HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday 18 December 1991
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1991, Bill 124 / Loi de 1991 modifiant le Code de 18 route, projet de loi 124
City of Toronto Department of Public Health
Audrey Voice
Metropolitan Toronto Police Force
Andrew McCammon
Brampton Cycling Club
Subcommittee report
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 Jordan
Grandmaître, Bernard (Ottawa East L) for Mr McGuinty
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1610 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: Our apologies to people who have been waiting. The proceedings in the House were lengthier than they usually are for some good and not-so-good reasons, and people obviously are inconvenienced. We apologize.
CITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
The Chair: We would like to commence with the city of Toronto department of public health.
I would remind committee members that it is all the more important for them to be here promptly when we are delayed like this.
Ms Wheeler: Thank you for the opportunity of being here. My name is Dorothy Wheeler and I am the school health consultant for the city of Toronto health department. As such, I represent the city of Toronto on the Bike Helmet Coalition. I believe you have already met some of my colleagues from that coalition.
In the health department we have been quite active in promoting education around bike helmet safety and bicycle safety per se, so we welcome this opportunity to present some of our reasons for the interest in this topic, primarily because in Ontario each year 15,000 children need medical attention because of bicycle injuries. Fifteen hundred of these are severely injured and at least 15 children die.
As members of the Bike Helmet Coalition, the city of Toronto and other health units in Ontario have been involved in providing public education programs to children and their families about bike injury. From this we have learned that bike helmets do reduce the severity of trauma. Research shows that head injuries are the major result of bike accidents and bike helmets can reduce that severity by 85%. I am citing Rivara's research and some from Quebec by Farley.
Mandatory wearing of bike helmets would increase the numbers being worn. We have learned that children will wear helmets if their peers and parents do. Unfortunately, at this time only 3% to 5% of children wear them. After one bike fair at a Toronto school, we did a follow-up survey and it showed that 80% of parents who responded supported mandatory legislation. We are committed to supporting activities that promote bike safety and prevent severe trauma caused by bike injuries.
The high cost in human suffering requires that we support this legislation. The efficient stewardship of health care dollars also demands that we require bike helmets for cyclists. Complications of children's education increases tremendously and the cost of special education and rehabilitation is extremely heavy.
We recommend that Bill 124, which requires cyclists to wear approved helmets when riding on roadways, be passed, and we would also recommend that helmets meet the CSA standards. We recommend for public education and awareness that there be established a division for cycling within the Ministry of Transportation with the responsibility of addressing cycling issues: updating traffic regulations for example, and to provide sufficient funds for public awareness campaigns and promotion of helmet wearing and safe cycling.
We also recommend that the accessibility of helmets be assured by ensuring funding is available to assist low-income cyclists and to provide funding for helmet loan pools for schools, recreation centres, etc. There would need to be some assurance that helmet manufacturers could meet the demand and an assurance that retailers would train their staff on how to fit a helmet.
In considering why they should be worn, I think we have to consider that cycling is a popular sport for health and recreation, second only to walking. In fact, more bicycles than cars are sold in Canada. It is an attractive mode of transportation; it is inexpensive; it is easy to maintain and readily accessible. I was very glad of my bicycle when the TTC was on strike because I pedalled to Yonge and Dundas from Etobicoke. It promotes physical fitness and gives young people without cars a degree of autonomy.
The downside is that death and injury do occur. Research in Quebec has shown that bicycle-related trauma is severely underreported because 80% of hospitalizations are due to injuries not involving motor vehicles. The bicycles using the roads can get into their own problems. Even when motor vehicles were involved, underreporting occurred. Studies of coroners' reports and hospital records both in Quebec and here at the Hospital for Sick Children/Kiwanis Trauma Research Unit show that brain and neck injuries in bicycle accidents top the list as causes of death and disability. Cyclists often sustain worse head injuries than motorcyclists who are required by law to wear helmets. There are compelling reasons to wear a helmet, so one must examine why people do not.
A 1989 US survey about possible injuries from bike crashes showed an unawareness about the possibility of an accident. Cuts and bruises were cited most often; head injury not at all. Many children thought helmets were only for racing, not for ordinary cycling. Parents questioned showed complacency; their children rode only in safe places near home.
Parents do not buy helmets because they do not think about it, they are too expensive, the children are safe riders, they would not wear them anyway. Parents often consider bicycles are toys, not a method of transport or a danger to life itself.
In conclusion, bike helmets are like air bags in cars -- they do not stop crashes but they do reduce the trauma. Helmets are not the only answer to reducing trauma. Education in biking responsibility is equally important. Children need this kind of assistance. Supervision of young riders to ensure that children under 12 do not ride in traffic is also required.
All cyclists need to follow traffic regulations and traffic regulations need to reflect the right of cyclists to use the roads. Bicycle helmet legislation is a public health issue because helmets have been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality rates. We therefore support Bill 124 to amend the Highway Traffic Act.
1620
Mr Waters: Sorry about being a bit late. I got held up on my way here. There is consensus building here in the group that we all support the bill, or the intent of the bill. There has been discussion about implementation of this law -- the lead time. We have heard everything from three months to in excess of two years. What are your feelings on how much lead time there should be, should we pass the bill?
Ms Wheeler: I have discussed this with several people and in my view the education component is really critical here because it is going to be difficult to enforce. The more education, and therefore the more lead time you have, the better. If you gave me a choice, I would say two years.
Mr Grandmaître: I read your report which shows that 80% of parents support mandatory legislation. How come these 80% do not buy helmets?
Ms Wheeler: I think it is ignorance, actually. We feel -- I have to include myself in this one -- that when you educate people about the importance of it they are very anxious to purchase a helmet. I heard a story about coupon distribution where you mailed a coupon to California. Very few people in the United States availed themselves of this opportunity, so they thought when the Canadians came on board they would have the same response. The Canadians tripled the number the Americans ordered. I think that was an indicator that people want to use the helmet when they know about it.
