Updated: Vancouver passes all-ages helmet law
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on February 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
[Updated: 2/26, 11:37 am - I’ve added audio from the Councilmembers’ testimony (see below).]
(Photos © J. Maus)
Thirty days from now, it will be illegal for anyone to ride a bicycle in Vancouver without a helmet. Last night, after emotional testimony in favor of the law by Mayor Royce Pollard and other councilmembers, an all-ages helmet ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 1.
“Statistics be damned…I support this.”
–Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard in support of the helmet law.
The sole councilmember opposing the law was Pat Campbell, who said such a law would be “totally unnecessary” and that “what we have now is working.”
Campbell’s opposition to the law was echoed by the public testimony that was heard. Four citizens showed up to speak in opposition to the law, while one was in favor.
But given the emotional positions of a majority of Councilmembers, including Mayor Royce Pollard, it seems no amount of opposition could have derailed this from passing.
against the table as he told
his story.
Mayor Pollard said that Vancouver used to not need a helmet law, but that the “this is a much larger city now.” He added that, “If we can save one child because of this ordinance, or if we can save adult by this ordinance, than the statistics be damned. I support this.”
Pollard, with his own helmet in front of him as a prop, recounted a bad fall he took while riding in Esther Short Park. He told the crowd how he bruised his hip and scraped his shoulder; but because he was wearing his helmet his head was fine.
He concluded his testimony by saying that, “We will do everything we can to see that every child who can’t afford a helmet will get a helmet, the rest of you are on your own.”
Councilmember Jeanne Harris also had a personal story to share; she hit a man on a bike when she was 21 while pulling out of a fast food restaurant. But, because he was wearing a helmet, “He walked away from it.” She recalled, “I can’t tell you how it affected me that I could have hurt somebody…You can’t plan not to have an accident and that is what this is about. I don’t know if it’s going to help, but I don’t think it can hurt. It’s the responsible thing for the city to do.”
|
Jim O’Horo spoke in favor of the law.
|
Councilmember Pat Jollota also told of a “life-changing experience” she had that helped form her opinion on this issue: A visit to a brain injury ward. Her justification for supporting the law is that brain injuries lead to a financial burden on the state. “It’s not that I have the right to go out without a helmet and if I hurt myself it’s my problem, it’s not, it’s society’s problem, because we’re the ones that have to take care of you when it’s over with. It’s not you that you have to worry about, it’s everyone else who has to worry about you.”
A similar sentiment was shared by Councilmembers Larry Smith and Tim Leavitt.
Smith said for him, it comes down to his personal principals and values. “It comes back to who I am, and my value systems and what I believe in…The most important thing I do, is provide safety for the community. If I can save a life or an injury, how much does that cost…to a family?”
He added, “This is the right thing to do, I believe and support helmets for all ages. Why not?”
–Download the official ordinance here (PDF).
Here are audio clips of the testimony given by each member of the City Council:
Mayor Royce Pollard
Download file
Jeanne Harris
Download file
Pat Jollota
Download file
Pat Campbell
Download file
Larry Smith
Download file
Tim Leavitt
Download file
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
February 25th, 2008 21:16
Another mean spirited law.
How about protecting cyclists from harassment by Vantucky motorists? How about providing places to lock up my bike when I spend money in Vancouver?
Keep your laws off my (adult)body.
February 25th, 2008 21:38
gay!
February 25th, 2008 21:56
well i guess i'll never been venturing across the river. i wear a helmet but making a law about such is tom foolery and unconstitutional. most disappointing was the some "bike" club guy who's physical appearance definately shows he hasn't spent any meaningful time in the saddle.
February 25th, 2008 22:42
I now feel a bit sadder that I happen to live on the North side of the river. So much for my letter to Mr. Royce Pollard himself. All I can say is that your side of the river will be seeing me a lot more than before.
And don't get me started about harassment. Just today on my short ride to school, I was nearly hit by a guy in a truck who then revved his engine, sped around me, and flipped me off. Luckily we've got a police officer at our school and I promptly gave him the guy's license plate. Who knows what will happen, but at least it's a start.
February 25th, 2008 22:45
oh snap
February 25th, 2008 23:00
After watching the show on line...
do not worry about enforcement local bicyclists...several council members said they were supporting it on such a limited budget that enforcement will be secondary - especially if more important police business calls.
Perhaps the police department was too timid to challenge the mayor - thus their silence in the back row - usually they are pretty upfront when supporting something safety related.
More troubling about some of the council motivation in supporting this law was personal experience as drivers of crashing into bicyclists.
(Protect bicyclists not from poor driving or bad facilities but put a helmet on them to survive the crash vs. avoid it.)
For example, the repressed memory of a young Council member Harrison (?) of running into a bicyclist while leaving a drive thru was her reason for supporting it now vs. 10 years ago when she last voted on it.
Though please send letters of thanks to new Council member Campbell for asking questions - if there is a better way to achieve the shared objectives of safety and more healthy communities without more underenforced laws.
pat.campbell@ci.vancouver.wa.us
February 25th, 2008 23:02
JM -
Couldn't make the meeting tonight but caught some of it on CVTV. Saw you in the front shootin' photos and taking notes. I don't agree with the council's decision and wish the anti-ordinance had some better representation, but I appreciate you taking the time to venture north of the river to report on bike issues. Thanks much!
February 25th, 2008 23:19
#2
I don't understand your one word response. Are you saying that you're happy about the outcome? Because that is the only definition of the word that could in any way pertain to this thread.
February 25th, 2008 23:23
I can't believe they received as many letters in support as they did in opposition. I ride to work on a street that is 40mph, 4 lanes non of them for bikes, and curbed sidewalks. With a little funding they could remove the median planting strip and add bike lanes, but from attending several of the vancouver bike advisory committee a little funding is something that the council will never dedicate to bike safety. This passed because it cost close to nothing (I think they are going to buy a few kids helmets although I doubt they funded it well enough to buy one for all the kids who need them) It still amazes me how bad facilities are on the other side of the river...
Bjorn
February 25th, 2008 23:30
yikes! buckle up..
February 25th, 2008 23:37
In light of the link to the stats someone posted previously regarding the extremely adverse impact that such measures have had elsewhere on ridership numbers, this one leaves me wondering, is it just cluelessness, or actual malice that's driving these council members (no pun intended)?
February 25th, 2008 23:53
Whether they're clueless or malicious - as I've said previously about certain members of Portland's City government - who cares? Either way, they're bad at governance and need replacing. I hope this illustrates to everyone out there the importance of PARTICIPATING in YOUR democracy.
Although I am a big supporter of helmet laws, this is a truly stupid action given the far greater needs with respect to promoting the safety of bicycling, and road use in general, and the stated desire to do so.
February 26th, 2008 03:57
i wear a helmet, don't live in the 'couve, but do bike over there to hang with my dad from time to time. I'm with RN, i'd like to see some kind of biker awareness/courtesy/safety action over there. the hostilities drivers send towards bikers increases dramatically as soon as you cross the river. it really sucks. whether it's some d.s. kids shouting at you or hicks trying to intimidate you by buzzing you way too close, there is always something to deal with.
