Last week as I rode through town, I saw a young boy who would have been 7 or 8 years old I suppose, struggling to maintain his balance on a bike. Some distance behind him was his sister, riding a bike with training wheels, and farther behind her was the father on his own bike. The young boy was wearing a turban, and my immediate thought was “does the dad really think that turban offers the protection equivalent to a bike helmet?” The answer to that was evidently “no”, because his daughter also didn’t have a helmet, and she was bare-headed, so this family simply didn’t care much about bike helmets. But that little sighting prompted two diverging lines of enquiry for me.

         The first line of enquiry was just to review what the bicycle helmet laws are. And while I was at it, what are the rules governing e-bikes and e-scooters? 

         Surprise, surprise – there are some wonderful inconsistencies in the rules governing bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters. Let’s deal with bicycles first because that’s easy. I found this summation in a federal government article. It says “In Canada, bicycle helmets are mandatory in eight provinces, either for all cyclists (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia) or for minors only (Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta).” 

So, on a cross country trip, Mom, Dad and all the kids wear helmets in New Brunswick. They all take them off when they enter Quebec, and only the kids must put them back on when they enter Ontario. I’m sure there are good scientific reasons for the differences in those laws.

         What about e-bikes? First of all, what is an e-bike? It is defined as a bicycle with an electric motor of 500 watts or less that will help you achieve a maximum assisted speed of 32 km/hr. After 32 km/hr, the governor prevents the motor from helping and you’re on your own if you want to go faster. If it has a 750 watt motor (and there are many of those available on the market), it doesn’t qualify as an e-bike and would be considered a motorcycle and subject to motorcycle rules. 

That’s the law in Ontario – I didn’t do a lot of looking into other provinces. The odd thing about e-bike laws is that everyone who rides one must wear a helmet, regardless of age. I imagine that a fall from an e-bike is more risky for adults than a fall from a regular road bike, and that would account for the inconsistency in the laws…or maybe not.

         Of course, thinking about bikes and helmets made me think about those little battery powered scooters that I see zipping around town, with helmets very rarely observed on their riders. These little guys are something that governments would like to encourage, because they provide emissions free urban transit. What rules govern their operation?

         Well, it’s a real mish-mash of rules. Most provinces limit the electric motor power to 500 watts. Most provinces establish a maximum speed capability, but it varies from a low of 20km/hr (BC, Alberta) to 32 km/hr in Manitoba. (Do you think that Manitoba thought the BC rules was in miles/hr and converted to km/hr?) Many provinces establish a minimum age requirement, which is often 16. Manitoba, with the fastest scooters allows the youngest riders at 14 years of age. Quebec, which has no helmet requirement for bicycles, has a minimum age for scooters of 18 years, and a helmet is required for all riders. I’d love to hear a Quebec government flunky trying to explain they are the least restrictive jurisdiction in regards to bicycles, but among the most restrictive when it comes to e-scooters.

         Ontario, where I live, has established a pilot program which asks  municipalities to establish local rules, but only the larger centres appear to have done so. The Ontario rules say an e-scooter is limited to 24 km/hr, with a minimum age restriction of 16 years, and a helmet required for all riders under 18. 

         I noted that the e-scooters are required to have a braking system which will stop the scooter within 9 meters, and I found myself wondering whether the rider stops as easily as the board in that distance. Or is the rider likely to go flying ass over teakettle into the intersection leaving his scooter behind?

         I have no compelling need to urge immediate actions to wipe out the inconsistencies in the laws across the different provinces and between these different, but similar, means of transportation. I’m sure that these laws will continue to be scrutinized and possibly revised. 

Why am I sure of that? Well, because hospitalizations from e-bike and e-scooter accidents are on the rise. A CTV News report from August this year says that “A July report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information showed a 32 per cent increase in reported e-scooter hospitalizations over one year, rising to 498 from 375.”  A Toronto Sick Kids hospital doctor is quoted saying “hospitals are seeing many types of injuries, including bleeding brains, smashed faces, as well as broken skulls, ribs, knees, pelvis and elbows.”

A CBC News report from the London, Ontario area reports a sharp rise in injuries in that area as well, and they repeat the message that e-bike and e-scooter injuries are often severe. “A lot of facial fractures from falling and hitting your face or head. The most common fracture is a fracture of the wrist, and those are often more severe than a typical slip and fall fracture,” The injuries in question are often “higher energy injuries.” They often require surgery to fix, and involve things like metal plates to help healing.”

So, when you see some bare-headed kid zipping past you on a motorized scooter on the sidewalk, you can feel comfortably outraged (you old fart) at the fact that he’s probably breaking several laws. If you could catch up to him, you could give him hell, but fortunately you don’t likely have that kind of speed anymore.

         Now the other line of enquiry that I promised you was the thought that rippled through my skull – did we really pass an exemption to helmet laws for kids based on religious grounds? And that led me to looking into some of the issues on which our legislators and/or courts have provided religious exemptions. Full disclosure – I am strongly opposed to such exemptions and might be seen as somewhat biased on such issues.

         The only province that allows a “carve-out” for religious grounds on bicycle helmet rules is Nova Scotia. All the other provinces appear to grant no exemptions for either minors or adults with respect to bicycle helmets. However, BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia all exempt turban-wearing Sikh’s from motorcycle helmet laws. 

         Illogical things irritate me. And I find it hard to think of anything more illogical than the government insisting that a Sikh must wear a helmet when riding a bike or scooter that might operate in the mid-20 km/hr range most of the time, but exempts that person from the requirement to have a helmet when he jumps on his 221 HP Ducati racing motorcycle.

         Helmet requirements in the working world are a matter for debate. There is a Canadian Human Rights Commission requirement for workplaces to accommodate workers who have religious constraints on their ability to wear a helmet. However, the law recognizes that there may be a safety case that makes the wearing of a helmet mandatory, and thus not a discriminatory action. Companies have to demonstrate that there is a reasonable justification for their personal protective equipment policy, and no other work that you could reasonably offer the employee. Lawyers are making money on this one.

         I wish someone would select me to the Supreme Court. My argument would be simple. We put a rule in place for motorcycle helmets. If your turban can’t be demonstrated to meet the CSA standards for a motorcycle helmet, then you can’t wear it. If your workplace places a rule on every other worker that says helmets are mandatory, then it is not discriminatory to insist you wear the goddamn thing. In fact, in this case the old (often racist, ignorant and stupid) claim about reverse discrimination applies perfectly. 

In my opinion, freedom of religion allows you to believe whatever you want, with no interference from anyone. But it shouldn’t entitle you to impose your beliefs, rules and customs on anyone else. Asking your co-worker to always do the task that requires the use of a helmet because you don’t want to wear one (a proposed workplace “accommodation”) isn’t fair to that worker. It’s your damn religion, not theirs. 

         Interestingly, the Federal Government in July of 2024 issued a request for submissions on the design of “inclusive” headwear – helmets that would accommodate the turban, hijab, yarmulke, medical protection headgear and gender identity wigs. I’m OK with that. The end result would be CSA standard safety equipment and I don’t care how big, bulky and awkward looking it is.

         I insist that I’m not anti-Sikh. I’m simply pro-science. The reason that we have laws requiring the use of protective equipment for the operation of bicycles, e-bikes, scooters and motorcycles is because we want to protect people from injury. That rugged individualist from the USA, the Marlboro Man, would insist that the individual has the right to risk life and limb if he wants to, but that argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. First of all, society is going to bear the medical costs of your injury, the loss of your production from the workplace, the ongoing cost of supporting your dependents. And second, your failure to wear appropriate safety equipment may result in injury to some innocent bystander too. 

         So, safety rules make sense and we apply good science to the problem and propose a standard which should dramatically reduce (not eliminate) the chance for serious injury. And then some guy sticks up his hand and says “that doesn’t apply to me. I’m special.” And we’re supposed to say “of course you are. Let’s suspend the laws of science and assume that God will protect you”. Really?

         Let’s take some of the heat off the Sikh community, because they are not the only group that our governments have allowed to be special. In at least four provinces (BC, New Brunswick, Manitoba, & Ontario) school vaccination requirements may be set aside for statements of conscience or religious beliefs. Supreme Court Justice Curley would be saying – “Fine. You don’t have to have your children vaccinated. But you’d better be good at home schooling, because they’re not going into the public school system.”

         I have opined before that religions should not enjoy any special status in Canada. Fewer than 50% of Canadians attend religious services at all, and only about 23% report attending services at least once a month. I would cut out all tax advantages, tax exemptions etc. associated with religious affiliation. I recognize, of course, that I will get no-where with that argument. But surely we could at least make rules about bikes and scooters and motorcycles and vaccinations that are based on risk assessment not religious tradition.

         OK, enough. In the era of Trump, this is not a serious issue. Just write it off as a rant. I’ll try to have a more significant topic next time.