Mrs Cunningham: First of all, I would like to thank you very much for coming before the committee. We have had some very interesting and informative presentations. We are all much more knowledgeable with regard to this piece of legislation. We think we might have an advisory committee because there is so much information. I wonder if you might do something for us: On page 2 of your brief you talk about establishing "a division for cycling within the Ministry of Transportation with the responsibility of addressing cycling issues; eg, updating traffic regulations."
I wonder if in your work you might have some of the regulations you are concerned about, given the work you have put into this pretty specific brief, that you could draw to our attention -- some of your concerns in the regulations now.
Ms Wheeler: I think the concern we have is the need for recognition that the bicycle is a vehicle and subject to the same regulations traffic has. I believe there are a lot of violations people are not really aware of. More than traffic laws not being present, I think it is traffic laws not being observed. We all need to learn more about them and how they apply to cyclists.
The Chair: Ms Wheeler, I want to thank you very much. I am speaking for the whole committee when I tell you we appreciate your interest and your attendance here this afternoon. Mrs Cunningham, who is the author of the bill, I am sure would appreciate your keeping in touch with her, and Mr Dadamo, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, similarly. Take care. If there is anything more we can do by way of information, feel free to get a hold of us.
Ms Wheeler: Thanks for the opportunity.
AUDREY VOICE
The Chair: We have Audrey Voice. I should mention to people there is coffee and fruit juices.
Mr Cleary: Orange juice.
The Chair: Orange juice, yes; a little bit of cross-border shopping there, but Lord knows sometimes it takes dynamite around here --
Mrs Cunningham: It certainly takes more than Kormos.
The Chair: I have been a voice in the wilderness on this issue of orange juice instead of made-in-Ontario fruit juices. It is beyond me why I cannot get through to some of the people around here. Ms Voice, please go ahead.
Ms Voice: As one of the members said, there is a consensus around the table that this is a good idea. I guess it is minority opinion coming in here and saying I am not convinced it is a good idea. I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today.
When I first read newspaper accounts about the introduction of Bill 124 I wrote to Mrs Cunningham expressing my concerns about this legislation. I have provided extra copies of that letter for distribution to you. I also wrote a similar letter to Mr Grandmaître, who is my own MPP. My reaction was that of a person who has cycled for basic transportation most of my life, has thought about wearing a helmet but has not yet done so. I am on the road virtually every day year-round and I do not see it as a particularly dangerous way to live.
I subsequently reviewed the speeches in the Legislature and looked at some statistics provided by the Ontario Head Injury Association, and while this instilled in me that this can be a dangerous world for your head, I think bicycling is still a relatively safe activity compared to the other ways you can injure your head.
We are told 17,000 to 19,000 people will suffer a head injury this year in Ontario. Half will be in motor vehicle accidents, 21% in falls, 12% in assaults and violence and 10% in sports and recreation. Assuming cyclists are included in the latter category, 90% of head injuries occur in activities unrelated to cycling or sports. With motor vehicles causing fully half the head injuries, I wonder if making helmets mandatory for drivers and passengers would be more appropriate. Where are the most injuries? Is that the greatest danger? That is where the biggest number is. Is that the group you should be targeting?
When I watch tobogganing, downhill skiing, runners going past me on the bike paths, the considerable speed of those with in-line roller skates, figure skaters doing triple overhead twist lifts seven feet above the ice, it strikes me there are a lot of human endeavours that have a potential for head injury. People get head injuries diving or being thrown from a horse. I question whether putting the entire cycling population of Ontario in bicycle helmets is the appropriate focus.
While many people will spend hundreds or even thousands on a bicycle, the biggest sellers are those in the $100-$150 range, your basic bike. A lot of people are riding cheap secondhand bicycles or bicycles purchased at a police auction for a few dollars. If you are looking at a $20,000 car with a few hundred extra for additional safety features, it is a comparatively small price to pay. If you buy a used bike for a few dollars and then have to spend $30 to $75 for a helmet, it ups the cost considerably. While $40 or so may be a small price to pay in absolute terms for prevention of a head or brain injury, bicycling is generally regarded as an economical activity or mode of transportation and the cost of a helmet can be relatively high compared to the cost of the bicycle itself.
Any safety measure is of course to be encouraged. However, I think that in order to make such a measure mandatory, one has to look not just at will it prevent injuries but is this a significant risk and could injuries that have occurred been prevented by wearing a helmet.
We are given a statistic that 93% of Ontario children ride a bicycle. I do not have a statistic of how many of Ontario's nine million people that would include. We are told 15 children get killed in bicycle accidents in Ontario each year; 75% die of head injuries. Would mandatory bicycle helmets have saved the lives of those 11 or 12 children?
I can recall newspaper accounts of three cyclists killed in three separate accidents in Ottawa. All went under the wheels of a truck. I can also recall an accident on Queen Street West here in Toronto where a cyclist was crushed under a streetcar. I have no information as to whether the cyclists were wearing helmets, but I think one can safely assume that if you are crushed under a truck or a streetcar it is going to take more than a helmet to save you.
Another statistic used during the debate was that 75% of accidents are caused by rider error. I see adults who should know better going through red lights, weaving in and out of traffic, kids riding with no brakes. People really do some stupid things. If one has the desired objective of making cycling safer, there are a lot of different areas one could look at besides helmets.
As telling as what injuries resulted might be the answer to the question, how did this accident occur? In recent years there has been a fashion for the BMX bicycle. Kids intentionally flip up the front end of the bicycle. If the bicycle flips backward, of course the potential for head injury is greater than if you keep both wheels on the ground.
