A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
ADVERTISEMENTS
A state lawmaker’s proposal to require adult bicycle riders in Oregon to wear helmets unfortunately disappeared earlier this month almost as soon as it was floated.
We don’t understand why Democratic Sen. Floyd Prozanski of Eugene crumbled so fast in the face of criticism from bicycle groups, but we wish he would recommit to supporting the helmet-law idea.
We expect that many may disagree with us. Some will cite lots of rationalized reasons of why adult bikers should not be required to wear helmets. But we would respectfully say “hooey.” Prozanski was on exactly the right path in suggesting that bicyclists of all ages – not just those under 17 – should be required by law to wear helmets for increased personal and general public safety reasons.
Some folks may object to such a law citing their right to freely make their own personal choices. But when it comes to vehicle safety, why should those who ride bicycles be treated differently from the operators of motorcycles or cars?
Oregon law requires that motorcyclists wear helmets. It requires that all drivers and passengers wear seat belts. The rationale for these laws is that society must pay the price of immediate and lifelong care when a helmetless motorcyclist suffers a head injury, or when someone who is not wearing a seat belt is hurt in a car wreck.
That exact rationale applies equally to bicyclists. If Prozanski isn’t willing to pursue this safety initiative, then other legislators should take up the cause.
We would strongly encourage members of Washington County’s legislative delegation to make increased bicycle safety an immediate priority by calling attention to the issue and committing now to introduce bike helmet legislation in the 2009 session.
Doing so makes sense. Fuel prices, a depressed economy and great summer weather are prompting more and more people to bike about the community. Meanwhile, we appropriately invest in building more and more miles of bike paths. So isn’t it silly and downright dangerous that we do not also expand the rules of safety required of bicyclists?
Washington County bike riders and legislators should lead Oregon forward on this issue by working as partners to support legislation requiring that all bike riders must wear helmets. In turn, their efforts will result in increased personal and public safety locally and on Oregon’s many miles of paths and roadsides used by more and more bike riders.
To quote: "It's a car problem, why try to solve it by making cyclists wear a styrofoam hat." and "Helmet laws are to cyclist safety like forcing all women to wear a styrofoam chastity belt is to rape prevention, uncomfortable and ultimately useless."
(email verified)
Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 02:10 PM
Bottom line people - people make very sorry decisions and need to be protected from themselves. What's wrong with wanting to increase the chances of someone's survival? If one's "freewill" is limited to not wearing a bike helmet, then one needs to reevaluate his/her life balance.
(email verified)
Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:30 PM
Helmets should only be required on streets that do not have marked bike lanes. Cars should be required to go 20 mph on streets with bike lanes - its only fair.
Think of this the next time you waddle to your car: bike riders are a) ehlping ease dependance on foreign oil; b) not emitting carbon waste into the air; c) relieving traffic jams; and d) filtering air with their lungs.
(email verified)
Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Getalife,
Bike lanes, schmike lanes. A large majority of bikers don't even use them! It's not fair for cars to slow down because bikers choose to ride on main thoroughfares as long as they are cautious and courteous. You can keep thinking you are a martyr by riding your bike. I say don't wear a helmet. Let Darwinism weed out all the morons.
(email verified)
Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 08:05 AM
Ronda said:
"Bottom line people - people make very sorry decisions and need to be protected from themselves."
And getalife said:
"Think of this the next time you waddle to your car: bike riders are a) ehlping ease dependance on foreign oil; b) not emitting carbon waste into the air; c) relieving traffic jams; and d) filtering air with their lungs."
-------------
Finally, someone has the guts/stupidity to come right out and say what anyone who backs these ridiculous laws is really thinking - "I'm smarter and better than you."
These laws...helmet laws, seatbelt laws, anit-smoking laws...are all supported by people who generally already perform these behaviors, and think they're so high-n-mighty superior that they have a moral obligation to force their habits on the rest of the population by passing inane laws that ultimately do very little except violate EVERYONE'S civil liberties.
Ronda and GetALife, I have an idea - I go to the gym 3 times a week and I rarely eat simple carbs (breads, refined sugars, etc.)
I think we should pass a law that requires all citizens to get a membership to Bally and eat no more than 1 piece of white bread every week.
After all, that would cut down on obesity and heart disease, and it would be of benefit to the general population, right? So why not?
The only thing worse than someone who doesn't think for themselves is someone who wants to think for everyone else.
(email verified)
Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 02:43 PM
Dear Editor,
While I don’t disagree that everyone who rides a bicycle should wear a helmet, I do disagree with your premise that the “rational for these laws is that society must pay for the immediate and lifelong care when a helmetless motorcyclist suffers a head injury, or when someone who is not wearing a seatbelt is hurt in a car wreck.”
The rationale is that these actions save lives, period.
This cost to society is incurred when either (or both) vehicles are operating without insurance; otherwise Personal Injury Protection (PIP) is offered to anyone injured in an accident regardless of fault.
The same holds true for bicyclists.
I also drive and insure a motor vehicle (as do most adult cyclists) and my own provider’s PIP will cover my immediate medical expenses if I am in a collision while riding on the roadway, regardless of whether it is with another vehicle or some other hard, immovable object.
As a certified League Cycling Instructor and Coach for the League of American Bicyclists (www.bikeleague.org), I support and promote helmet wearing by everyone who rides, whether it is a bike, tricycle, scooter or skateboard. Helmet use is proven to reduce serious head injuries by over 85% and my own personal story can bear that out.
In November of 2003, I had written an article to the then “Back Seat” column published in the Oregonian about the dangers to bicyclists of fallen wet leaves on the streets. Lo and behold, I hit a patch of said wet leaves, the bike went down, and the next thing I remember was waking up in the hospital and asking where my bike was.
