group for patients and families who have experienced a traumatic injury, not just a head injury but any sort of traumatic injury. I think that is an excellent point, that resources are very limited and families are often finding themselves alone coping with their child, who now has a permanent disability.
Mrs Cunningham: It just adds to the real reasons for prevention, does it not --
Ms Miller: Absolutely.
Mrs Cunningham: -- having your child with you during a very long rehabilitation process? I would like to thank you for answering our questions today and especially for coming before our committee. You have been most helpful.
Ms Miller: I would also like to say thank you for introducing the bill. We have been very excited, at least at the Hospital for Sick Children, and we are very pleased to see it come back again, so thank you for doing that. I would also like to offer for any of our non-supporters a quick tour of the trauma room at the Hospital for Sick Children and perhaps we can change their minds.
The Chair: One moment. Mr Lessard had more to say.
Mr Lessard: I just have one further point, because when I asked the medical association the question about younger children, they disagreed with your position about children under five. I wondered whether you were aware of that and whether you had any further comments. They felt that notwithstanding the fact there were no standards, they still encouraged children under five to wear helmets.
Ms Miller: Oh, I would still encourage children under five to wear helmets. I think my position was that I think their cycling should be very guarded. I would not recommend anyone cycle without a helmet, but because there are not approved helmets for that age group and because of differences in growth and development of that age group, I have to question the overall safety of them cycling.
Mr Lessard: What about them sitting on the back of a bicycle in a child seat at that age?
Ms Martin: Absolutely, they should be wearing a helmet.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee I say thank you. If you have occasion to report back to your membership, tell them that the committee was appreciative, grateful and very pleased with your participation in the discussion of these issues. We thank you for taking the time to come up the road and we sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution. Take care, people.
NEIL FARROW
The Chair: Mr Farrow has prepared written material which has been distributed.
Mr Farrow: My name is Neil Farrow. I live and work here in Toronto, and before I moved to Toronto six years ago I worked as a clinical physicist in northern England's largest cancer hospital. Currently I am just about to complete my doctorate in medical biophysics here at the University of Toronto, so I have some experience in the fields of high technology medicine. I ride a bicycle to work every day and use it for all the trips I make in the city. I do own a bicycle helmet, but I wear it only rarely. I only wear it when I feel that I need to wear it. I also have a car.
I attended these committee meetings on November 25, and as a result of hearing some of the discussions that took place I sought the opportunity to speak directly to the committee. Consequently, many of the things I have to say will be addressed at answering some of the concerns expressed by members of the committee on that day. Some of these concerns have already been addressed by Mr Buckner, but I feel they are worth repeating. I will deal mainly with adult cycling, although I feel that the major enforcement problems lie with respect to child riders.
First, I would like to question the notion expressed to this committee, and by members of the medical community dealing with this problem, that cycling is a recreational activity. In many cases this might be so. However, I believe that regular adult city cyclists have chosen to do so for a number of reasons: the low environmental impact, the time and cost savings, because cycling may be part of their cultural heritage, and also for the consequent health benefits. Bicycles become their means of transportation. Treating cycling primarily as a recreational activity I feel to be inappropriate.
Second, I would like to address the issue of cost. While it was acknowledged that helmet prices might be as high as $150, the figure of $30 was also quoted regularly on November 25. I examined the cost of buying a helmet in the city and have attached the results, which are in appendix 1. As you will see, the average price for a helmet conforming to both ANSI and Snell standards is $78.30 before tax. The price for a children's helmet was $50 before tax. I believe this cost is a significant burden for many people who have chosen to cycle primarily for the economic benefits, and also for low-income households. With respect to children's helmets, I wonder if this cost will be repeatedly incurred as the child grows, but more as a result of the abuse the helmet would suffer through play and carelessness.
The committee has been presented with a large amount of statistical data from well-organized special interest groups to illustrate the magnitude of the problem. I believe the data you are hearing would be more useful if some context were given to the numbers. In 1988, the number of people below the age of 19 who were killed in bicycle accidents was 48. The total number killed in motor traffic accidents in the same year was 848. Those are the numbers in Canada. For the population as a whole, the number killed on bicycles was 87, whereas the number killed in motor traffic accidents was 4,210.
Concern was also expressed by the panel on November 25 that the increasing average price of bicycles is leading to faster and more dangerous machines. This I believe to be equivalent to arguing that car owners who purchase Volvos are purchasing them to go faster. The real reason in both cases is that they wish to obtain a better-engineered and often safer vehicle. I believe that the increasing cost is a reflection on the commitment of many cyclists to approach this method of transportation seriously.
I believe this law will discourage in the general population the environmentally desirable pursuit of cycling. It is not easy to cycle in a city such as Toronto. For instance, I have to carry around five pounds of locks just to secure my bicycle. For many of the more casual summer cyclists who might consider riding occasionally, lack of a helmet and their unwillingness to break the law may be what will prevent them from cycling at all.
1730
The necessity for a law to govern helmet use must also be questioned. The much-quoted Seattle bicycle helmet campaign was claimed to have been successful through the use of helmet discount programs and education programs. The usefulness of education programs may also go beyond the facts about helmet use. It is the case that 60% of children's bicycle accidents occur as a result of carelessness or poor bicycle control, factors which could also be usefully addressed within the same education programs in schools.
While it is true that the majority of accidents occurred on paved services, I found no numbers indicating how many actually occurred on a highway. It has been found, however, that 80% of injuries occur within one kilometre of the child's home. This bill is presented as a change to the Highway Traffic Act. As such, how will it affect children riding on the driveways of their homes, around their apartment buildings or in parks?
With respect to the general cycling population, it has been shown that cycle tracks can reduce the incidence of accidents by 33%. Surely, a more progressive measure would consider such facts and adopt accident prevention measures, rather than accepting that accidents occur and trying to lessen their severity.
I believe this bill will be extremely difficult to enforce, especially with respect to children. There are a number of practical problems inherent in enforcing a law of this sort, among these, whom to charge in the case of child offenders, and the necessity that a police officer should know what constitutes an acceptable helmet and be able to ascertain the effectiveness of a used helmet that may once have conformed to the acceptable standard. If the law is not enforced because of these problems, or is enforced at the discretion of the police officer, then I believe it will become a very discriminatory law. A law that is not enforced is obviously a bad law. It also brings the whole process of law, and particularly the Highway Traffic Act, into disrepute within the community.
While the introduction of mandatory helmet wearing will undoubtedly increase the percentage of riders with helmets, I do not believe this can be used to justify the measure. Despite the media stereotype of the law-breaking cyclist, I believe the majority of cyclists do not want to break the law. I find it hard to believe, if this bill is passed, that by riding my bicycle I will be breaking the law. I believe I am the most capable of deciding whether or not I should wear a helmet, and that parents should take the responsibility for their children's safety.
Thank you for allowing me to present this to you.
Mr McGuinty: Mr Farrow, I guess I am going to put forward the same question I put regularly here to witnesses. I can understand your position very well, but what about the right of society to minimize the costs of health care? Again, this a balancing act: the balancing of your right not to wear a helmet, and society's right, the taxpayers' rights, to minimize the costs of health care services. Which right should be paramount?
Mr Farrow: Obviously you have to strike a balance. In this case, I believe the balance should be struck in that once you have educated people they should be able to make up their own minds. I think the parallel with the seatbelt law is somewhat misplaced. I believe society should be encouraging cycling as an environmentally friendly pursuit, and that is certainly not the case with driving. And because cycling is on a knife edge as to whether it will become acceptable within society and is going to be taken seriously as a means of transportation, I think this bill is going to marginalize cyclists even further, and in that way it will discourage cycling.
As to individual rights, I believe the best thing to do is to be educated, to present people with the facts, especially adults who are capable of making these distinctions. Obviously that is not the case with children. But if adults are capable of making the distinctions, once they have the facts it is up to them to decide whether or not they want to wear a helmet.
With respect to the cost, I think a lot of the statistics we have been hearing about, $4.5 million to keep somebody in care after an accident, those numbers all sound reasonably terrifying, but I do not know personally how that is broken down as to the Ontario health care budget as a whole. I would imagine smoking and other things like obesity are also very high risk factors that are causing the health care budget to be as high as it is, but nobody is advocating the abolition of cigarette smoking.
Mr McGuinty: Earlier today, Dr Boadway said the law can serve a useful purpose in dealing with that segment of any given population which he called swayable. One of the best ways to bring people around to a certain point of view -- I do not want to misquote him here -- is essentially to pass a law, and then you sway that group who might not otherwise have been swayed. In other words, society is saying, "Look, this is in your best interests and that is why we're doing it."
Mr Farrow: I am more of the opinion that you should provide people with education and they should then be able to make up their own minds. The argument that you pass a law and then everybody is going to say, "Okay, that's the law now, so it must be good for me; I'm going to do that," is underestimating the population and its ability to make its own decisions.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for appearing before the committee and for the work you have done since you were here a week ago. We appreciate the fact that you went to Spinning Wheels. I too went to Spinning Wheels a long time ago to get a bike repaired, and at that time they did not have any helmets. It was a little while ago, I think. Two other witnesses have come before the committee and said that the cost in the stores is very expensive, not unlike what you have told us.