I remember, for example, a visit by one 14-year-old boy in my neighbourhood who came to me asking if I could repair his bike. He had no brakes and had run into a wall. He emerged unscathed but his bicycle was a write-off. I think it more important to ensure a child has functional brakes on a bicycle than wearing a helmet on a mechanically unsound bicycle. This is something I really see a lot of, especially among children. The bicycles are in very poor mechanical condition.
1630
For bicycle racing, bicycle couriers and police bicycle patrols one usually sees riders helmeted, but that sort of thing has its problems too. There was one incident I thought rather amusing. A police officer went into court, as police officers sometimes do, and was dressed in bicycling shorts, an open-necked shirt and a helmet -- police issue stuff -- but the judge said to the police officer, "You don't come into my court dressed like that," and sent the police officer out to change.
For the ordinary cyclist riding along at five to 10 miles per hour in low traffic situations with the bicycle in good mechanical order, I submit there is a not high risk. Australia and New Jersey have recently passed laws making bicycle helmets mandatory. I do not believe there are yet statistics to show whether the number of head injuries has been reduced. I think we are all influenced by our life experiences. I hope I am not being naïve in that I have had the good fortune to never have injured my head while cycling. With me it always seems to be knees and elbows, but in the ordinary wear and tear of life there are a lot of ways to get injured. We should all try to do what we can to be safer in our home, workplace and on the road.
When I look at statistics of how head injuries happen, including 17,000 kids falling out of shopping carts, there are certainly a lot of ways to injure your head. If the Legislature is looking at this in order to pass a public safety law regulating a particular activity, I think you have to identify that activity as being hazardous and be satisfied that the particular safety regulation you are passing to deal with it is the most appropriate way to significantly reduce the hazard. I have some doubts as to whether bicycle helmets are the most appropriate focus in reducing head and bicycle injuries.
Mr Grandmaître: A survey was conducted in the National Hockey League before helmets became mandatory and a survey was also conducted once the legislation or the rules of the game were changed. It was said that once the helmets became mandatory in the NHL, it invited more violence. People were using hockey sticks like an axe or whatever, and more injuries were being caused. Do you think that by introducing this mandatory equipment on a cyclist people would become more reckless and take more chances?
Ms Voice: I certainly hope not, because I think people are far too reckless now. Unfortunately some people just do not seem to use common sense when they are riding their bicycles.
Mrs Cunningham: We have had witnesses before the committee who have not been in support of the legislation. We really welcome all points of view, because as you said in your letter, or as you said today, initially you were not certain about this legislation. We were not either, by the way. When we first thought about it, we knew that there was a tremendous need, given the statistics and given the people who work in trauma units. That definitely was the thrust of physicians, nurses, parents of the head-injured and the Head Injury Association of Canada, but the list has grown in support. We have learned a lot in this committee about the need for this legislation. Although we have not decided, there seemed to be a consensus. We wanted to be appropriate. You have given us some of your concerns and some of your ideas about what we ought to be thinking about as we move forward.
I wanted to ask you about a thought I had as you were speaking. You were talking about how this may be one of the ways to reduce hazards -- I think you said that -- and that there are other ways to reduce hazards. Perhaps you could respond to this. People appearing before this committee have made it very clear to us that we have other problems with regard to bicycle safety, and public education has been and is a very real concern. I just wonder how you feel, with this pending legislation, we should move forward on the public education part.
Ms Voice: There is a bicycle policy review going on right now. I have written to them as well on the broader question about roadways and regulations and so on. In countries such as China, where the number of bicycles vastly outnumbers cars, they set aside separate roadways for the bicycles to keep the vehicles and the bicycles separated. That might be something we want to consider down the road with new road construction.
Mr Dadamo: It looks like we could sell you a Filter Queen, but not the possibility of this legislation. Thanks anyway for being here. If you could save one child, would it make a big difference to you? Would the legislation look attractive to you if we could do this?
Ms Voice: It is very tempting to say yes, because one does not want to diminish the value of a single life, but if you look at a few children in a population of millions, there are probably a lot of things by which you have a one-in-a-million or even a one-in-500,000 chance of being killed.
Mr Dadamo: I notice too, with all respect, that you throw statistics in. I appreciate that, but it would cost a lot of money to keep a person in hospital after having had a head injury, the lifelong costs there would be.
Ms Voice: I certainly think protective equipment is a good idea. It should be encouraged, but I do not think it is such a great risk that you need to step in with regulations and force people into helmets because there is a significant danger. I do not see it as a significant danger.
The Chair: On behalf of everybody here, thank you for making a considerable trek to Queen's Park to share your view with us. One of the most impressive things has been the response of people across the province who are prepared to participate in this process. We are gratified by that response. The debate will go on for some time yet before there is a third reading and legislation, so there is an opportunity here to influence and affect what the eventual legislation is. We thank you for your interest, for the well-prepared submission today and invite you to keep in touch with your own MPP, with Mrs Cunningham, who is the author of the bill, and with Mr Dadamo from the Ministry of Transportation. Take care.
1640
METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE
The Chair: Now we have the Metropolitan Toronto Police. There is an exhibit that will be available to members of the committee, a well-packaged résumé of a whole pile of information. If you would please begin, sir, try to spend no more than maybe 10 or 15 minutes with your comments, leaving us time for questions and conversation afterwards.
Mr Andrews: By way of introduction, I am staff sergeant John Andrews of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. I am the co-ordinator of safety education for our police force. I am also here representing the Ontario Traffic Conference; I am on the board of directors. Of course, I am a concerned parent.
I would like to read to you a document written by our safety officers' committee for the Ontario Traffic Conference back in 1985. There has been a great deal of concern, investigations, recommendations and resolutions submitted by the safety officers' committee of the OTC. A great number of these were as a result of bicycle operators' lack of observation of our traffic laws, with a percentage of these violators being involved in accidents. Add to this the number of cyclists involved in other collisions and the number of injuries could be shocking. In fact, it is. The increase in bicycle violations and accidents has become a centrepoint and a priority among the authorities and this priority is definitely warranted.
The psychology of an individual has a great deal to do with that individual's attitude towards his vehicle, the laws governing that vehicle and his attitudes towards respecting the law while operating the vehicle. Although we must never cease or slow down but intensify our educational programs on bicycle safety, we must also expand and implement selective enforcement on the bicycle violator, regardless of the age, beginning with the youngster who must operate on our roadways.
The age of a driver to comprehend our traffic laws seems to be 11 to 12 years of age. The ages of the highest bicycle accidents today are that group between 16 and 35 years of age. The attitude of this age group regarding the bicycle is that it is a toy and not related to traffic, nor does the operator need to observe traffic laws. The size of the bicycle still has a great bearing on the operator's risk factor to having an accident and the lack of proper control.
We see that parents today were those operators back in the 1970s and 1980s and what they are doing is being the role models for our children of today. They did not wear helmets then and they seem to be the ones who disagree with the helmet-wearing of today. However, we like to think that a bicycle is not a toy and that in this day and age it is not impossible to time a 10-speed cycle being operated on a municipal or a regional road at speeds of 50 to 60 kilometres per hour.
With the age of exercise having a prominent role in cycling and the high cost of fuel, the mode of transportation has been the cause of bicycle increases on our roads. If you add to this today the increase in the elementary school population, you have a bicycle mania. These drivers have every right to be on the road, with no need for driving tests or an operator's licence. For this reason alone, the need to intensify the educational aspect of bicycle safe-driving programs and to seriously reassess the resolutions put forth on bicycle operations on our roads throughout Ontario is vital. That includes mandatory bicycle helmet legislation.
It is imperative that the proper authorities, like this group here, who certainly have sufficient information and data and resolutions from various committees, take this mandatory bicycle legislation and begin making it a law. Having done so, the operation of our highways will be greatly reduced when it comes to violations, injuries and death on the road. As an organization, the Metro Toronto Police Force believes strongly in the legislation. As a member of the OTC, I represent it and it also believes strongly in the legislation. As a parent, I believe strongly in the regulation and what you are attempting to do.
The problem is the method by which you will be able to do it. Even today, when the bill was passed in February, Bill 219, that allowed police officers the opportunity to stop violators who are now riding a vehicle and committing an infraction of the law, it is only now that we can in actual fact issue a provincial offences ticket. That is one issue that has now been looked at.
What do we do with the child who is under 12 years of age? How do we deal with that individual who is a cyclist? Where do we take the individual who is between the ages of 12 and 17 to court, to have him pay a fine if he is not wearing the helmet? So these are some of the major issues in terms of enforcement that we have to look at. We are quite willing to enforce any of the laws brought down under the Highway Traffic Act because, as Sir Robert Peel once said, "The community are the police and the police are the community." So therefore whatever legislation you see fit, having researched it, we are quite willing to enforce.
We are well aware of, and for the last couple of years in our educational programs in the schools have been promoting, helmet use. The reason we have been promoting it, even though it is not mandatory, is because we believe that it can in fact save a child from injury. A lot of our statistics relate to injury accidents. So far in 1991 we have only had one death involved on a bicycle. However, in the package you will receive, you will see that we have had a great number of accidents. Part of that package is a report for 1989 and 1990.
However, to bring you up to date on 1991 statistics, as of today: In the age group up to 5 years of age, there have been 372 injuries involving cyclists; in the age group of 6 to 15 there have been 1,067 accidents involving injuries; the age group 16 to 35, 8,351; the group 36 to 55, 4,127; the group 56 to 65, 1,019; and 66 and over, 780. Those are injuries that have been reported as a result of an accident.
We know as a police force that many injuries take place that do not involve anything other than a cyclist falling from his bike, possibly striking his head and going to the hospital and, as a result, the police are not called to take an accident report.
A helmet worn by a child that is properly fitted and follows the standards that we hope will be instrumental and implemented at the same time as CSA standards or ANSI standards hopefully could prevent a child from striking his head and having to go to the hospital to get sutures to the head, or prevent serious brain damage. This is imperative. If we can do that, then we have done what we are required to do in a preventive role with respect to operation of a bicycle.
There are a number of other things that certainly have to be addressed, and those are consumer education, helmet cost, being able to adequately enforce the law, and certainly an adjustment phase, because as we all know right now, if tomorrow you made it mandatory there are not enough helmets available for the people to make use of, so you do have to look down the road for a period of time.
Once you make the decision to make it mandatory, then you have to look at what we in the police force call a selective traffic enforcement program, which deals with three major components. One component is being able to educate the community that the law is now in effect and that we now have to comply. Once that component is completed, we then have to look at the enforcement side of the issue. The educational component not only comes from media representation but comes from other organizations that are involved, such as cycling organizations, the police forces, the health organizations, all of which will promote and certainly make other people aware that the legislation is in existence.
I would like to leave time for you to be able to ask questions, so I think what I will do is just leave it at that and hopefully be able to answer any questions you may have.
Mrs Cunningham: I would really thank you very much for coming before the committee. I can tell you right now we are going to be counting on you in the next few weeks, because we think we will probably have an advisory committee. There are so many issues that have been raised by people who have come before this committee to give us the best advice they can. We were really looking forward to your remarks in particular. We were a bit concerned about what you might say, but obviously I am pleased with your recommendation.
We ourselves have been concerned about the costs. We have had some good advice on the time frame, the adjustment phase that you have also talked about. Our hope is that helmets could be produced and manufactured in Ontario if we gave enough time, a year or two lead. We have been told by the president of the Canadian Standards Association that that would be possible, and he has actually given us numbers and prices we could look forward to, which we will share with you.