February 26th, 2008 06:29
is the law still directed at *any* person riding non-motorized wheeled vehicle of any type, as it seemed to be before?
cause enforcement on that is gonna be crazy, and bikes are only going to be the tip of the iceberg. getting every skater, blader, rollerskater, push scooter rider, etc etc in vacouver to wear a helmet, or cite them for not doing so... well, good luck with that.
i still cant believe the "car drivers keep hitting bicyclists! lets make them wear helmets." angle.
when does the law go into effect? immediately?
February 26th, 2008 06:57
In the past we had taken our bikes into Vancouver as a family, and rode around downtown Vancouver and the riverfront. We would eat and shop a bit.
But I guess that won't happen anymore.
I wear helmets but oppose helmet laws.
February 26th, 2008 07:13
The picture explains it all. They look like a bunch of old farts! I doubt they've even been on a bike in 40 years. And they're probably a bunch of disciplinarian religious types that think they're doing God's good work through legislation.... So sad....
February 26th, 2008 07:22
I wear a helmet - I don't pretend that it will save my life in a serious collision - I think time and energy focused on cyclist safety could be much better spent than passing an adult helmet law.
Perhaps they could pass a mandatory full-body bubble wrap law. Would that change road safety for cyclists? Would that change motorist attitudes?
Might this be another homeless/transient/poor folks harassment law? Most fancy bike middle class cyclists wear helmets anyway. Most transient bottle collector types don't.
I will chime in with Toby about post #2. Whether you intend it or not, you are associating homosexuality with a helmet law. I don't see the connection, and as I have posted elsewhere, it neither strengthens or weakens your argument (if there is one) to drop such language. Unless you did mean 'happy,' which, of course, is still a confusing fragment, but perhaps legit.
Off to commute I go! Wheeeeeeeeee.....
February 26th, 2008 07:26
For crying out loud...
Why do they hate freedom?
Why do they hate America?
The Nazi's have won.
ps: I wear a helmet when I ride...
February 26th, 2008 07:35
I think they pass these laws because too many people are too stupid to realize that helmets are a smart idea. They won't save you from being hit from behind or being scrunched by a bus, but if a choice between broken bones and a severe concussion is my option, I'll take the broken bones. And who pays for my care when my insurance runs out (that includes my 1 million dollar umbrella policy)? It's you, the public.
Last week my nephew skiied and fell with a faceplant into a rock. His broken nose and gashes will heal, but his severe concussion will last a lifetime. But he was too cool to wear a helmet. And we taxpayers will continue paying for his care.
So if you already wear a helmet, what's the big deal? Do you want to take it off as soon as you cross the river into Vancouver? Do you take off the seatbelts in your car when you cross the river? Get over it! Set a good example to your kids by your own actions.
February 26th, 2008 07:39
So....rather than just bitching about how much Vancouver sucks, what can we do about it? I just moved to the N side of the river a couple of months ago. I opposed the law and couldn't make the meeting but did write a letter. I'm trying to use my bike for transit, but I'm much more worried for my safety up here. We say, "get involved" and "participate in govt"...but if we do want to but don't know how....how?
February 26th, 2008 08:29
Absolutely fantastic! What we have here is a great opportunity for greater bicycle safety. We need to strike while the iron is hot!
"Mayor Pollard said that Vancouver used to not need a helmet law, but that the “this is a much larger city now.” He added that, “If we can save one child because of this ordinance, or if we can save [sic] adult by this ordinance, than the statistics be damned. I support this.” "
From his statement, can we expect mayor Pollard to support lower speed limits on city streets in his efforts to "save (even) one life"? Perhaps the city council can now do something of substance for the safety of it's citizens!
February 26th, 2008 08:31
So where do we stop? Do we continue to pass laws for our own protection from anything that could hurt us?
Soon we will all be required to be coated in Nerf(TM).
February 26th, 2008 08:45
John Reinhold, I want to recommend to you that you (and everyone else) bypass the whole reducto ad absurdium argument and go straight to finding a bike advocacy project to spend your energy on. Want to make some media calls for my citizen-initiated violation proceedings?
February 26th, 2008 09:00
Dcary, statements like you've just made here make me so sad about the future of this country. Helmet and seat-belt laws do not serve the cause of public safety, they line the pockets of insurance companies, plastics manufacturers, and provide still more probable cause for enforcement-bodies.
In this instance helmets are being used to harass cyclists in Vancouver. Plain and simple. This on the heels of motorist outcry for licensing, registration, and liability insurance. The timing is beyond suspect. The Vancouver city council just delivered this message to an entire class of people: "If cyclists are going to whine about their personal safety, then how do they like these apples?!"
Dcary, the big-deal is one of principle. While few argue that using personal safety equipment is a bad idea I, for one, am of the opinion that these choices are personal ones; and that they are none of your business, Dcary, let alone the city government of a rinky-dink town like Vancouver, Washington.
Your argument about public resources does not stand up, either. You are careful to point out that uninsured, injured cyclists are a drain on public monies. As such, you feel entitled to legislate away our personal freedoms in order to prevent public responsibility for this rare occurrence.
Consider this just a bit further, and you will see that we all pay into the tax system, yet we take from that system at a disproportionate rate. This is the very nature of taxation. For instance, Dcary are you a giant, fat cow? If so, you'll likely end up with diabetes. At what point will you need to draw upon public resources in order to survive? And once you do, won't I have the right, using your logic, to monitor your eating habits, and your fitness level?
I'll give this cycling-community kudos for some things. One of them being a better than average ability to organize. I hope I see the entire, "cycling community", riding all over Vancouver, sans helmet of course, in protest of the B.S. law. Lastly, Dcary mind your own business, instead of everyone else's. That is a two-way street, and I bet you wouldn't like to have your lifestyle under a micro-scope.
February 26th, 2008 09:04
There is a larger underlying issue. That cycling sucks in Vancouver. Every time I have had to ride up there for something I cross my fingers I don't have to return. Or maybe there is some magical roads that aren't marked up there where cars are flying by at 50 while on their cell phones right as the bike lane disappears. A corner stone for bicycle safety should start with urban planning, which to me is one of Vancouver's greatest weaknesses.
Oh yes, and I'm a helmet advocate but I still respect peoples right to choose even if I dont agree with it.
February 26th, 2008 09:06
Oh, and a.O., the day is coming when you and I are gonna' meet. I'm counting the seconds.
February 26th, 2008 09:25
I'm with chipseal #21.
instead of everyone complaining about the erosion of personal freedoms (which is important, granted), now is a good time to hold the council to their words and try to push their hand with regards to safer roads.
It's not so easy as saying 'we'll wear helmets, now you make bike lanes', but there's an opportunity now that wasn't there yesterday. However misguided, the council has been discussing cyclist safety. Should folks complain about it, or try to guide it?
February 26th, 2008 09:26
the choice is pretty easy now...don't like the law, don't go to Vancouver.
period. that's now the personal choice for Oregonians..and really, why would anyone want to ride up there to begin with? the road terrain is terrible, hostile, and hardly accessible...
I highly doubt the Vancouver City Council really cares what Oregonians think, really..
Vance, your ramblings won't change a single thing....and I hope A.O. saves your last message as it has threatening tones..