Thank goodness I was wearing a helmet because it got smashed; otherwise I wouldn’t be able to write this letter of disagreement.
Over the past few months, the Washington County Bicycle Transportation Coalition (WashCo BTC) has distributed over 1000 helmets through a grant by ACTS Oregon. While many have been for kids, almost half have been fitted for adults. Some at their request for the reasons mentioned in your editorial, some at their children’s insistence, and some at our explanations of the hazards of riding without one.
Still, you can’t legislate intelligence. Included in our mission statement is the phrase “to improve bicycling conditions in Washington County Oregon, through education and advocacy. “ We placed education first because we believe it removes ignorance and doubt about what is expected when using our roads.
I encounter riders daily without helmets and deem them ‘hard heads.’ I’ve tried to speak to many who get defensive and argumentative. I thought about giving up when I saw man who was riding in the bike lane while I was waiting for a bus. He had his daughter (perhaps 3 years old) in a back wheel baby carrier on his bike. She was wearing a helmet, he was not. While he waited for the light to change (he had the sense to do that!) I asked if he had considered what might happen to her if, while he was ‘just on my way to the store’, something happened to him between home and store while she was with him. His response was, “I never thought of it that way.” I gave him my business card and told him we would be at the Cedar Mill Farmers Market that weekend, giving away helmets. Saturday morning, he was one of our first customers. He also brought his wife and son. All four are now helmeted!
As Vice Chair for Washington County’s Rural Roads Operations and Maintenance Advisory Committee (RROMAC) I’ve been called upon to craft a letter calling on the board of commissioners to proclaim support for a ‘mandatory education and certification program’ for anyone who rides a bicycle beyond neighborhood streets, regardless of age. Riders would carry this certification, much as a life guard, CPR trained civilian or motorist who drives a car does. The logic is that it will aid law enforcement and insurers in better deciding fault or responsibility for collisions and remove that aspect of ignorance of the laws as they apply to bicycling. It also address the ignorance factor mentioned above.
While still in the draft stages, the committee believes education will do more than mandatory helmet laws.
I hold classes regularly, and a seminar in Beaverton this September will provide no fewer than 10 new instructors, certified by the League to conduct its classes (From Kids 1 to Motorist Education) in the Washington County area. You should attend a class.
Aside from ‘doing so makes sense’ for the reasons you give (rising fuel prices and economics and great summer weather) more people are discovering the joys of bicycling they learned as youths and well as a youthful vigor after a 10 or 15 mile ride that they hadn’t occurred since they got behind the wheel so many years before.
No impact (unless you count those collisions of course) aerobic exercise, and a commune with our beautiful countryside at 12 miles an hour instead of 55 can only help anyone’s health who can sit in a saddle and pedal with hands or feet.
Finally, you state that [Oregon] is being ‘silly and downright dangerous to [not) also expand the rules of safety required of bicyclists.’ I teach that the helmet is only one of many safety tools for bicyclists to use. The most important one is the one protected by that 1” of polystyrene; the brain!
Will you next call to expand the rules of safety for pedestrians and require that they walk on the side facing traffic and wear helmets? Let’s also include skate boarders, scooter pushers and mobility chair users while you’re at it.
Rather, Oregon would do better to support efforts that teach that bicycles are vehicles and “bicyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.” - John Forester
Hooey (with all due respect) yourself!
Hal Ballard
Executive Director
WashCo BTC
http://washcobtc.org
503.516.6733
LCI Coach #815
League of American Bicyclists
www.bikeleague.org
Transportation Solutions byCycle
(email verified)
Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Two points I would like to make:
1. Forcing someone to wear a helmet does not force them to wear it properly. Safety devices (including seatbelts, which I have seen worn improperly on many occasions--no lap belt, lab belt too high, shoulder belt under arm, etc.) only protect to the degree to which they are properly used. Plopping any loose-fitting, 15-year-old styro-bucket on your head does not make you safer, and it may actually make you less safe. How would *proper* helmet use be enforced?
2. "why should those who ride bicycles be treated differently from the operators of motorcycles or cars?"
I'll respond to that with two more questions:
a) What is the horsepower difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle? Large. Huge, even.
b) Why does my bike helmet insist that it is not suitable for "motorsport use"? Because bicycles and motorized vehicles are vastly different.
OK, a third point. Helmet laws are motivated by the desire to remove responsibility from drivers who are afraid they might get careless and run over a cyclist. Drivers feel more comfortable around helmeted riders because they can be more sloppy in their driving. To draw a parallel, there is a reason we strictly regulate handguns rather than force citizens to wear bullet-proof vests. Would we all be safer wearing our bullet-proof vests? Sure we would! Deaths due to accidental shootings would plummet. But we don't do that--instead, we expect people in control of deadly weapons to handle those weapons responsibly.
(email verified)
Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Find a paper
Enter a street name
or a 5 digit zip code
Browse archive
The Times
Opinion feed
Facebook
Digg
Del.icio.us
Newsvine
Stumbleupon
Reddit
Re: Bicycle helmet law for all is a no-brainer
Firstly, only 20 of the 50 states in the United States require helmets for motorcycles. Secondly, the connection drawn between car seat belts and motorcycle helmets is illusionary. Cars built before seat belts were required are not mandated to be retrofitted and, unlike a car's seat belt, a helmet on a bicycle is an ancillary piece of equipment. It's understandable that society is forced to pay for the healthcare of those injured on bicycles without helmets, but where does freewill come into play? Society pays for uninsured smokers when they come down with lung cancer, so should government ban smoking?
"sean coker"
(email verified)
Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 07:44 PM