When you started to talk about the selective traffic enforcement program, we are happy to hear that, because we have not heard positive things about enforcement of the laws we now have, but we have heard responsible things. You started with education and I wonder if you would perhaps tell us the other phases.
1650
Mr Andrews: It is written, but I will relate it. Some of the important sides of this are that in order to educate effectively you not only have to educate in the school programs, you also have to educate the broad side of the community, which means that you have to be able to provide funding. The police will require access to be able to promote within the newspapers in their community and by billboards and signs. Those things must be able to be made available. I personally feel that through the ministry -- and Mr Dadamo would hopefully agree that there must be a department within the ministry that would solely look after cycling as a vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act and that department would be there and would look after all of the media that would have to be put forth, any correlation and gathering of facts and, in particular, the preparation of documents to be issued to the community with respect to the law and not only proper cycling methods.
Mr Grandmaître: Are you representing the Metropolitan Toronto Police or are those your private comments?
Mr Andrews: No sir, I represent the Metropolitan Toronto Police here.
Mr Grandmaître: Has your police association or your police services board ever looked into the possibility of promoting, through your association, this kind of legislation?
Mr Andrews: Not that I am aware of.
Mr Grandmaître: How come?
Mr Andrews: Not that I am aware of, in terms of promoting the legislation. We, as an organization, are subject to the rules and regulations that are put forth by the Highway Traffic Act. The Ontario Traffic Conference is an organization that is put together to look at the act specifically and to make recommendations through resolutions. As an officer and in fact a past chairman of that committee -- I am now on the board of directors -- we look at all of this and we do submit resolutions to the minister with respect to changes in the act.
Mr Grandmaître: Was that resolution ever introduced?
Mr Andrews: Quite honestly, I would have to go back and have a look. I am not aware. Mandatory helmet legislation has not been introduced in the last four years. We have been very busy dealing with a lot of the other areas of the Highway Traffic Act and, in particular, Bill 219. That was our big one.
Mr Grandmaître: Mr Chair, can I ask Mrs Cunningham a question?
The Vice-Chair: Certainly.
Mr Grandmaître: Has the Association of Municipalities of Ontario been consulted on this piece of legislation?
Mrs Cunningham: To the best of my knowledge, I do not think so. The way we dealt with this was not to particularly ask anybody. The people who have come before this committee have come voluntarily. We advertised extensively about the hearings, but we were very concerned that we not be perceived as inviting guests in one way or another. We informed people about the hearings if they had been in touch with us. Through a meeting at the Hospital for Sick Children about three weeks ago on this issue of bicycle safety, anybody who was there was encouraged to appear before the committee by the organizers of that. But other than that, we did not reach out. You have a very good point. Perhaps, at least when we have our advisory committee, anybody who has been missing whom we need to hear from, I think we should do that.
Mr Dadamo: I will be brief, too. Thanks for coming. We have been talking about having someone like you from your division here, and we really appreciate it. We know that the Metro police have established a cycling arm of the force.
Mr Andrews: That is correct.
Mr Dadamo: Of course we are excited about that. It looks like you are already set up and have people out there should we proceed with some sort of legislation like this in the next little while. Could you maybe tell us a little about this cycling group and how well it performs for you?
Mr Andrews: That also was in your package, but primarily the objectives of our bicycle patrols are: to be seen in the high-crime areas; high-profile policing examples are Harbourfront, Toronto Islands and the Exhibition areas; assist the Toronto City Cycling Committee in establishing their regulations; establish education for all drivers; conduct bicycle spot checks; provincial and municipal law enforcement on major downtown routes to relieve traffic congestion; patrolling of parks and laneways to assist officers on foot patrol, and at the housing projects; tagging and towing on the rush-hour routes and, of course, enforcing the Highway Traffic Act and the Narcotics Control Act and the bylaws.
This group was established and provided with a uniform, a white bicycle helmet, a regulation-issue summer shirt, black shorts, etc. We obtained 33 mountain bikes equipped with water bottle, rechargeable light systems for their lighting package and lockable plastic boxes that sit on the back of the bike.
The officers involved in this program took a report in August 1990 and it was reported that there were 33 bicycles and 94 officers. I did a quick calculation on that and called back the areas that were involved. We have 11 Division, which is central; 23 Division in north Etobicoke; 41 Division in Scarborough; 52 Division, which patrols this area; 53 Division, which is directly north; 55 Division, which is east. I came up with 151 officers who in actual fact were doing bicycle patrol inasmuch as the bikes, although a small number, were being shared by different platoons.
We ended up with quite a high number of officers who wanted to be involved. These officers feel they are a role model for the cycling community. The officers from 52 Division have currently taken the Can-Bike courses and are almost in a position now where they can be instructors. They are just waiting for phase 2 to be completed. The other officers are eager to be a part of the program.
The enforcement they are doing right now runs the full gamut, but in most cases they are stopping cyclists who are violators. They are dealing primarily with the downtown core, with couriers, but anyone who takes his life into his own hands to ride through a red light or a stop sign. One of the problems we foresee -- this could be construed as a personal implementation here -- but when you have parents who take their children for a drive on the bike on the weekend, they take the lead and they are the role models. The younger children do not necessarily understand that Dad has already done all the things he has to do to perceive that there is no traffic, that nothing is going to interfere. Consequently, he goes through the stop sign. The rest of the family continues along with him. Now the children have the perception that it is okay to go through a stop sign. The next time they approach that sign, if they do not do the things Dad did, we could have an accident and it could be serious.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you for coming before us today. If we do get into this advisory group, I hope you and the Metro police will assist us in every way possible on that, because we need your expertise and knowledge about what is happening on the streets. Thank you once again for coming before us. We will definitely take your points of view into consideration.
Mr Andrews: We will be very happy to be a part of that committee.
1700
ANDREW MCCAMMON
The Vice-Chair: The next presenter is Andrew McCammon. Please go through it at your leisure and leave time for some questions at the end.
Mr McCammon: My understanding is that we have 15 minutes. Is that correct?
The Vice-Chair: Yes.
Mr McCammon: That is not a difficulty. I intend to be very informal. I have given a two-page letter to the clerk which she will distribute to each of you. Perhaps you can read that at your leisure. I am going to keep my comments informal today.
I am both an environmental consultant and an avid cyclist. I feel there are tremendous overlaps in those interests. Clearly we need to do everything we can to reduce CO2 emissions. We also need to do everything we can to ease traffic congestion and make cycling safer.
I currently have a number of proposals with different cycling bodies in the province. I have a major proposal with the Toronto City Cycling Committee to ease rush-hour congestion through an innovative cycling proposal.
I am the volunteer adviser to the chair of the advocacy committee of the Ontario Cycling Association and I am a member of Vélo Québec. That is really a very big interest and why I am here. I do not know if the members of the committee are familiar with Vélo Québec. It is a quasi-provincial body in Quebec. For $15 a year you purchase $1 million of third-party liability, $5,000 worth of foreign travel and emergency expenses and access to legal counsel should you be involved in a vehicular incident in Quebec.
I have been suggesting since I moved to Ontario two years ago that we really need some similar entity here in Ontario. Obviously, the medical and legal situations normally run their own course. The $1 million in third-party liability is extremely interesting. If you were ever doing 48 kilometres down a side street -- within the legal limit -- and somebody stepped off the curb with a baby carriage, you would perceive the instant need for $1 million in third-party liability for cyclists.
I think this current proposal is an extremely good one. Unfortunately, I am not sure that it addresses what I perceive to be the real problem with cycling here in Ontario, specifically Toronto. That problem is one of visibility and proprietorship of the roadway.
What I end up proposing in my letter and in this presentation is that the proposal for a helmet law is fine as far as it goes. What I would like to see is a highly visible sticker that people would purchase being mandatory on that helmet. For the purchase of that sticker, people would have the insurance and the right to the roadway.
I am going to give you a little story and tell you why. I believe drivers should not be categorized. They are not all mean-spirited or poorly educated. However, drivers are highly trained to signs. The problem with cycling is that it is not a sign. If you see somebody on a cycle, you figure: "That is very delicate. I'm going to have to slow down and go around this individual." The cycling community has taken the issue of visibility on the road extremely to heart and over the last years has adapted tremendously with respect to cycles, the colour of cycling, reflective gear, cycle clothing. Anti-rape whistles work really well if a taxi is about to pull out in front of you. Also, visibility is both audio and visual.
Several years ago, something happened to me. I was struck by a car. This is not a horrible huge story or personal bias, but as a result of that I purchased a $4 sticker. It was on a 14-inch flexible, plastic flag post which comes off the rear fork. This thing bobbles as you go along. It has a little red flag on it. I would have paid $400 for that had I known what it was going to do for me. Cars go about four to six feet around me. It is absolutely astounding. I can be cycling on a rural, two-lane roadway with oncoming cars and if somebody comes up behind me, I put out my hand and the car slows down, waits for the oncoming traffic to go and then passes me. I really believe drivers are trained to signs.
My feeling is that we need a strong declaration that cyclists have a right to the roadway, that they have paid for that right and that they, like automobile drivers, have insurance. What I would like to see, therefore, is this committee consider not just helmets being mandatory but that helmets should have a sticker on them. The sticker would change colour every year. People would be required to replace that sticker between the months of January and April, or whatever you wanted. It would establish or mandate a provincial entity similar to Vélo Québec to manage a cycle insurance fund.
That is basically it.
Mr Kormos: I am intrigued by your comments about the insurance scheme operating out of Quebec and by your proposal for what sounds remarkably like a public auto insurance system. I am sorry. In the Newspeak of this government we cannot talk about public insurance. It is no longer a reality.
You raised, though, an interesting dilemma. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian, that pedestrian is entitled to look to that cyclist for complete compensation for his or her injuries. If a cyclist is hit by an automobile, however, the cyclist is precluded from looking to the bad driver who hit him for full compensation, because of course that cyclist, although he may choose never to get involved in the world of internal combustion engines, is drawn into the scary world of no-fault by virtue of being a victim of an internal combustion engine.
You seem to have a very good understanding of what third-party liability means as compared to no-fault or first-party liability. What would you do in terms of age restrictions? The police officers spoke about people under the age of 11 and 12 not being capable of comprehending rules of the road. How would you deal with that, access to the roadway by bicyclists? You are saying there should be something tantamount to licensing them. What would you do --
The Vice-Chair: Please, Mr Kormos.
Mr Kormos: Gotcha, Mr Chair. What would you do about the bottom-end age limit?
Mr McCammon: The answer there is very formulative. These ideas need to have input from a lot of different sources. Where I am in my proposal is that for families where you would be purchasing for more than one person, there would perhaps be a subsidiary sticker for the child. Clearly at some age the child is responsible, and hopefully that is at the earliest possible age, but by doing this one act, by requiring cyclists to be licensed and by having this declaration -- bright orange is something drivers are going to see -- you change the whole mentality of the roadway. They have a right to be there. Maybe we should put an orange sticker rather than a yellow sticker on children under six. I do not know.
Mrs Cunningham: We asked for specifics and you have done it. You are not the first person who has talked about licensing. I do not know what the consensus will be. We may have to ask you a few more questions when we really get into this, because you sound as if you have a lot of experience which will be most helpful to us.
I know where Mr Kormos is coming from with regard to the insurance issue and I can tell you right now that during a visit to the children's hospital in London, Ontario, two weeks ago on Friday, there were three children there because of injuries who will hopefully be able to use the insurance their parents have. It is up in the air right now, but the expectation is that if they do not use the insurance policies, their lives will be very different. All of these were very costly accidents. The doctors at that hospital that day were advising us that their future care has been estimated at between $1 million and $3 million over a lifetime. We are now talking about insurance settlements that can be invested.
We will be taking your thoughts today very seriously. They will probably be the more challenging recommendations that we have to consider, but I can tell you that both of your suggestions have been made. We have talked informally and will very seriously consider them.
Mr Cleary: Thank you for your presentation. Maybe I missed something, but I was just wondering, how is the program you are familiar with enforced? Who enforces it? How are charges laid, if there are any?
Mr McCammon: The program I am proposing, of a mandatory sticker on helmets, does not exist. As I understand your question, are you thinking that I am describing the way it exists in Quebec? Vélo Québec is simply an organization where you purchase a membership and are accorded insurance. There is no mandatory helmet law in the province of Quebec, nor is there a requirement to display insurance.
I am suggesting that we use this opportunity to address not only the safety issue. Cyclists have to do a lot of things. They have to have a bell on their bike. They have to abide by the laws of the road. I think having a helmet and insurance sticker are reasonable expectations. Medical coverage is there in the current way in which we manage that sector. Recourse to the courts is grey, but it is there. What I am suggesting is an additional ability to ensure in the mind of the driver that all cyclists, whether they be six years old and mistakenly go through a stop sign or 35 years old and a bicycle courier, be insured and have a right to be there and share the road.
I guess I am extending the analogy of my little 14-inch flag to try to make a sign for all people to realize that cyclists really have a right to be there and have to be considered. Once you have this requirement for a helmet and insurance, if the police find you in a situation, I suggest they confiscate your bike. If you are on the road without insurance in a car, what would they do? I do not see any special privilege that needs to be allocated to cyclists. We need more cyclists on the road, particularly in this city with its traffic congestion and urban smog. So make them abide by the laws of the road. If they do not have insurance, if their sticker has not been renewed, if it is not current, impound the bike.
The Chair: I want to thank you very much for a most interesting contribution to the committee's hearings. You should make a note of saying hello to Michael Weir, who is the safety policy officer for the Ministry of Transportation. He may well be able to incorporate some of your proposals. We thank you for coming, for your interest, and trust you will keep in touch with Mrs Cunningham, who is the author of the bill, Mr Dadamo, who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation, and with your own MPP, who can keep you updated on the progress of this matter.
1710
BRAMPTON CYCLING CLUB
The Chair: Next we have the Brampton Cycling Club. They have prepared a written submission which is an exhibit now, a copy of which everybody has. If you would please sit down, sir, tell us who you are and tell us what you will, at which point we will undoubtedly have some questions and conversation.
Mr Ormerod: My name is Robert Ormerod and I am here representing the Brampton Cycling Club.
A little about the Brampton Cycling Club: It is a vibrant club. We have approximately 150 members, ranging in age from eight to 80. Our oldest member recently undertook a Toronto-to-the-Maritimes-and-return trip this past summer, so we represent a pretty big cross-section of the cycling community.
The club appreciates the members' interest in cycling, most definitely, but feels that interest is too narrowly focused, with the accent on "narrowly." Specifically, Bill 124 addresses just one of the symptoms of cycling safety and does nothing to address the cause of cycling accidents, that is, the apparent lack of education and promotion of road safety among all road users. Further, the bill will only promote the current public misconception that wearing a helmet is the only way of preventing cycling injuries -- again, the cause and not the symptoms.
Recommendations: We strongly feel the information gathered by this committee should be forwarded to the provincial Ministry of Transportation for inclusion in that ministry's ongoing bicycle policy review. I understand the provincial ministry has this review ongoing right now. It was announced about a year ago. There was a lot of opposition at the time from the Tories and the Liberal government crying expense foul, but I feel it was a wonderful decision to get the review under way. I have been in touch with David Hunt, the gentleman responsible for that review.
Concerning the recommendations, the wearing of helmets should be encouraged through education and information efforts driven by government, schools, police, the cycling trade and cycling clubs. We strongly feel that cyclists will never get the respect they deserve unless they earn that respect.
The police should enforce existing legislation, that is, lane discipline among motorists. There does not appear to be much lane discipline: Drive to the right except when overtaking, it is very simple. Cyclists riding with traffic, not against it; cyclists not ignoring traffic signs; cyclists using lights when riding at night. The law does not call for a lighted red light to the rear; it is quite basic, it just calls for a reflective strip. Cyclists' treatment of traffic rules at intersections; there do not seem to be many rules among the average cyclist unfortunately, but again, we try to earn the respect.
Governments -- provincial, regional, municipal -- should understand that the paved shoulder to the right of the right lane, not a bike path but a paved shoulder to the right of the right lane, would greatly increase cyclists' safety on the road. I am speaking now as an avid long-distance cyclist.
Conclusion: Cycling is only dangerous when undertaken without a proper understanding of traffic rules and principles. Education and promotion of road safety should be paramount when discussing any issues connected with accident reduction. Any legislation should not be enacted independently of the review I have just spoken about. Cycling has a tremendous role to play in governments' future transportation and pollution objectives, the so-called green plans.
A last-minute insertion by myself: Yesterday I was made aware that the provincial government, the minister Gilles Pouliot, announced to the House on December 5 an Ontario road safety organization. I feel it is very important that this committee liaise with that Ontario road safety organization, which I understand is going to supposedly be the medium to pool all issues together. That concludes my presentation.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you for coming before the committee. I will just make a couple of remarks.
First, some of the cycling clubs that have come before this committee have shared your views and have raised all of the issues you have raised with us and, because of that, I think the committee is going to be looking at a couple of things that have made a tremendous impact on our thinking.