February 26th, 2008 09:50
What a waste of effort and energy all around. I wear a helmet because I'm grownup enough to know I need to. I don't need Johnny Law telling me to eat my veggies or wipe my ass front to back either.
Well I've gone 10 years in Portland without ever once setting foot in Vancouver so it's not like they're gonna miss my business.
February 26th, 2008 09:52
"Four citizens showed up to speak in opposition to the law, while one was in favor." J Maus/editor bikeportland
Just four citizens? Well that says a lot doesn't it? I wonder if they were all from Vancouver. Also, how many letters in opposition city council received in regards to the proposed, now official law.
There's six people on the Van City Council. Four people speaking out in opposition to a six panel city council's mostly emotionally motivated action is not an effective way to bring a decision to a more realistic turn.
It isn't that city council members sentiments and concerns about bike related injuries aren't well advised and appreciated, but simply that at this time, despite Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard's observation that “this is a much larger city now.”(whatever that means...larger, relative to what?)circumstances in Vancouver do not seem to call for such a law in that city.
February 26th, 2008 09:55
whew, at last some relief from the difficult moral ambiguity of drivers injuring or killing bikers! now such incidents will fall neatly into the easy categories either of "scofflaw biker had it coming" or "act of god," neither of which will impel real safety improvements in the physical and mental environment of our roads.
this is not change; this is at once a washing of hands and a legislative reinforcement of the status quo.
February 26th, 2008 10:02
Wouldn't ride there before, now won't even consider it...Though I might set up a helmet stand at the State line of the I-5 bridge.
February 26th, 2008 10:02
For bicyclists interested in taking Mayor Pollard and our council up on their strong interest in improving bicyclist safety in Vancouver...please contact the BTA about organizing a BTA chapter for Vancouver.
There has been support at the BTA in doing this but no cadre of active transportation activists in Vancouver to kick this off.
BTA Staff for Metro Vancouver contact:
Emily Gardner
503.226.0676 x11
emily@bta4bikes.org
February 26th, 2008 10:19
Yep, same old, same old for the sate of Washington, with a few lovely conceptual highlights:
- Councilmember Harris hits a man on his bike with her car, but he's fine because he was wearing his helmet, which protected...what? His legs? His ribs? His spine? Man, if I had one of those full body helmets, I might just wear it all the time.
- Mayor Pollard falls, bruises hip and shoulder, and takes the fact that his head was fine as proof that the helmet is essential to preserving life. So if I go around endlessly recounting the myriad instances that I have fallen and scraped my knees, bruised my hip, banged my elbow, or even broken my collarbone while not wearing a helmet, can I use these instances as proof that a snap brim fedora saved my skull?
- One more time, we have the unassailable argument that "if even one life can be saved by this law, it should be passed." I quite agree. This is why we need laws banning cars completely from all streets in the country, as well as laws that require anyone walking in the presence of any hard surface to wear helmets, laws that ban swimming without flotation devices, laws banning any poisonous substances, etc. Think how many lives could be saved! Now think about whether that is truly a good thing.
- "This is the right thing to do. I believe in and support helmets for all ages, so why not?" Sounds good. All citizens of Vancouver should be provided with helmets by the city, to be worn at all thims. It'll be the safest city in the world, and just think of all the lives that will be saved!
February 26th, 2008 10:30
Oh, and a.O., the day is coming when you and I are gonna' meet. I'm counting the seconds.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
February 26th, 2008 10:51
a.O, bahueh #28 - What? Are we dating? Is this some silly little child drama? It's droll, fools. Imagine that I said it behind a yawn. Get over yourselves. I may be pretty hard on the messenger, granted. But your ad-homninem attackes are so tiresome. Which I was merely pointing out, by the way. But you go ahead with whatever paranoid delusion you are stirring up.
February 26th, 2008 11:10
The helmet law was based upon emotion versus data and that isn't the right way to come to a decision but that's not the point of my post.
My concern is the ridership impact and its effects. If infrastructure expenditure is calculated by ridership and this suppresses it what do you think is going to happen to Vancouver infrastructure?
The core problem lies within that answer. That's the irony of what appears to be heartfelt reasons for their decision. There's another aspect of this: the helmet law bears no budgetary cost. Meanwhile building infrastructure impacts tax dollars.
It does seem like a good idea to call council members to initiate other safety related cycling programs as they have stated their desire to save lives. We might want to leverage that.
February 26th, 2008 11:11
Yeah, that's what I thought.
February 26th, 2008 11:12
I'm not comparing the Vancouver City Council with nazis, because fascists don't care about either individual freedom or safety. However unless CoV is going to drasticly drop their speed limits and up enforcement their rationale for passing this law is highly suspect. What this law is is a cosmetic for the behinds of the city council members i.e. a CYA. It won't do anything to reduce the number of cars running into cyclists, nor will it have any real influence on the number of fatalities for those who do get hit. Head trauma is such a small part of the overall fatal injuries that even the fabled 85% reduction of head injuries given for helmet usage will only make a blip in the statistics.
And as I counted the support there was a 4-1 ratio against the proposal, with the council ignoring those opposed to listen to the one in favor.
February 26th, 2008 11:22
BikePortland scoops another transportation news topic.
Additionally, there was local news coverage of this in the Columbian newspaper this AM:
http://www.columbian.com/news/localNews/2008/02/02262008_Vancouver-city-council-enacts-helmet-law.cfm
February 26th, 2008 11:25
Nanny state ftl
February 26th, 2008 11:27
BikePortland readers you may also view the public and council discussion of this topic on CVTV web link:
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/stage/cvtv/cvtvindex.asp?section=25437&folderID=1718
February 26th, 2008 11:54
So,
Todd B, where were you in preventing this from happening?
I thought you were the City of Vancouver Cycling man?
February 26th, 2008 12:00
Vance..remember your medication in the morning...its easier on all of us.
what you post makes little to no sense..
February 26th, 2008 12:20
"And as I counted the support there was a 4-1 ratio against the proposal, with the council ignoring those opposed to listen to the one in favor." Opus #39
Opus, I'm not disagreeing with you, but rephrasing my earlier post, that 4-1 ratio you mention represents merely 5 people. Only 4 people out of an entire city showed up before their city council to oppose this decision. That would seem to indicate that the citizens of Vancouver Washington do not generally oppose this law.
February 26th, 2008 12:38
I SUPPORT THE HELMET LAW. And I feel like I'm alone. I had to write this 'cause I can't believe the overwhelming opposition.
For everyone complaining about not doing other safety actions in Vancouver, having a helmet law doesn't exclude any other safety initiatives.
Life is a percentage game, with risks in everything we do - wearing a helmet protects the brain, which is super-serious when it is even slightly injured.
There's the analogy of seat belt laws - do folks really believe that we should have 'freedom of choice' regarding wearing a seat belt?
The problem is that many people underestimate their risks, and would not wear either without a law.
And since this is the usual helmet-law arguing that has been shown to never end, I'm stepping out right here.
February 26th, 2008 12:39
#45, or that not enough people actually knew of it in time.
February 26th, 2008 12:58
Bill Stiles (#46) wrote: "There's the analogy of seat belt laws - do folks really believe that we should have 'freedom of choice' regarding wearing a seat belt?"
Yes. I do.
More grownups please.
