It all started with a worried and highly driven suburban mom, who became the spark that fueled British Columbia's all-ages mandatory helmet law.

The self-described political junkie believed that cycling was dangerous. She worried about the safety of her son on his bicycle and wanted him to wear a helmet, so she approached her local city council to try and have a mandatory bylaw passed that would require it.

Turned down but undeterred, she soldiered on. She did some research, allied herself with the BC Medical Association, and started the National Bicycle Safety Foundation, all in a quest to take the matter onwards, to Victoria

Eventually, she found a group of backbenchers willing to champion her cause. It was 1995 and an election was approaching. The backbenchers, hoping to score some well timed political points, needed to gain the support of the transportation minister, so that the "feel good" bill could be pushed through before the election. The support was given, and the bill was passed.

According to former MLA Tom Perry, the evidence presented in the legislature regarding the effectiveness of bike helmets was taken on faith and never questioned. As it turned out, the singular erroneous study used to support the cause, was both funded and promoted bybylawBrad Kilburn the very same helmet companies that stood to gain from bike helmet legislation.

Now to be clear, I am not against helmet use, but I do believe that helmets are limited in their effectiveness, and that the legislation, which passed based on a flawed study (covered in my column dated: Sept. 16, 2009), promoted helmets as a way to save lives, which, in the ensuing years, has not proven to be the case.

I also don't like the implication that bicycling is dangerous, unless you wear a helmet. It might very well be advantageous for a child to wear a helmet, but I believe an adult should have the right to choose. I don't think it's contradictory to be in favor of helmet use and be against a blanket law; no two people run the same risks on every ride.

The majority of governments in Canada have considered and rejected adult helmet laws. Around the world, adult helmet laws are even more rare. Part of the reason for this lies in what has happened in areas that have enacted adult helmet laws.

There has been a wealth of research conducted since Australia, New Zealand, and B.C. enacted their laws in 1992, '94 and '96 respectively. Much of it has shown that people ride their bikes far less wherever there is an enforced helmet law, and, despite the laws, injury and death rates continue to rise.

This makes sense when you consider that cycling safety has so much more to do with factors beyond the use of a helmet, such as experience of the rider, road conditions, traffic, vehicular speed, and driver awareness.

It's a reflection of our culture to think that riding a bicycle is dangerous. Travel to Asia or Europe, and you won't find this same level of concern. What you will find though, is a greater acceptance of bikes on the road, far more people who cycle, very few helmets, and a much higher level of cycling safety.

Laws are often enacted when personal ambition meets political opportunity, which seems to have been the case with our helmet legislation. But, it's a good thing that our political process allows for review. We know so much more now than we did 15 years ago, so it may be time for the law to reflect this.