With regard to education, I do not think any of us, having had these public hearings, now think we can do this without the public education program that would go along with it. There would be a phase-in period, and we share your concerns about road safety. I am not certain whether we will have an advisory committee to the government, but I think we will so that we can look at what would be appropriate along education lines and certainly with regard to the regulations that would accompany the bill and maybe other amendments to the act.
With regard to the bicycle policy review, we are all aware of it. Some of us have taken part in it in our different cities. We want to support that review with these hearings and vice versa, so this whole thing will go together. We will be working with the Ministry of Transportation.
With regard to the rules of cycling and traffic safety, we ask you to help us with any public education we can do. You have been here for the afternoon and you have heard the concerns of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. The concerns of other groups have been just as apparent, so we now know we have to be responsible in a time frame of implementation here. The cycling clubs have been the ones that have objected more frequently than anybody; we have had a few individuals, I think just three. Some cycling clubs have been very much in support, others have not. We are taking your input very seriously.
I do not know what the time frame on this would be, but even if we look at the legislation some time in the spring, we would probably have an implementation period of maybe two years, because we feel the public has to be educated. We also feel that the helmets have to be correct and we need time to manufacture them. I want you to know that we are seriously thinking of your presentation and I thank you for being so specific. You can respond to anything I say.
Mr Ormerod: Thank you. I do not think helmets are the answer and I think you have concurred with that. If in six months' time or two years' time you say, "Okay, January 1, 1994, here are the helmets, let's wear them," there has to be something else and it has to go to the root cause.
I digress a fraction, but how can we teach the drivers on the road to drive properly if we have poor driving tests and driving licences are given with very little thought behind them? We look on the roads today and I refer to discipline, or lack of it.
Mrs Cunningham: We think you are right on that and we are not pretending for a minute that this would be the only answer. It is a very small part of it. But there have been very strong presentations before this committee which all of my colleagues have tried to look at in a very non-partisan way. We will have to look at it, but I can tell you that the support has been significant.
You probably have a lot more to say about this than what you have presented to us. You seem like a very knowledgeable person. You just now mentioned driver's tests. What we would really appreciate is if you would think about all the examples you can give us where there needs to be some improvement, because we will be looking at regulations, we will be looking at the present act. We have been given some examples of other things we should look at and we would appreciate your giving us a complete list of some of your concerns where we can make a difference in this review.
1720
Mr Dadamo: Obviously you are very strong on the idea that drivers and people on the road with bicycles should work cohesively, should work together. There are a couple of options, education and promotion, which I think we should be delving into in the next little while. Do you think that included in the driver's booklet or when somebody is taking a road test to get their licence at a young age -- if that is where we can start -- there should be more information about bicyclists and how we should learn to live with them?
Mr Ormerod: Yes, definitely. There are two books, apparently, distributed at the licensing centres these days. I forget the titles of them. One is very good and was put out with the Toronto City Cycling Committee's input. The other one is abysmal. They both seem to be very current. I forget the minister's name, but it was about a year or two ago. So, yes, Mr Dadamo, certainly.
Mr Dadamo: So, in the myriad of questions in the booklet for the driver's test, should there be somewhere the inclusion of, "How would you react if -- -?"
Mr Ormerod: Yes, of course there has to be. There has to be a total awareness. First of all, cyclists must understand they are vehicles, not pedestrians. They have to make a choice, gentlemen: Are you a man or a mouse? Are you a cyclist or a pedestrian? Please decide first before you go on the road.
Mr Cleary: I would like to thank you for your presentation. I think five or six of the points you made will be very valuable to the committee. I know the Chairman is in a hurry, so that is all I will say for now.
The Chair: I want to thank you and your organization for your interest and the work you have put into this submission. I trust you will be keeping in touch with Mrs Cunningham and Mr Dadamo and your own MPP to be kept advised as to the progress of this particular bill, and of course the Ministry of Transportation and its overall bicycling review process. Thank you, sir, and have a safe trip back to Brampton.
Mr Ormerod: Thank you. I will drive to the right except when overtaking.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair: Mr Waters, I trust you are moving adoption of the report of the subcommittee?
Mr Waters: Yes, I would like to move adoption of the report, and I would appreciate some discussion.
The Chair: Any discussion? It is only 5:25. We are not doing this at the 11th hour. I know you may well have things to add once the report has been voted on. But this was the result of a subcommittee meeting on Monday. This is Wednesday, and any reasonable person would have expected this report to be here today because this is the last opportunity we have to meet.
Mr Cleary: Just one question: Say we had extra presentations, are we going to be allowed to add them here?
The Chair: That is up to the House leaders. Right now, they have permitted three weeks of timing.
Mr Cleary: No, I mean when we travel, is there flexibility there to add?
The Chair: At the subcommittee it was a very difficult process of squeezing, and I mean really squeezing in; the shoehorn was used to accommodate these groups. Perhaps Mr Waters wants to speak more directly to that.
Mr Waters: As I recall the schedule, there might be one place where there might even be any opening. The rest of them we literally went through and had to pare down the list. I can recall Ottawa, for one: this is probably only about three quarters of the list of people that were there. We have already pared the list down, so I do not think to add other people at this point in time would be fair. There have been people who have requested to come before the committee and we have had to say no, I am sorry, we do not have time. I cannot see how we could possibly, in all good conscience, add people that have not requested.
The Chair: Of course, there is always the prospect of a group cancelling closer to the actual time of their participation.
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Waters, you had something else to say?
Mr Waters: Yes. The one thing the report does not delve into at all is having the ministry or Ontario Hydro come before the committee. I would suggest we request they come before the committee the first morning we are doing clause-by-clause. If that is not possible because of their time constraints and their bookings, then we use up some time during the Toronto hearings.
The Chair: Mr Waters moves that the Minister of Energy and Ontario Hydro appear before the committee on the Monday of the week of clause-by-clause consideration, depending on their availability.
Motion agreed to.
The committee adjourned at 1725.