February 26th, 2008 13:03
I must tell you that as a cyclist, and long term Vancouver/Hockinson resident, (albeit off and on) and being known as a serious rider, I hear about cycling concerns from a wide variety of residents. Young, old, etc. Standing on a corner, or sitting at a bar, I hear it all the time.
The majority of them, (I really should say all of them) speak out against the same problem.
It is the group rides, especially out here in Hockinson, riding three and four wide, on the shoulderless country roads.
Many of these are regular VBC rides, it would appear. It is also the same type of group rides, in town, riding three and four wide, even spilling out of the bike lanes.
It is a general concern for the safety of the cyclist for one.
And the apparent actions of the groups of cyclists, that give the idea they have the right to ride three and four wide, and do not even attempt much of the time to move over and
allow cars to pass.
And these people have the right idea, as it is the responsibility of the cyclist to narrow it down to no more than two wide, if not single file, to allow traffic to pass.
It is the holier than though attitude that gets people irked. Not the fact that they are on the road, the fact that they appear to think that they own the road.
MY point is that most residents are encountering cyclists, and having problems with cyclists, that are already wearing helmets.
And the Vancouver Bicycle Club, the one possible ally we had in shutting this ordinance change down, was sadly and solidly behind it.
This would point, and is echoed through sentiment when I have recently asked random people, to residents not having a problem at all with a helmet requirement. It is really not going to affect them, they already generally wear helmets if they ride, and make their kids wear helmets. (the families I deal with anyway)
February 26th, 2008 13:04
RE: comparing helmet laws to seatbelt laws.
Main difference I see is that cars are very easily proven to be dangerous by numerous statistics and research papers.
On the other hand, no such conclusive research (that everyone can agree on) exists for bicycle use.
And by the way, aren't helmets not mandatory for motorcycles in Washington?
February 26th, 2008 13:12
The BTA referenced a study showing that helmet laws lead to fewer people using bicycles for transportation, I know of no such study on seat belt laws showing a reduction in motor vehicle use. I also know of no study that shows that having a higher percentage of mode share makes driving a car safer. My point being that studies show that for cyclists who currently wear their helmets and ride in Vancouver this law makes us less safe, there is no parallel to the seat belt law.
Bjorn
February 26th, 2008 13:30
double gay!
February 26th, 2008 13:31
sorry, I meant:
Double Homosexuality!
February 26th, 2008 14:24
Toby #47, it's interesting that you say Vancouver residents might not have known that the Van City Council was deciding to enact this law. I seem to recall that the Vancouver newspaper wrote an article about the proposed helmet law. It's been discussed on this weblog for several weeks now, but maybe there aren't many Couv residents checking in here.
I find it odd that the Van Bike Club would support this kind of blanket law when no real demonstrated need for it exists. It's one thing to say 'alright, everybody riding with the club has to wear a helmet on club rides'. To effectively say, 'adults in the City of Vancouver generally do not have sufficient good judgment to wear a bike helmet when circumstances call for it', is an entirely different thing.
I'm just wondering if the Portland City Council is going to try mimic Vancouver's action in regard to mandatory adult bike helmet use if Sho Dozono becomes mayor in the next election.
February 26th, 2008 16:10
A mandatory helmet law certainly is an excellent way marginalize cyclists, by reducing their numbers, and making it appear that cycling more dangerous than it was just few years ago. It also provides the illusion that government has done something positive about safety when they have not done anything to improve the cyclists lot.
And all of this was accomplished with all of the costs externalized among a fringe user group. Bravo, straight out of Authoritarianism 101.
February 26th, 2008 16:47
I agree with Bill Stites as well. Seatbelt laws have proven their effectiveness in people using seatbelts. Washington state was one of the 1st states to pass seatbelt laws and now leads the nation in seat belt useage. Also, in Washington they already have a helmet laws for those under the age 18. I don't see a problem of expanding that law to adults.
Wear a Helmet. It is that simple.
February 26th, 2008 17:26
Jordan, there is no bicycle helmet law for those under 18 statewide in Washington. There is one on Oregon for those under 16. Perhaps you have confused the 2 states.
February 26th, 2008 17:34
Sadly a lot of Vancouverites look to the Oregonian for their news (live on the eastside or commute into Oregon)...and missed the Columbian coverage of this issue (1 article and 1 editorial).
February 26th, 2008 17:35
Cont...
Sadly in that the Oregonian has drastically cut back the staff time and ink on Vancouver news (and other metro markets). - That is unless the news bleeds...guns, goons, gold.
February 26th, 2008 17:38
My confusion, many local jurisdictions in WA have under 18 helmet laws.
February 26th, 2008 17:40
Hi Dabby...yes...give me a call ... we can chat about helmet politics up here in the 'Couv.
I will be at Sam's event tonight (Wonder ball room).
February 26th, 2008 17:58
I live in vancouver, and ride casual and bmx. When I saw this on KGW i was instantly filled with rage... wtf, is royce pollard thinking? its hard for me to say good bye to the city i was born and raised in, but people died for freedom, and if he can't respect that, f* him and his scabnet crew. I moving across river to freedom... props to Campbell for sticking up against the new-nazi regime!
i love the government telling me how to live life! f* mayor royce pollard.
February 26th, 2008 17:58
wsbob #54, I was referring specifically to people knowing when the final vote was. I have no idea if that is the case, just offering a possible explanation for the dismal turn out:) Sometimes these things are kind of whispered at the last minute, but I haven't been following close enough to really know.
Jonathan #50 I'd have to double check, but I'd wager all the money in my pocket ($.65) on Washington having a helmet law for motorcycles.
I don't remember the legal terminology for it so bare with me...Does anyone know if it is a primary or secondary (whatever) offense? You know, can they pull you over for not wearing one, or do they have to have a more serious reason to initiate the lashings? Aren't seat belts that way? They can't pull you over just for not wearing one, but they can write you up if you were pulled over for speeding...that sort of thing.
February 26th, 2008 18:02
OK, I just saved myself $.65 (whew!!) Here's a link with helmet laws by state:
http://tinyurl.com/23a6ku
February 26th, 2008 18:04
Last I heard, British Columbia has a helmet law for all riders. They also have national health insurance (I mean health care, sorry to confuse the two). I suppose that they figure if they are going to take care of people, it is in their interest to try to minimize the amount of care needed.
We don't have such a system. We don't have a lot of cyclists out there hurting other people because they are not wearing helmets. We do have a lot of careless drivers protected by 2+ tons of steel. This law does a little to protect the safety of cyclists, but it does a lot to continue the auto-centric bias of our elected "leaders" and push the blame on cyclists for an unsafe transportation system.
February 26th, 2008 19:03
I seem to remember reading some stats showing that it would make about as much sense to mandate bicycle helmets as it would to mandate helmets for walking around, etc... the biggest safety gain of course coming from mandating helmets while driving. Somehow I'm not seeing that one passing... @_@
- Another helmet user, still glad not to live in the 'couv
February 26th, 2008 19:39
Todd,
That would be great, as I am as enthusiastic about Vancouver cycling goings-ons as I am Portland, as I consider myself a resident of both towns.
February 26th, 2008 20:24
Note re Toby #63's concept. My wife was pulled over and the cop said, "I'm not talking to you ma'am, I'm talking to your passenger," and proceeded to issue a $90-odd citation to a middle-aged female passenger for no seatbelt. This was in inner SE Portland on Water Ave. No other reason for the stop. It probably didn't help that the woman exploded in rage at the policeman, but there you are. Secondary Schmeckendary. I don't know how things turned out. There was some idle talk of her "getting off on a technicality" because it is supposed to be secondary and the cop was not following orders. Our time is almost up. I can only take one more question. No, I also don't know if this can affect her insurance rates.
February 26th, 2008 20:58
-As a cyclist who is only 12 years of age I am still undecided about the helmet ordinance. Although I do believe that there should be some sort of ride in protest of the ordinance. I think this should happen because of what some other people have said, VAL #34 said "Councilmember Harris hits a man on his bike with her car, but he's fine because he was wearing his helmet, which protected...what? His legs? His ribs? His spine? Man, if I had one of those full body helmets, I might just wear it all the time.". Also True #17 "Perhaps they could pass a mandatory full-body bubble wrap law. Would that change road safety for cyclists? Would that change motorist attitudes?". These statements have encouraged me to post now and in the future. It would be wonderful if the cycling community got together in protest. The ride could be called the "Last Day of Freedom". A good day for the ride might be March 10th (my birthday).
-I constantly am annoyed by drivers who ignore cyclists and drive too fast around bikes. In one case a driver told me to "get off the road you stupid cyclist!" and continued to flip me off. Other times it seems as though the motorists want to hit you and are annoyed that you get the road too. All I'm really saying is come over to the couv on the 10th and put in your 2 cents worth-or put your spirit where your mouth is.
February 26th, 2008 22:55
I applaud Dread Pirate Robert's post above.
I have spent a few days back and forth on the issue myself, and still have not quite decided whether the City of Vancouver has done the right thing. As much as I would like to say I am fully against it, I can also say, as my brother pointed out tonight, I mainly do not like to be told what to do. I am trying not to let this fact cloud my judgment on the issue of safety.
Also, while I would like to be able to say we can all learn from the innocence of youth, this very apparently would not be the case in dealing with the Dread Pirate Robert's, who really seems to understand what he is talking about. (And has a scary moniker to boot!)
I hope to attend, and ride right beside him, when said ride occurs. As the rest of you should as well.
February 26th, 2008 23:12
i would be down for a "freedom" ride! name the time and place! esther short park maybe??? march 10... what time?
February 26th, 2008 23:51
way to kill bicycle transportation vancouver. congratulations.
power to the 'freedom' riders.
February 27th, 2008 00:35
What a waste of time. Protest this law. It's your right to choose, not a bunch of old fat, lazy schmucks who may own a bike, but haven't a bloody clue.
February 27th, 2008 00:54
As we now have 30 days of freedom left...are there any prelaw or lawyers out there who can check into the legal standing that a city in WA state can do to enact an ordinance for health and safety or traffic law?
Should we submit a suit to stop this?
As an example...could a WA city government require motorcycle helmets, seat belts, pedestrian airbags on cars before the state or county enacts a similar law or a law more restrictive? Usually these health and safety police roles are left to the County on the local level. (That is why the Clark County Youth Commission started this ball rolling but the Clark County Commissioners have pulled back on this...)
I think the model for the state was a law initially enacted by a county health board (responsible for health and safety) in King County vs. say Seattle. But as this will be a traffic law dealing with a regulated vehicle (bicycles vs. say skateboards) should not the WAC deal with this like in OR vs. city by city?
Ray Thomas et al... any suggestions? Or BTA or Bike Alliance?
February 27th, 2008 01:04
Speaking of hope and change in 08...for those of you BikePortland readers who are angry about this...how about finding several pro-bike candidates for Vancouver City Council (and other cities in Clark County)?
For example, there are 4 of 7 members up for election this fall:
- Pollard (has mentioned he will retire himself for health reasons)
Contact Jonathan as a point of contact for now.
- Harris
- Jollota (health reasons too)
- Stewart
It would take a lot less money and effort to get a bike candidate into the Vancouver council than what was shown tonight at Sam Adam's run for PDX mayor.
February 27th, 2008 01:09
I wonder if it's possible to refer decision to enact this law to a vote of the people. This is what happened to Portland city government's proposal to pass a fee initiative to pay for street improvement and maintenance(Safe, Sound, and Green Streets Initiative.
Essentially, one coalition led by a single lobbyist has delayed and possibly killed this from being implemented into law. Concerned Vancouver citizens might check into whether they're constitution allows a similar means of redress.
February 27th, 2008 07:19
Gee, how about the VPD ACTUALLY GIVING OUT SOME SPEEDING TICKETS TO MOTORISTS?
I'm not stupid enough to ride without a helmet, but requiring helmets without trying to break the misbehavior of drivers is like requiring bulletproof vests be worn on the streets in areas with a high murder rate.
February 27th, 2008 07:22
How about 5:30 esther short park:)
February 27th, 2008 07:32
Oops I forgot to say that during the ride you do not have wear a helmet but you can if you like. Thats what freedom means.
Also I would like to respond to Paul #72, All sorts of people parade and protest about wars, rights and a whole lot more stuff that other people tell them they can't change.
one more thing my mom will bring birthday treats for the ride. cause its my birthday!!!
February 27th, 2008 11:24
A referendum is possible. Here is the relevant part of the city charter:
Section 10.02 Referendum: The registered voters of the city shall have power to approve or disapprove at the polls any ordinance passed by the city council, or submitted by the city council to a vote of the registered voters of the city, except such ordinances as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or for the support of the city government and its existing public institutions, or providing for the approval of local improvement assessment rolls, or for the issuance of local improvement bonds or on any subject where such action is contrary to the general laws of the state of Washington. Within thirty days after the enactment by the city council of any ordinance which is subject to a referendum, a petition signed by registered voters of the city equal in number to at least ten per centum of the number of votes cast at the last preceding municipal general election may be filed with the city clerk requesting that any such ordinance be either repealed or submitted to a vote of the registered voters of the city. (As amended by vote of the people on November 4, 1986 and November 2, 2004.)
There are only 30 days to collect signatures though, and I don't know how to determine how many people voted in the last election.
If other people are interested in collecting signatures I think we might be able to do it. However I live in Portland so I am also not sure if I am allowed to collect signatures etc.
Bjorn
February 27th, 2008 14:02
It is truly the essence of authoritarianism: Trying to impose one-size-fits-all standards. It is also a proven biking-as-transportation killer.
Someone previously posted the findings for Australia on this subject. They are supported by voluminous facts and figures, and can be found here: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
It turns out that one of the worst impacts of such laws is on women, who are already underrepresented among commuting cyclists.
The findings were that women are more likely to find being forced to wear a helmet an inconvenience. This could be because women on average are more self-conscious of their personal appearance and spend more time on grooming. They often wear longer hair, etc. And they are sensitive to the stigma of "helmet-head" (ie, wearing a helmet tends to mess up one's coiffure, especially if you have long hair).
Now the authoritarian (read, "petty fascist") responds to that with: "How vain of them! Well tough! We'll force them to do it for their own good!" But the result is that fewer women ride bikes, in fact, drastically fewer. That then has very negative knock-on effects on total ridership numbers.
The fewer women who rides bikes also means that fewer men will ride bikes as well. And fewer people in general riding bikes reduces the visibility and respectability of cycling as a transportation mode. That in turn DIMINISHES safety. How ironic...
February 27th, 2008 15:01
It appears that about 27000 people voted in the last city election if I am reading this right. That means that we would need to get 2700 signatures plus some margin in less than a month. Is anyone really interested in the referendum, this seems doable.
Bjorn
February 27th, 2008 20:47
Nice to know that the indegent and working poor are "on their own".
Enacting laws like this are never about the safety of the rider. They are all about making revenue from violations and reducing liablity of the motorists that hit them.
February 27th, 2008 21:27
I am inspired to finally blog because of the support shown by Bjorn. Vancouver residents often ride to Portland to show support during cycling events and memorials. I and other Vancouver cyclists understand that when we stand up for Portland cycling rights we help every cyclist.
It has been sad to me the number of posts that say "well I just won't go to Vancouver". How does this help? Don't we want more cyclists everywhere? Doesn't that create momentum?
Thank you every one that rides to this side of the river. I wish I could buy you all a beer.
February 27th, 2008 22:02
I'm not a Vancouver resident either, but if there's an interest among Vancouver citizens, and an ability to do so, I'd never the less encourage them to refer the enactment of this law to a vote of Vancouver citizens.
The fundamental question raised by the Vancouver City Council's action is fairly simple: 'Should adults riding bikes within the city limits of Vancouver be allowed to determine whether a bike helmet is necessary for their personal safety, and have the right to choose whether or not to wear a bike helmet, based on that determination?'.
February 28th, 2008 00:35
I'm also not a Vancouver resident, and I wear a helmet most of the time, but I totally support the Dread Pirate Roberts and the Freedom Ride - I will be there on the 10th with as many people as I can persuade to make the trek up with me. Along the way, maybe we can introduce a few more people to the suckage that is the I-5 bike/ped bridge facilities!
February 28th, 2008 09:04
How to do a referendum:
I've worked on referendum campaigns before. Collecting 3000 signatures in a month is a very tall order. Realistically, you would need half a dozen people to drop everything and go absolute gangbusters to get this done. It might happen, but a more feasible approach than volunteers would be paid signature gatherers -- especially on such short notice.
Again, on this short notice, expect to spend about $3000, or approximately $1 per signature. You could raise the money by making an emergency appeal to civic groups around Vancouver, painting the apocalyptic portrait of "deathknell of cycling in Vancouver" and consequently "mortal blow to quality of life in Vancouver" aptly supported by the facts and figures at www.cycle-helmet.com
Hell, you might be able to raise the money from right around here in Portland. I'd pledge $50.
Anyone want to bite the bullet and organize this thing?
February 28th, 2008 09:09
Quick show of hands:
Assume we need $3000 to pay for this breakneck one month campaign (~$1/signature). We would hire a pro firm to get the job done collecting the sigs.
Who here would be willing to donate to finance it, and how much?
I will start: I pledge $50
February 28th, 2008 09:21
While forcing people to take measures for their own safety might infringe on personal liberties, there are far too many real travesties in this world for me to get worked up over mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory helmet laws, or mandatory steel-toed boot-on the-job laws.
February 28th, 2008 09:34
Rixtir:
Same here. I wouldn't give the matter another thought except for the TRULY DIRE findings at www.cycle-helmet.com -- apparently, the resulting impacts on ridership numbers of measures like this have been horrendous. Horrifying. The knock-on effects of drastically diminished ridership include DIMINISHED SAFETY, irony of ironies.
While I only actually head over to Vancouver once in a blue moon, it bothers me to think that my range of freedom is potentially diminishing, that I'm becoming more and more isolated in this little cocoon of bikefriendly Portland, while meanwhile the rest of the country becomes more and more hostile to my values and priorities in life. Does this ever bother you?
The power of a victory on this issue would be both real and symbolic. The fact that it would be "those nosy Portlander outsiders" being instrumental to it would tickle me. We could become those fearsome Portland Young Turks, riding in to battle. "Watch out for those Portlanders! They'll run right into your town and take over!" they'll say, trembling.
February 28th, 2008 09:46
I take the conclusions of that study with an enormous grain of salt.
By way of example, how many posting here would stop riding if they were required to wear a helmet? My guess is every single one of you who hate this law would still continue to ride. And if something as trivial as a helmet law made you sell the bike and move on to another past-time, then I'd say you didn't care for cycling all that much to begin with.
It's one thing to say that ridership numbers are down in Australia; it's another thing entirely to say that it's because helmets are required. I don't buy it. As my grandfather used to say, when he was on this side of the grass, "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
February 28th, 2008 09:55
rixtir:
I think your own argument could easily be turned on its head: the folks here are also hardcore riders, totally atypical of the average rider in Vancouver (or even Portland, for that matter) who is probably a lot more like those women in Australia who are plenty put off at the prospect of being forced to acquire and wear a helmet.
For such casual riders, the helmet requirement could easily be the factor that pushes them over the tipping point towards largely shunning riding. Afterall, the more regulations, rules, and restrictions you impose on an activity, the greater the barriers to adoption. And having to wear an uncomfortable thing over your head that messes up your hair is far from a trivial one at that, at least for the very occasional rider.
February 28th, 2008 10:11
Well, let's use that argument then.
In Portland, the largest impediment to increasing ridership is the perceived lack of safety of riding in traffic (and as a personal anecdote, I was told just two weeks ago by a young woman who had just bought a bike that she won't ride in traffic because it's not safe.). The perceived solution to the safety issue is to increase bike facilities (read: bike lanes, bike boxes etc.), so that people feel safer riding in traffic. When bike facilities are increased, people who don't feel safe now will feel safe, and begin to ride.
These are the casual riders; they want to ride, but only if it's safe to do so. And the anti-helmet crowd wants me to believe that even though safety is the number one concern of these casual riders, they will refuse to ride if they are required to wear a safety device. Again, I don't buy it. It just doesn't wash.
February 28th, 2008 10:18
Just imagine if a great number of Vancouver residents somehow happened to turn out for a big rally out of objection to the imposition of mandatory adult bicycle use. How hard is it to get the required signatures in that situation? This entirely depends upon whether Vancouver residents really do object to this soon to be implemented law. That to me, is a very interesting question.
I generally consider that website, 'cycle-helmet. com' to be bogus, and, the Australian survey rapidly becoming outdated as gas prices spiral upwards. Still, I can understand where the hair-do issue could put a lot of people off cycling if they were required to wear a helmet. That would be another reason that I think mandatory adult bike helmet use is generally excessive. The inherent traffic danger in some parts of some cities might be able to justify mandatory adult bike helmet use, but, Vancouver, Washington?
This just sounds like grandstanding to me, as if the city is win some kind of 'safest city' award, or get a break on their insurance bonds.
February 28th, 2008 10:18
And on the subject of "helmet hair," I used to commute by bike, without a helmet, back in the days before the push to get cyclists to wear helmets ever began. Even without a helmet, I would arrive at work with my hair sweat-drenched and wind-blown, every single day.
Anybody who thinks they won't have to muss their perfect hair when they get on a bike clearly hasn't been on a bike to begin with.
February 28th, 2008 10:19
Correction: "....as if the city is(trying to) win..."
February 28th, 2008 10:20
rixtir:
I'm pretty sure that your argument here, "rational" as it might sound superficially, is in fact absolutely bunk. Why? Because I can recall when I myself was a casual rider, in SoCal, many years ago.
Never wore a helmet. Always thought it might be a good idea, but didn't want to look "geeky," didn't think I had a big enough investment in cycling to bother, etc. Wsa also terrified of riding very much in traffic, if ever, and sought out the lowest traffic streets possible. I'm pretty sure that I wasn't a freak case, and that such a collection of superficially "contradictory" tendencies is not unusual in the least.
February 28th, 2008 10:28
wsbob:
I've got experience with initiative campaigns. I've collected thousands of signatures in places similar to Vancouver. And the answer to your question is: "It won't happen."
People might sign a petition and vote against an ordinance to force adults to wear helmets, particularly if they have a libertarian streak, as many Americans actually do. But no one who isn't personally engaged in bikes and cycling issues is going to be exorcised enough to show up at a rally in advance of the vote on the issue.
For the same reasons you will never see a "grassroots" movement against anti-smoking ordinances, and tobacco companies always have to pay for such things out of their own pockets -- even though there are plenty of people who will sign initiatives against smoking restrictions.
February 28th, 2008 10:30
I can buy that people don't want to look geeky. Absolutely. I have two helmets now, my old one, and my new one. The old one makes me look so geeky I shudder, no doubt about it. The new one doesn't-- it makes me look like quite the bike stud. Or so I like to believe. ;)
But I think that for people who want to bike, but are concerned about their personal safety, that potential "geek factor" is the least of their concerns. First and foremost, they want to be safe, and I don't think a law mandating safety equipment is going to be a factor in keeping them from riding.
February 28th, 2008 10:38
Again, think "barriers to entry."
No single factor is enough to nix it, but pile up enough of them, and you have very effectively barred the way to new adoption. And it's not like there's a shortage of them as it stands.
Why couldn't a helmet law be that final straw -- for many trips, and many people?
Naturally, it would all depend on enforcement.
But I can easily picture myself when I was a casual rider, shunning any even slightly busy streets like death, but once in a while tooling around the neighborhood, to the corner store, or around campus when I was in college.
Had I thought there was a good chance of receiving citations on those occasions for not having a helmet, would that have been enough to change many of those trips into other modes -- by foot, by car, or not at all? I think it's entirely likely.
February 28th, 2008 10:43
Reading anti-helmet ordinance posts here, I can only think that none of those posters have either sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or known somebody's who's life (and those of their family members) has been turned completely upside down by one.
This whole debate is remarkably similar to the one the country had back in the 1970's when New York State passed the first seat belt law. I bet the majority of posters don't give buckling up a second thought.
Whether you're a serious or casual rider is besides the point. It's a matter of physics: steel hitting bike and (unprotected) head hitting ground is all that matters.
I applaud Councilmember Harris. A former bike racer (and agile cyclist), I was on my way to work five years ago - a routine, casual ride - and I was hit by a truck going 40 mph after running a red. The only possible thing that saved my life was the helmet. Even so, I sustained a TBI, which would have been far worse without one if I survived.
A TBI changes everything - your intuition and your cognitive "pilot" - which you use for every decision, big & small- are shattered. That means you're likely to lose your job and any relationships (partner/husband/wife) become horribly difficult to maintain. This is the injury that thousands of American soldiers have sustained in Iraq - it's just now beginning to hit home here in the US.
Beyond badly impacting your ability to think, TBI cause some of the folling: lifelong insomnia, constant debilitating fatigue, inability to smell, taste, see, hear, sexual function, etc. Those of us with TBI have at least a few of these. It affects you physically, mentally, psychologically, and spiritually.
On the economic note, why wouldn't you want to support a law (and personal action) that helps lower health care costs for us all. My year of hospital and rehab was $500,000 or so. I was insured, but WE ALL pay for those that aren't as since any hospital just passes the cost of treating the uninsured (required by law to do do) on to YOU...health care costs aren't high enough for you?
Please, law or not, wear a helmet every time you go out on a bike...
February 28th, 2008 10:47
Antonio, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I do agree with you on your post for the suggested legislation for the 2009 Oregon legislative session, but on this one, We'll have to disagree. I really think that if the Australian study were to be subjected to some rigorous peer review, it would die a quiet death amongst the anti-helmet crowd.
And as I said, I recognize the infringement of personal liberties, but in a world filled with real travesties, mandated safety equipment (seat belts, bike helmets, steel-toed boots) just doesn't register on my outrage meter.
February 28th, 2008 10:59
Gramsci, it's hard to speak against a voice of first hand experience. I think that's right that Vancouver residents will never successfully come out against this law by way of referral petitions, but it's something to consider none the less.
Rixter, there are still a lot of people out there that are concerned about their safety on bikes, but will neatly set aside their realization of the value in wearing a bike helmet. They'll do this for various reasons; pure excitement, vanity, a sense of invulnerability. Adults, not so much as younger people though.
Men tend to have shorter, less complicated hairdo's these days, but I'll be there's a lot of women that wouldn't appreciate having to plop a helmet over their hair.
February 28th, 2008 11:06
rixtir:
Well, the more I think about my own experiences, the more inclined I am to believe the Australia study and disagree with you.
Look at it this way: Most people who are still only very casually committed to cycling -- or any other activity -- don't go out on a big spree and outfit themselves with lots of elaborate equipment. They don't invest in lots of safety gear, lighting, clothes, etc.
They buy a new bike, if that. More likely, they dust off an old one that's sitting around. Or get a used one.
Just because they're afraid to ride on safety grounds doesn't mean that most people, starting from the point of being very casual riders, will go out suddenly one day and diligently follow a whole array of rational measures to increase their safety. Which could include buying a helmet. Surely you are not so foolish as to believe that!
Usually, it is just the opposite: People start from the point of being very casual about an activity, with minimal investment in it. They become more enthusiastic about it while still only very slightly invested in it, as they warm to it through greater practice. Eventually, they decide to escalate their commitment and investment.
So if you impose -- and actually enforce -- more restrictions on that activity, requiring more initiative and actions on their part before they can undertake that activity, then, for casual participants, their participation in that activity will go down. Guaranteed. Every single time.
They may in fact never reach the point of becoming committed to it, and the enforcement of a just one additional restriction on their casual participation could easily be enough to prevent that commitment from ever emerging.
February 28th, 2008 11:15
wsbob, my hair was shoulder length when I was commuting by bike, helmetless. I always arrived at work with wind-blown, sweat-and diesel-drenched hair.
When trauma nurses and doctors started pushing for helmet use, I bought a helmet. My hair was still shoulder length, and I still arrived at work with sweat-drenched and wind-blown hair.
Of course, my hair is shorter now-- that, and half of it fell out ;) -- so I don't have to worry about helmet hair anymore.
Regardless, it's only possible to believe that one's hair won't get mussed while riding if one hasn't actually been on a bike. I don't think that somebody who thinks "I'd like to ride a bike, but only as long as I don't muss my hair" is the type of person who is going to increase ridership numbers.
February 28th, 2008 11:23
Mr. Gramsci, my casual understanding of the Australia study is that they attributed the decline in ridership to the helmet law, which went into effect around the time that ridership began declining, but failed to take other factors into account. Was the helmet law the cause of the decline in ridership, or just coincidental? The study concludes it was the cause, but my casualunderstanding of it is that it hasn't shown that it was anything more than coincidental.
February 28th, 2008 11:24
Jesus, rixtir. People are not stone Buddhas, unchanging, constant fixtures.
"The type of person who likes to ride a bike, so long as my hair doesn't get mussed" can most assuredly evolve into "the type of person who loves to ride no matter how mussed my hair gets"! They simply have to do the activity enough to develop a liking for it. Something they might never arrive at if enough barriers are imposed on their participation up front.
The idea that someone who is "too vain" to want their hair to get messed up could not develop a fondness for cycling is bizarre, silly even. I can't see any necessary correlation between such things.
Furthermore, the fact is, your hair might get tousled if you are cycling fast, but some people also like to ride slow. It is most assuredly possible to ride slow and in a way that doesn't mess up your hair much or cause you to sweat very much. Thousands of elegantly coiffed Amsterdam and Copenhagen women manage it, so I'm sure Americans can do it too.
February 28th, 2008 11:39
Mr. Gramsci, I agree that in Amsterdam elegantly coiffed women and elegantly dressed men ride bikes to get around. And as you pointed out, the key to that is riding slow, and I might add, riding short distances. I would argue that in the U.S., those distances are longer, and often punctuated by hills, so comparisons with Amsterdam cycling habits are often not applicable. However, for short distances on flat terrain, and at slow speeds, it is possible to arrive at one's destination with perfect hair.
I also agree with you that people can change, so that even someone who is too vain to want to muss their hair might nevertheless eventually develop a fondness for cycling. Would a helmet law act as a barrier to these people getting on a bike? Possibly. You may be right there.
Would it act as a barrier to those people who currently want to ride, but are afraid to ride because of safety concerns? I have my doubts about that.
February 28th, 2008 12:18
Reply to Rixter et al #108 -
During the recent public testimony on helmets at the City of Vancouver council session...a local business woman and bicyclist mentioned that she wanted the ability to choose routes and the level of protection required (helmet or no helmet) based on the quality of the route and traffic threats.
Her compromise to the council was to develop a helmet and infrastructure policy where bike helmets would be required on busier arterials (and bike lanes) and bike helmets optional on residential routes (bike blvds, bikeways/ green streets, shared streets).
Her arguement was an attempt to bridge the real gap between our downtowns/ prewar neighborhoods where sharing the road is both possible and safe (Amsterdam model of slow speed riding - 10 mph) vs. the need for more protection out in the newer suburbs with bike lanes and higher speed traffic/ volumes often on very narrow (old county rural roads) or very wide new streets and the larger land use footprints/ sprawl - which necessitate faster bicycling (15 mph+).
The Vancouver Bicycling Club's support of the helmet law for adults fits their model of bicycling as a fast paced recreational pursuit along high threat rural roads/ ex-urban county arterials vs. short distance slow upright Dutch style riding in mixed use districts.
(To be fair...from what I hear there is not uniformity of opinion in the VBC about their public support for this ordinance and their influence on council to expand its reach to include adults.)
February 28th, 2008 12:27
Jay #101
I am a survivor of an assault by motor vehicle that resulted in brain damage, among other injuries. You can't tell from my postings here, because I can take the time to work around my aphasia, but when I'm trying to speak it shows up in varying degrees depending on my emotional state. I used to be a spoken word poet, and a much sought after performer for both public exhibitions and private parties ("It isn't really a party without Opus the Poet"). Now I can't even get through a job interview without sounding like I'm retarded, as both my vocabulary and diction have suffered as a result of the brain damage I suffered. I was wearing a helmet that saved my life, there were 4 separate impact sites on the helmet any one of which would have been fatal on a bare head. So I know about helmets and TBI. I also know that having one cost my family my SS death benefits that could have helped my wife keep our house. After the wreck I lost my job and haven't been able to hold on to another for more than a couple of months.
Mandatory helmet wear laws have no place in the United States of America. Period, full stop, no need for further discussion. Helmets can save you life, but you have to want to wear them, it can't be forced on you like you were a child.
February 28th, 2008 12:29
For an activity that people only marginally participate in, here is a formula that works, just about 100% of the time, for those marginal participants, averaged over statistically significant numbers of said marginal participants:
increased restrictions + increased requirements for participation = less participation
all other things being equal
February 28th, 2008 12:30
BTA took an opposite track to fulfill the objectives of the proposed ordinance (now passed).
They contacted the VBC about this but there was not time to craft a compromise ordinance that would have brought both groups together given their shared objectives (safer streets with more bicyclists) and gotten council support.
I am posting their comment to the CoV council as it was not read publically into the record nor directly mentioned at the meeting...only posted on the BTA blog site for a few days, as many may not know about it and the missed opportunity:
------------------------------
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
233 NW 5th Ave
Portland, OR 97207
February 22, 2008
Vancouver City Council
210 E 13th St.
Vancouver, WA
98668
Dear Mayor Royce Pollard and Council Members:
Last month you considered a proposed mandatory helmet law for children riding bicycles. On Monday night, you will hear an updated version of this proposed ordinance, which will extend the law to apply to adults as well. We respectfully submit these comments on the proposed ordinance, for your consideration.
We know how concerned the Clark County Youth Commission, the Vancouver Bicycle Club, the Vancouver Police and leaders such as yourselves are for the safety of kids and adults riding bikes, and the importance of adults wearing helmets to set a good example for their kids, and we share that concern. Yet, while we respect the intentions of this proposal, and share their frustration at the unacceptably high number of kids and adults who are hurt riding bicycles every year, the BTA is very worried about the possible secondary effects of a helmet law.
In 2005, the League of American Bicyclists honored Vancouver with a “Bronze” Bicycle Friendly Community designation. We fear that unforeseen consequences of this law could break the city’s momentum, make Vancouver bicyclists less safe, and undo the hard work already done by the city to help Vancouverites bike safely for transportation and for fun. Alternatively, a major bike safety and encouragement program, and an evaluation process, could be a landmark change for Vancouver, and an example to the nation.
The BTA strongly encourages all cyclists to wear helmets and we can say with confidence that putting on a helmet makes you safer – however, we are not confident that passing a mandatory helmet law makes bicyclists, as a group, any safer.
We fear this law will reduce the number of adults and children riding bikes in Vancouver. Around the world, bicyclists’ safety correlates with rates of bicycling – in other words, we have “safety in numbers.” The BTA’s position on any policy that reduces bicycling is that it must have a large positive effect that overpowers the detrimental effects of having fewer bicyclists on the roads.
A mandatory helmet ordinance in Vancouver may reduce rates of bicycling. Studies of helmet laws passed in the US only examine changes in the number of bike-related head injuries seen by hospitals after passage of a helmet law; none have looked at concurrent changes in the number of people riding bicycles. Head injuries almost always decrease after passage of a helmet law, which is initially encouraging, but because researchers have not