national

Police launch campaign to encourage cyclists to wear helmets

19 Comments

In an effort to prevent bicycle-related deaths, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police have launched a campaign to encourage cyclists to wear helmets.

The official name of the awareness-raising squad is クールサイクリング展示啓発隊 (Cool Cycling Exhibition Enlightenment Squad or CEEMSS.

According to figures collated by the police, 70% of the 33 fatal bicycle-related accidents in Tokyo last year were due to fatal head injuries, Fuji TV reported.

Citing an example, the police said that last November, an 80-year-old cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, fell off her bicycle in Suginami Ward and died after hitting her head on the pavement. The police called this an example of "an avoidable death."

A Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department spokesman said: “We hope to encourage more cyclists to wear helmets, which, in turn, will reduce the number of accident-related deaths.”

© Japan Today

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

Do this "cycling squad" have a mascot? If not, it will clearly fail... Seriously, I think this is a good initiative, albeit a little late to the game. Bike helmets do prevent some of the more serious damages and could possibly help decreasing the amount of seriously hurt/dead. That being said, Japanese bicyclists attitude toward their surroundings and other people must change for this to work. Something so self absorbed, ignorant and dangerous as J-cyclists probably doesn't exist anywhere. The entitlement I come across with all bike riders is laugable. They care about no one or nothing, plowing through masses like they were tank drivers.

Also, people who can barely walk (or see) should not be on bicicles.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why don't they have, "This is a stop sign!" campagne. I see more people jumping off their bikes because cars do not stop at corners with stop signs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I wear a helmet, but I hear that there is more than one side to the debate for http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm and against http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html. I note particularly that helmets (and not listening to music) could help car drivers as much as cyclists.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Also, people who can barely walk (or see) should not be on bicicles."

Says the non-owner of a "bicicle"...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Fuben: "Do this "cycling squad" have a mascot? "

Probably; it'll be either some big, messed up half-bird, half city Kanji symbol that is too big to ride a bike and won't wear a helmet, or else some manga drawing of a twelve year old with a bust where each breast is twice the size of her head and she's red faced when she realises her undies are showing as she bends over to check the tires.

In any case, this will do NOTHING, same as actual laws in Japan do nothing, until it too is made a law, as it is in many civilised nations, and the laws are enforced. Until then, not a thing will come of this... except maybe the poorly thought out mascot mentioned above.

timtak: "I wear a helmet, but I hear that there is more than one side to the debate"

I also always wear a helmet. Always. I can't see what the other side of the debate could possibly be in terms of validity, except that it will cost money. People who argue against helmets being mandatory (and it has been tried in a couple of cities in Japan) argue mainly that a helmet isn't going to help in the event of a major accident anyway, which isn't really an argument in my opinion, but an excuse.

The way to get people wearing them to start, before creating a law making it mandatory, would be to make helmets stylish and fun -- and NOT by creating a stupid mascot!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I can't see what the other side of the debate could possibly be in terms of validity, except that it will cost money.

I wear a helmet about 90% of the time. But it leaves me with bad hair, and if I have a meeting with a client in which I need to look proper, I skip the helmet that day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They should also encourage them with expensive fines not to text or use their cell phones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why not make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet?

independent_thought_alarm.jpg

2 ( +2 / -0 )

patty cake champion

Why not make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet?>

Exactly/ageed pattycake, logicly its that simple... enforcment is another animal unfortunatly..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Exactly/ageed pattycake, logicly its that simple... enforcment is another animal unfortunatly..

I thought the Japanese were law abiding people.

"Ohhh..the state has banned cycling without helmet, shikataganai, obey the law!"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Strangerland: "and if I have a meeting with a client in which I need to look proper, I skip the helmet that day."

Well, that's the perfect example of where convenience trumps safety -- the kind of thing we always read about when parents wonder why their kids are dead after the very audible sound of their heads hitting the ground after they have a bike accident (and I've heard it, though the kids in those cases quickly starting balling, thank the gods). We hear this same mentality over the moms that fought, and won, against the law started in Osaka making it illegal to have two kids on the bike at a time because the weight and balance are incredibly dangerous, or there being no fine for not wearing a seat belt in a car, despite the laws, because it would be "unpopular".

At least you wear a helmet sometimes, though.

patty cake champion: "Why not make it illegal to ride a bike without a helmet?"

Because, as I've mentioned, that would be too logical, and too unpopular -- especially with moms who already ignore the no umbrellas and no shopping bags from the handles. Besides, more than 70% of people, including police, don't even know the laws to begin with:

http://www.tokyobybike.com/2013/10/japanese-cycling-rules-mystery-for.html

Laws are considered 'light vehicles', but at the same time laws in the 70s changed to allow them to be ridden on sidewalks, etc. So, the laws are all basically up in the air:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/confused-by-japan’s-cycling-laws-you-aren’t-the-only-one

Now, Police ARE handing out more tickets, but last I heard there isn't really a method for enforcing payment or anything.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Because, as I've mentioned, that would be too logical, and too unpopular -- especially with moms who already ignore the no umbrellas and no shopping bags from the handles.

