Earlier this week, the City of Winnipeg published a cycling safety report that reads, at first glance, like it was written by Captain Obvious. It concludes the best way to stay safe on a bike is to wear a helmet and avoid a collision with a car.

There is no arguing with this logic. You wouldn't quibble with NASA if the space agency determined the best way to keep astronauts safe is to prevent rockets from exploding mid-air.

You wouldn't question the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for advising you to stop scarfing down salmonella to avoid food poisoning. You wouldn't quibble with the Winnipeg Police Service if the cops advised you to foil vehicle theft by remembering not leave your keys in the ignition.

But you would wonder about the point of the exercise.

In the case of the city's cycling safety study, the raison d'etre has a lot more to do with the politics of funding cycling infrastructure than it has to do with the well-being of Winnipeg cyclists.

Last June, council's protection, community services and parks committee voted to ask city staff to review requirements for cyclists to wear helmets all the time and use light and bells at night.

​Transcona Coun. Russ Wyatt authored the motion, ostensibly out of a desire to protect the noggins of nocturnal and daytime cyclists. But there is another motivation: Wyatt is a frequent opponent of city efforts to spend money on cycling infrastructure.

This is not because Russ Wyatt hates bicycles. Rather, the Transcona councillor is the loudest advocate at city hall for municipal spending on road renewals.

Ergo, every dollar the city spends on bike corridors is a loonie that could have been spent on roadways, at least to Wyatt. It doesn't matter that the city spends far, far less on bike-and-pedestrian infrastructure than it does on roads.

Anyway, if a report came back to city council that recommended new regulations requiring cyclists to wear helmets, an argument could have been made in favour of continuing to have cyclists mingle with motor-vehicle traffic as much as possible.

But that didn't happen. In the report published this week, Winnipeg active transportation manager Stephanie Whitehouse made no recommendations whatsoever.

Image | Cyclist hit

Caption: A police officer walks past a bent bicycle near the corner of Manitoba Avenue and McNichol Street in 2015. A motorist and cyclist collided at the intersection. (Michael Fazio/CBC)

Load Image

What she did do was conduct a review of research literature about the safety benefits of bike helmets, bells and other safety devices, as well compare bike-safety legislation in a number of Canadian cities.

In a brief summary, the report says wearing a helmet goes a long way to prevent a head injury when you're involved in a low-speed collision. An example would be when you wipe out due to a fall.

At higher speeds, however, wearing a helmet won't do much to protect your melon. If you get smacked by a speeding SUV, that helmet is little more than an ugly fashion accessory.

"Designing cycling routes separated from vehicles and cycling on low traffic streets is associated with a reduced risk of injury," Whitehouse wrote.

If Coun. Wyatt was hoping for a road safety reason to justify less funding for cycling infrastructure, this report doesn't cut it at all.

What Whitehouse wound up doing was carrying out her orders from city council without providing any new policy direction for the city. For now, adult Winnipeggers can continue to decide whether or not to wear helmets and the city can continue to spend some, but not much money on cycling infrastructure.

But the report could also be interpreted as a subtle rebuke of Wyatt's effort to use public safety as a justification for siphoning money away from cycling infrastructure.

Of course, no public servant would ever knowingly contradict the will of an elected official. That's also something Captain Obvious might write, if he were prone to sarcasm.