In response to that, one of our witnesses -- I am trying to remember the person's name; the standards commission person -- advised us that some of these helmets that are selling for $79 could be purchased in bulk for $30 and $35. He actually gave us the cost of manufacturing different helmets and what they could be purchased for in bulk. We feel we have a better handle, at least, on the cost, and we certainly plan to pass this legislation and allow a phasing-in over a fairly long period of time. That is something the committee has put on record as wanting to discuss. If you could respond to that, we would appreciate hearing from you on it.
With regard to the number of people killed and the point you were making there, it was brought to my attention that there are fewer people killed in these kinds of accidents and many more people survive due to modern medical practices, which I am sure you are very much aware of, given your own work. That was a question I asked with regard to this minor statistical change between 1986 and 1988, 63 deaths down to 48 deaths on bicycles. The statistics are not the same for car accidents, I am told, but there have been tremendous gains in treating head injuries in hospital. Basically, we are looking at survivors as being particularly expensive and having a change in the quality of life.
With regard to the paved surface, I also asked that question and was told by the expert who came before the committee that it was somewhat irrelevant since the law in Ontario covers almost every roadway you can imagine under the Highway Traffic Act. We can share that with you if you want it. I will not take the time now, but it is quite extensive in its description of "highway" in the act itself, which you can have before you leave.
I appreciate the work you have done here. I expect you are going to say that the environmental aspect is your main point and that you are very much concerned about people who may not ride bicycles because of this legislation. We are not sure. I have no idea whether this will be a deterrent.
In Victoria, British Columbia it became the in thing in five schools, where they sold helmets with ninja turtles on them. In the last two years the sales of both bicycles and helmets have risen significantly because there was a tremendous television program there. I was interested to find that out in my travels this summer.
I have no idea whether this legislation will be a deterrent. Coming from a family of cyclists and as an environmentalist, I can only tell you I hope that would not be true.
1740
Mr Farrow: If I might address the question of bringing helmet prices down, especially for children. The Seattle study talks about the nerd factor -- that children do not want to be seen as a nerd. I could see a similar situation arising with respect to helmets as arises with, say, children's running shoes now, where they have become exorbitantly expensive. They are a status symbol. I do not know how you would address that if it became the thing to have a $150 helmet, just as in many schools, I would imagine, it has become the thing to have a $1,000 bike.
Mrs Cunningham: The most popular helmet in Ontario, we are told, is the one distributed by the OMA, which is under $30. It just happens to be what we got from the home and school associations when we asked them. Who knows whether that is statistically correct, but certainly it is the feeling of the parents.
I should also tell you that the research for the New England Journal of Medicine article that is being quoted went on for some time before 1989 and attitudinally since 1987. Two of the groups that have talked to us have told us there has been certainly a more positive attitude on behalf of children, just due to the promotional activities in Ontario of home and school associations and what not. I did read in the New England Journal of Medicine the attitudinal stuff about being nerds. But in Victoria, British Columbia, I can assure you, it is really in to have braces and bike helmets.
Mr Farrow: Could I maybe ask you a question about statistics? I think Morris's study says that bicycle accidents are the highest cause of death in the summer months. Have you any idea what --
Mrs Cunningham: I was quoting from that earlier. Did you hear me do that?
Mr Farrow: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: He was actually talking about American statistics. There is a bibliography at the back with references. I think there are three references for that statement.
Mr Farrow: For the study done in Ontario, I think Morris is saying that bicycle accidents are the highest cause of injury in the summer months. I was just interested that they would not compare them with the winter months. Presumably they do not look as terrifying when you bring in the winter months and the skating injuries.
Mrs Cunningham: It depends on where one would do the American studies. As somebody who has grown up in Ontario, in Toronto and London, Ontario, I put two things away in about November and December. I put away my bicycle and I put away my jogging shoes. You have been here for six or seven years.
Mr Farrow: I ride throughout the year.
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, so does my husband. I do not feel as confident.
Mr Lessard: Mr Farrow, I want to thank you very much for appearing before the committee today. The thing I probably found most intriguing about your presentation was that you only wear your helmet when you feel you need to. I am most interested in knowing when those times are that you feel you need to wear a helmet.
Mr Farrow: Last Tuesday morning was the last time I wore it, up to the ice storm I experienced riding home from this committee meeting. I felt the road conditions were sufficiently poor that there would be danger. I know the road I ride down very well and I know there is likely to be an ice patch down the side of it. So I assess those conditions.
Mr Lessard: Yes, sometimes it is a risky activity you are undertaking when you are riding. I guess it is kind of like Russian roulette. If you only wear it once in a while, you never know when you are going to run into that dangerous condition.
Mr Farrow: I do not accept that. I do not think it is like Russian roulette. It is not just pure chance. I am taking my intelligence to the situation. I say, "It is snowing outside, I am at a greater risk today." I also wore my helmet extensively during the TTC strike, because I believed there was a greater risk to me at that time.
Mr Lessard: You also said that treating cycling as primarily a recreational activity is inappropriate. You focus on the bicycle as a means of transportation. I want to tell you that I agree with that. I think that, too often, people treat it as a recreational activity. I know that was always a problem for me in the city of Windsor, trying to get people in municipal government to accept that this is a viable form of transportation.
But would you not think that if cyclists were required to wear helmets, it would give them more credibility to other users on the road? I mean, it would indicate to other people and also to cyclists themselves that this is something to be taken seriously. They are taking a serious approach to it by wearing a helmet and being responsible.
Mr Farrow: Yes, there is certainly something to that argument. But I believe that, in a way, cycling is more akin to walking than it might be to driving a car. In certain cultures, cycling is a very natural thing to be doing. As for having to go through this rigmarole of justifying to everybody else that I am serious by wearing a helmet, why can they not accept me as being serious just by riding my bicycle?
Mr Lessard: You are right. That is what I think, too. But there are a lot of different perceptions out there. It is difficult to convince a lot of people that cyclists are serious about what they do. I want to thank you very much for appearing here today.
Mrs Cunningham: Can I just add something? There were a couple of other things I wanted to address. You have heard me talk about the Howard county, Maryland, bicycle helmet legislation. I think the act as they have it there is a very gentle one when it comes to the juveniles. One of your questions, I think, was the practical problems inherent in enforcing a law, and especially in the case of child offenders. I would like you to take a copy of the Howard county legislation with you. If you have any views on it, let us know. I would really appreciate your input. You might think that it does not make any sense at all, or you might think they have come up with some pretty good ideas. I thought it was probably the best one that I read.
Another point was with regard to an acceptable helmet. I just assumed, and maybe there is somebody who can help us here, that the police officer would take a look at the helmet itself and see if the label was inside it. That was my view, that we would have to come up with something in Ontario. As you are a cyclist, you may be able to help us on that one. I do not know whether we should have them stamped or something so that the mark will always stay there, even in spite of constant wearing.
Those were just two things I thought you raised that had not been asked by my colleagues and that we could perhaps use your further advice on, things you can help us with.
Mr Farrow: I can tell you that on my helmet, the ANSI standard on the back is just a simple sticker that would be reasonably easy to remove.
Mrs Cunningham: I was just wondering if anybody knew whether we should be putting a stamp right in the helmet, something that cannot be removed. I do not know that.
Mr Farrow: I think it would require the manufacturer to do that. I do not know, but maybe some helmets have it. I only have one helmet, so I only know that helmet.
Mrs Cunningham: Another point you made that nobody addressed, and I was hoping they would, was with regard to safety on the roads and the streets. You talked about a double track. I was first elected in London in 1973 and sat on the planning committee. I cannot tell you how impatient I became with my elected colleagues after some 10 or 12 years. It was a long time before we even had the gentle, sloping curb so that we could have people downtown with wheelchairs. Although they have begun bike paths, which we think of as cycling routes, in many places in London -- you can go to the university with a bicycle -- it has taken us some 14 years to increase the miles of bike paths. It has been a really long go at it.
But I wanted to assure you that I have not given up on that. This is now in conjunction with the public education we have been trying for. I just keep hoping it is going to happen in my lifetime, if you know what I mean. After witnessing the kinds of things you witness when you are an interested person --
Mr Lessard: You are still young, Dianne.
Mrs Cunningham: Thanks a lot. I do not feel so young today. I have to say that this fellow must really be in great shape and feel very confident with his cycling, because in winter I really do give up those two things. My own kids do not. I just do not ride my bicycle in the winter any more, except on Sundays and the odd time if it is nice weather. But I will tell you I do not run in the snow and what not, because I do not find the places to run, especially in the city. Walk fast, yes.
Mr Huget: Move to Windsor; we do not have snow.
Mrs Cunningham: I do not know if we have done anything with Mr Buckner today at all, but I think he has to agree that we are making a real effort here and that we really are looking for solutions to your concern with regard to the legislation, both of you. It has not been an easy thing for me to do, because I have been in your position 14 years ago and again seven years ago. Here I am -- someone has changed my mind.
The Chair: If you want to respond, Mr Farrow, you will have the final word.
Mr Farrow: Okay, the final word is, I do not believe legislation is the way to go.
The Chair: Mr Farrow, on behalf of the committee, thank you for coming for the second time. We appreciate the input of individuals like yourself who come forward with a significant amount of work and research.
Keep in touch. Mrs Cunningham and the rest of the committee would be pleased to hear from you as this progresses. Take care.
That is it until Wednesday at 3:30 pm.
The committee adjourned at 1752.