Who cares about DQN adults. I thought it would have more impact on the kids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

that's the perfect example of where convenience trumps safety

Kind of. I ride very differently when I'm not wearing a helmet than when I am. When I have one, I ride at high speeds in traffic, on main roads. When I'm not wearing one, I ride slower, on the sidewalk, and/or on less busy roads. I'm still keeping safety in mind.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I ride very differently when I'm not wearing a helmet than when I am.

Exactly. Even more importantly, there have also been studies which show that drivers tend to be less cautious when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet compared to one who is not. It's a similar phenomenon to American football players becoming more aggressive and taking more risks when they started to wear helmets.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strangerland: "Kind of. I ride very differently when I'm not wearing a helmet than when I am. When I have one, I ride at high speeds in traffic, on main roads. When I'm not wearing one, I ride slower, on the sidewalk, and/or on less busy roads. I'm still keeping safety in mind."

You may be still keeping safety in mind, but safety does not keep you in mind, unfortunately. An accident is just as likely to happen when you are taking care, with helmet off, then when you are moving faster with one on -- you never know when something, likely a car that doesn't care about cyclists, will pull out in front of you, slow or not. Just because YOU are being 'more careful' doesn't mean the situation will be safer.

M3M3M3: "Exactly. Even more importantly, there have also been studies which show that drivers tend to be less cautious when they see a cyclist wearing a helmet compared to one who is not. It's a similar phenomenon to American football players becoming more aggressive and taking more risks when they started to wear helmets."

Utter hogwash. A better example would be asking troops to go into combat wearing no body amor and just a t-shirt and jeans. I mean, aren't they more likely to avoid being shot if they know they are more vulnerable? There are also studies that show people who try harder to avoid accidents are more prone to create the conditions for them; it doesn't mean it will or won't happen. If you don't believe it, watch a first time driver who is constantly thinking about everything he or she has just learned and doing everything by the book, or so they think. Just because they are trying harder to avoid an accident doesn't make them less likely to do so, to counter your line of thinking. As for cars being less likely to not pull out if you're not wearing a helmet, that's not an excuse not to wear one, and more an excuse for police to nab those kinds of drivers.

YOU are putting your life at risk by not wearing a helmet, and also the lives of others. Plain and simple.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@smithinjapan

Utter hogwash.

It's certainly not hogwash in academic circles. The idea that some things designed to make you safer actually end up making you less safe because it encourages riskier behaviour is well established. It even has a name: 'the Peltzman effect' (named after Sam Peltzman who studied these relationships in cars, seatbelts, antilock breaks etc). I recommend you read Ian Walker's article "Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender" published in the Journal of Accident Analysis & Prevention.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What they found in Australia after introcing compulsory bike helmet laws is that the number of cyclists on the road was reduced to only those seriously into it. In the case of Japan this might not be a bad idea. What the police should be doing is issuing fines to cyclists who use their phones while on their bikes. That would be more effective than "asking" people to wear helmets. No businessman commuting by bike is going to turn up at work with his hair like a mushroom

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Christopher Glen

What they found in Australia after introducing compulsory bike helmet laws is that the number of cyclists on the road was reduced to only those seriously into it.

I read something about this too, and the argument, that seemed persuasive to me, that by introducing compulsory helmets and reducing the number of cyclists (down to those seriously into it), the law resulted in less excercise and more heart disease and more death.

Thanks to M3M3M3 for introducing the research.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

M3M3M3: "It's certainly not hogwash in academic circles. The idea that some things designed to make you safer actually end up making you less safe because it encourages riskier behaviour is well established."

In your example you pointed out that cars are more likely to pull out in front of people wearing helmets. That is not riskier behaviour on the part of the rider, it is lack of regard of the law by other parties. It is therefore moot. It also doesn't take into account that the opposite is equally true: taking extra care, overthinking, and overanalyzing can lead to errors and accidents.

And again, are you going to ask police to stop wearing vests because doing so leads to riskier behaviour? Why not? Are you going to ask that seat belt laws be repealed because wearing seat belts leads to riskier behaviour? Why not? When we read about accidents where young people are thrown from the cars and die, people always say, "Tsk tsk... no seat belts that's what you get," or something of the like, and it should be the same common sense with bicycles. This is about accidents that HAPPEN, THOUSANDS every year in which MANY get killed, including children, and there is a reason they are promoting helmets for safety. They idea in academic circles or fashion magazines that they should NOT promote them or make them mandatory because they MIGHT cause more accidents and give you bad hair is ludicrous.

But perhaps there are some statistics you can show us on people who died wearing helmets and those who died as a result of not wearing them to prove that it is just as dangerous or more so?

timtak: "I read something about this too, and the argument, that seemed persuasive to me, that by introducing compulsory helmets and reducing the number of cyclists (down to those seriously into it), the law resulted in less excercise and more heart disease and more death."

HUGE difference between Australia and Japan, wear using a bike might actually make a difference in terms of commuting. Most of the people who use bicycles here to get around would just, if worse came to worse, walk instead of riding if the laws became an inconvenience. If they walk to the station or supermarket instead of riding, they would still get the same amount of exercise. Besides, as with other bike laws in Japan if they made it mandatory they would exempt old people and children (ironically, given that it's already children who by law must have a helmet but that everyone ignores), who make up the most dangerous riders on both sides of the roads and sidewalks.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites