home

“Freedom Ride” will protest Vancouver helmet law

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on March 7th, 2008 at 9:38 am

Roll On Columbia! ride
Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard
modeling proper helmet behavior.
(Photo © J. Maus)

A twelve year-old Vancouver boy has organized a ride to protest the all-ages helmet law that was recently passed by the Vancouver City Council.

The ordinance, which makes helmets mandatory for everyone on a variety of human powered vehicles, was passed by a 5-1 vote. But that wide margin doesn't seem to reflect how many Vancouverites feel about the law, as evidenced by several of the 155 comments that have been posted so far on my story about the Council's decision.

One of those comments, by "Dread Pirate Roberts," caught my eye. It took things one step further and suggested that a protest ride was in order:

"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."

"During the ride you do not have to wear a helmet, but you can if you like. That's what freedom means."
--Dread Pirate Roberts

Dread Pirate Roberts (who I have contacted to confirm his comment but he wants to remain anonymous for now), then referenced other comments that questioned the merits of the new law as part of his inspiration for the ride.

Roberts said he plans to take participants on a loop around Columbia Street and then back to City Hall, where he will encourage everyone to fill out comment cards that will go to City Council members. Roberts also noted that the day planned for the ride, March 10th, is his birthday and his mom plans to bring birthday treats for everyone who shows up (don't expect something for everyone, but feel free to bring something to share if you can).

Whether you're for or against helmet laws, you've got to love the moxie of this kid. As he put it, "Come over to the 'couv and put in your 2 cents worth-or put your spirit where your mouth is." As for the whether or not to wear a helmet, Roberts says, "during the ride you do not have to wear a helmet, but you can if you like. That's what freedom means."

    Last Day of Freedom Ride
    Monday, March 10th
    5:30 by the clock tower in Esther Short Park (downtown Vancouver)

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • michael downes March 7, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Way to go Dread Pirate Roberts! Protest and dissent is the life blood of democracy. It remains to be seen how responsive the Vancouver city council will be. If I can make it Littleman and I will definitely be making a trip over the river to participate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Elliot March 7, 2008 at 10:07 am

    Good work, Roberts! Keep it up. The world needs more people like you.

    And Jonathan, did you really just write \"You\'ve got to love the moxie of this kid,\"? You\'re awesome. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carl March 7, 2008 at 10:36 am

    We\'ve got a live one on our hands! Way to go, kid! Lead a Pedalpalooza Vancouver Kids Ride...please!

    http://www.shift2bikes.org/cal/calform.php?form=pp

    A protest ride is a great opportunity to make it clear that wearing a helmet might be a good idea...but it shouldn\'t be required by law. In other words: don\'t hesitate to wear helmets on this protest ride. Just carry some big signs to make your point.
    \"Anti-law not anti-helmet\"
    \"Police have better things to do\"
    \"Helmet laws don\'t work.\"
    \"I demand a helmet law for motorists.\"
    I don\'t know. You\'ve probably got better ideas.

    What\'s the goal here? Is there any chance of getting this decision reversed at this point?

    Great work. I think this is likely to be the biggest birthday party you\'ll ever have.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • vox populi March 7, 2008 at 11:01 am

    Wearing a helmet to a helmet-law protest! Good one, Carl.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MattD March 7, 2008 at 11:22 am

    I wonder how many riders will show up wearing helmets.. :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Agent lekker March 7, 2008 at 11:48 am

    Remember as the Dread Pirate Roberts said as he was blogging earlier \"... during the ride you do not have to wear a helmet but you can if you like. Thats what freedom means.\"

    I will be there Dread Pirate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) March 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    thanks Agent lekker for reminding me about that bit of what he wrote... I\'ve now worked it into the original story. cheers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Elly Blue March 7, 2008 at 12:40 pm

    I\'ll be there. Bravo, sir Pirate!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio March 7, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    I am definitely there

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RW March 7, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    While we\'re at it, let\'s repeal the motorcycle helmet law! GO KID!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • saraiderin March 7, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    While I admire the kid for standing up to what he feels is unfair, I would not want to be his mother if he were to ever suffer a head injury while riding with no helmet.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Cøyøte March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Does this mean that Royce Pollard has six fingers? I will not be in town but if I were, I would ride.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carl March 7, 2008 at 4:13 pm

    saraiderin,
    Being pro-choice doesn\'t necessarily mean you love having frequent abortions. Likewise, protesting this law doesn\'t mean you hate wearing helmets.

    This law eliminates a personal choice and it negatively impacts the safety of bicycling.

    I\'m not too concerned about his mother. I hope to meet her on Monday.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell March 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Saraiderin, the point is that we should should be allowed the freedom to make such a decision.

    Anyway, I was looking forward to something like this, and now it looks like I won\'t be alone. Props to you, Roberts.

    Also, by my calculations, the twenty-fifth of the month will be the last day to do anything important in Vancouver without wearing a helmet. Might we plan yet another great ride to protest the law on such a date?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 7, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    This ride is all about the elimanation of choice. First make a law that would make the roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. More pedestrians are killed than cyclists each year with amazing numbers of 4,784 pedestrians killed and only 773 cyclists in 2006. Why aren\'t they wearing helmets (I am doing a research paper...ugh).
    I think that instead of limiting our freedom as cyclists, they should first make it more enjoyable to ride on the street.
    Also here\'s the link to the statistics.

    http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

    P.S.
    saraiderin #11,
    My mother lets me walk to school without a helmet! Its much more dangerous :-0

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 7, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    John Russell #14,
    As for the 25th, I\'d love to but my mother is taking me to the netherlands!!!!!!!
    :):):):)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Timbo March 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    If there is freedom not to wear a helmet then I\'d like the freedom to not have my insurance or taxes increased to pay for the non-insureds care when they are in the hospital with a head injury.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe March 7, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    great work! let freedom ring :)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 7, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    It looks to me like the pedestrians are more of a problem.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell March 7, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Dread Pirate Roberts, you are a lucky guy. What a great place to go when we\'re discussing the merits of a helmet law. Just look at how great they\'ve got it over there.

    Don\'t forget a bike when you go!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ChipSeal March 7, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Tailwinds to you, Dread Pirate Roberts!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Cøyøte March 7, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    Timbo #17, your statement is Limbaugh like in its simpleton logic and deference to propaganda. Please download the City of Vancouver budget and find the line item where the city contributes to the free medical care for ANYONE regardless of the reason. Then take that awesome figure, and divide it by the number of tax payers that contribute to the city of Vancouver. Go on be a citizen, the 2007-2008 budget is only 556 pages. I\'ve done it, do you have cajones?

    Not biting? Then how about a logic puzzle. If I quit my job, loose my insurance, get really effing high and then proceed to whack myself in the head with a hammer until I am a drooling idiot, what will it do your next year\'s taxes or insurance?

    What if I knock-up my fifteen year old girlfriend and then skip town? What does that mean to the City budget?

    When you can answer those questions for yourself, then I would be very interested in hearing how much indigent and helmetless cyclists cost you in the City of Vancouver.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Patrick March 7, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Timbo please

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • joel March 7, 2008 at 7:32 pm

    oh timbo. sheesh. as if helmetless riders had a monopoly on, crashing, getting hit, being uninsured, or getting injured beyond what their insurance will pay. that argument is TIRED. get a new one. but on to more important things!

    dread pirate roberts, i think what youre doing is AWESOME. \"I think that instead of limiting our freedom as cyclists, they should first make it more enjoyable to ride on the street.\" amen to that! ill be there in spirit, as i cannot be there in the flesh.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet March 7, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    I can\'t be there but I support the Dread Pirate Roberts in this protest against oppression... (NO I\'m not trying to be funny)

    Opus

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan March 7, 2008 at 9:35 pm

    I\'m with the minority on this one - just like I think seat belts should be mandatory and talking on the cell phone while driving (or biking!) should be prohibited, so, too, I think helmets should be required.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Aaaarrrrgggghhh March 7, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    With freedom comes responsibility, and that means wearing basic safety gear. Automobile drivers must buckle up. Cyclists should wear helmets. This cultural nonsense that it\'s an ok thing to go helmetless is simply juvenile. It\'s not about freedom, it\'s about being as irresponsible as possible with no good end.

    I\'m amazed to read this board. Shocked, and amazed. And it makes me glad I no longer work in the trauma unit.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Aaaarrrrgggghhh March 7, 2008 at 10:04 pm

    Timbo... You hit the mark. Too bad some forget that responsibility comes with freedom. Alas, a lot of people on this board have forgotten that.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Thank you for thinking even though you can\'t be here. :-)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 7, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    sorry \"There\" on my last post.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Aaaarrrrgggghhh March 7, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Uh, Dread, you might want to compare the numbers of pedestrians to the numbers of cyclists, as well as take the type of injury into consideration.

    You\'re not making a valid comparison as is.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bikeprez March 7, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    While we\'re at it, why don\'t we rescind the motorcycle helmet laws, the seat belt laws, the OSHA requirements for hard hats on construction sites, speed limits & all the other laws on the books that limit personal choices.

    Come on, you putzes! We need some laws that protect us from ourselves. And this is one of them. And, it\'s not only the cyclist that is protected. It\'s the families, friends and co-workers, and society as a whole. Anyone who thinks that only the cyclist is affected by a death or debilitating head injury hasn\'t lost a loved one unnecessarily to such an occurance. For once, think out of your own little personal box, and look to the greater good.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Boulanger March 8, 2008 at 5:30 am

    On a related note...organizing for change...

    ...BTA is interested again in working with Vancouver to organize in Vancouver a chapter (or similar interest section).

    There will be an initial meeting on this topic later next week (date yet to be set) in the City Center. Send an email to me if you wish to be kept in the loop on this.

    Todd Boulanger
    Senior Transportation Planner
    City of Vancouver
    todd.boulanger@ci.vancouver.wa.us

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JollyOldMan March 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

    Throw away the helmets, forget about license and insurance and any and all responsibilities lets just go out and ride and whatever happens happens someone will sort it out in the end. Somebody will pay.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • hickeymad March 8, 2008 at 8:45 am

    Dread Pirate Roberts: Way to go!
    I\'m trying to figure a way to get up there for the ride from downtown PDX after work...

    Last weekend I rode up to Vancouver to see what the city has to offer cyclists. I was impressed at the amount of open space (around vancouver lake) and by a few of the greenways. However this was nearly negated by the lack of signage on the trails and the difficulty trying to connect the greenways to get from point A to B. Roads without bike lanes were downright scary, as was the number of yahoos who purposely made much of the ride feel unsafe (you know the type of motorist that purposely swerves, gun their engines, honk when passing and yell things like \"use the sidewalk\"). Overall I thought that the city had potential given their natural resources, but has a long way to go to make cycling a real transportation alternative.

    I support the Pirate Roberts and his efforts!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dennytron March 8, 2008 at 8:58 am

    Ever since Hobbes and T Paine it has been accepted that government itself is in direct opposition to personal freedom. Essentially every law that is passed means a little less individual autonomy but the rationale is that is the price we pay to stave off anarchy.
    I find it a sad world where it might be believed that government exists to \"protect us from ourselves\". In that case why be mediocre about it? Lets fine all those who do not brush and floss daily, who eat an unhealthy diet and who fail to exercise regularly since their untimely degredation and death will certainly shake society to its core. I would resent my loved ones completely if they expected me to curb activities that were perceived as being more risky than watching television just so they could calm their frail sensibilities.
    Something that I believe our society needs to (re)learn is that reward must necessarily come with risk. Climb Annapurna and you will likely die. Ride without a helmet and you will likely have head trauma in an accident. However, a world without that choice is a world of only faux color and faux emotions where all meaning has been prescribed within a set range determined by a faceless government.
    Just because you should do something does not mean it should be government legislated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Vance March 8, 2008 at 10:07 am

    You forgot one dennytron #36:

    \"Give me liberty, or give me death.\"

    Patrick Henry, if memory serves.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob March 8, 2008 at 11:10 am

    \"I\'m with the minority on this one - just like I think seat belts should be mandatory and talking on the cell phone while driving (or biking!) should be prohibited, so, too, I think helmets should be required.\" Jonathan

    Jonathan, at least amongst the members of the Vancouver City Council, you\'re with the majority that thinks helmets should be required. I\'d say that it\'s the \'unthinking majority\'.

    This stands to be a broad sweeping law. Everybody, children(who should be required to wear them) and adults (all things considered....they should still be able to decide for themselves at this point) will have to wear a bike helmet whether they\'re riding downtown in traffic or alongside the waterfront, taking in the view.

    This law will give the police free reign to meddle in you business should you happen to not be wearing your helmet while astride your bike. Homeless people without the funds or means to keep track of a bike helmet can expect one more excuse on the part of the police to harass them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anonymous March 8, 2008 at 11:17 am

    \"This law eliminates a personal choice and it negatively impacts the safety of bicycling.\"

    What!? First off, the kid is 12, he has 4 more years until he would even have a choice to wear a helmet or not!

    And second, I realize that it is a choice to not wear a helmet, a tempting one, but what you don\'t have a choice about is that idiot driver who comes just a little to close to you or that other cyclist who just wasn\'t looking where they were going, and if that happens, then the medic who has to try and revive you and your family who has to take care of you when you are paralyzed...thats not your choice!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell March 8, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    Wsbob #38, your comments on requiring only minors to wear helmets is exactly what the original ordinance was going to have been. It\'s also exactly how it should have been left. If the ordinance was passed as such, I don\'t think many people would have much of a problem with it. Even as a minor, I would be perfectly fine knowing that in a year or two, I would no longer be absolutely required to wear a helmet.

    That is where freedom of choice comes in. Everyone knows that kids don\'t have the decision making abilities of adults, plain and simple. That\'s why it would be perfectly fine to require helmet use amongst that group. Once you extend the idea to adults, however, you are limiting the freedoms of perfectly rational citizens.

    In addition to limiting the civil liberties of these adults, you also make cycling less safe as a result. I explained this in detain to my letter to the Mayor, but to put it simply: less people ride when forced to wear a helmet, and a result, drivers become less accustomed to cyclists on the roads and it becomes more dangerous. Just look at the Netherlands (where Roberts is lucky enough to be going in a few weeks). They\'ve got nearly 40% mode share of cyclists, and very few wear helmets. With a critical mass like that, it\'s perfectly safe to do so.

    More or less, the law is simply poorly thought out. You don\'t build and interstate highway without carefully considering all of the resulting effects. Why would you pass any law without doing the same?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike March 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    This kid should get some kind of award. I wonder if the couv\'s mayor or police plan to do anything during the event?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John March 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    If requiring helmets will make some people not ride their bike, then I don\'t think they should be riding their bike anyway, becuase I bet they won\'t use lights at night, signal when turning, follow basic rules of the road either.

    How in the world will wearing helmets make cyclist anymore at danger?!

    stop fussing over helmet hair and realize that helmet hair is SEXY!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beth h March 8, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    Props to Mister Roberts for his spunk and determination.

    Requiring someone to wear a bike helmet without doing anything meaningful to make the roads safer for bicyclists is a cheap way of absolving government (and by extension, the car-centric society) of any responsibility for bicycle-riding citizens.

    Although I choose to wear a helmet, and would make my kids wear helmets if I were a parent, as long as the government is so lopsided in their support of car culture then it ought to be my choice.

    When the government decides to do something meaningful for bicyclists\' safety on the roads, I\'ll take the government a little more seriously.

    Meanwhile, I\'ll be avoiding Vancouver. And so will my wallet, which should have been a bigger consideration if the city is trying to promote tourism, livability and overall growth. Sorry Vancouver, but this law\'s a complete boner.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mark March 8, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    i can\'t understand how all of you reasonable, nice, thoughtful people could do anything that could provide a sign to our youth that riding without a helmet is a good idea

    maybe, i am just a little too close to this issue having spent 48-hours sitting next to a loved one in a hospitable bed after a bike crash (this crash did not even involve a motor vehicle) -- my partner couldn\'t remember who she was...

    If you want to fight the government there are many other issues that actually need to be fixed

    The combination of education, good laws, and enforcement, have saved thousands of lives. Just look at how effective seat belt laws have been in reducing deaths in drivers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • diykate March 8, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    With all the intelligent people posting various views on this topic, I feel like I should be more conflicted. However, I am not. I think the hardest part about living in a free country is trying to understand those that don\'t share your viewpoint.

    I don\'t leave the house without a helmet. I don\'t trust MYSELF not to swerve and fall off my bike and hit my head, much less trusting others not to hit me. I cringe when I see helmeted children riding with their unhelmeted parents. I am with Mark, John, the trauma nurses, and my friend who is permanently brain damaged. In my mind, there is no room for argument.

    That being said, I realize that anyone can argue anything they please, and that\'s a wonderful thing. I admire Dread Pirate Roberts\'s moxie, but personally wish it were directed towards a different cause that might more concretely help others. But if that\'s your passion, there\'s little I can do.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet March 8, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    I should say I was almost killed on my bike over 6 years ago. I was wearing a helmet then that saved my life at least 3 and maybe 4 times. I think everyone should wear a helmet, but I also think that the government has no business requiring adults wearing helmets, on bicycles or motorcycles or driving cars (I also wore a helmet when I raced cars). Is the government going to pay my insurance premuim for me as well?

    Opus

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • beefa March 8, 2008 at 10:08 pm

    You in the minority seem to be looking for any rational to control the behavior of others.Your arguments for this law are ringing hollow (and I think you all know it). My guess is this need to control extends beyond helmets. Enjoy your vannila ice cream.

    Dennytron is my new hero.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby March 8, 2008 at 11:17 pm

    I am also for people wearing helmets. In fact, if they could actually show that helmets have increased safety to Vancouver cyclist, I would fully back this ordinance change.

    But I am not for a City making the decision to require helmets for cyclists, based on the fact that they are worried about liability, and due to concerns that city council members have had after they have personally hit cyclist, due to the drivers not paying attention, as was stated.

    They have fully said that it is a liability issue, which makes it wrong.

    It should also make it easier to overturn.

    We cannot let these people make decisions that affect our cycling, simply because they are afraid of financial repercussions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Atbman March 9, 2008 at 9:18 am

    The assumption seems to be that helmet wearing will lead to a reduction in major head injuries and save lives.

    If the research carried out by Dr. Mayer Hillman in the UK is correct, it will make very little difference. He studied a large number of head injury fatalities and discovered that close to 92% of the riders would have died from other injuries, only more slowly, since they also were fatal.

    I always wear one, but mainly to reduce the impact should I crash. However, I would expect such a crash to not involve a motor vehicle. If I\'m hit at speeds in excess of 30mph, a piece of polyurethane/polystyrene foam will have very little impact (sic) on the result. If it does reduce what would have been a fatal injury, I may, under those circumstances, become a vegetable.

    As for children, I agree that helmets play their part in injury reduction, since they suffer, predominantly, from low speed \"drop\" injuries, caused by their lesser skill levels.

    That said, in nearly 10 years of running a kids bike club, we have had only 3 head injuries, in spite of having had in the region of 1000 kids thro\' the \"doors\" and hundreds racing on tarmac, grass, mtb course, hard and grass track. They always wear helmets, but these don\'t seem to reduce the skinned knees, hips and elbows which are the overwhelming majority of injuries.

    Another UK stat: about 60% of all head injuries in UK A&E depts., spring from alcohol. If you are going to a bar or a party, please don\'t fogrget to wear you helmet.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Aaaarrrrgggghhh March 9, 2008 at 10:16 am

    Atbman, The problem is that the research you cite is only one study among many, and that study has many problems. It cannot be generalized to another society, for example. Further, any study that suggests that cyclists basically make themselves look dangerous in order to \"promote safety\" ought to cause us all to think.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Racer X March 9, 2008 at 10:45 pm

    Dread Pirate Roberts...is there a rain date set for your ride tomorrow?

    (It might be time to lower your sails and head for port until next Monday when the storm blows over.)

    Or be damned the rain and the furries...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 10, 2008 at 8:17 am

    The storm, she is a blow\'in in. 100% chance of rain tonight. Well there\'s going to be storms all week so...anyone up for a St Pattys day ride??? Wear some green and tell all your friends.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby March 10, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Do not tell me you are canceling this because of rain....

    That would be a big mistake.

    Think of the comments from people who see this, and the people who\'s attention you are trying to get.

    \"They think this is important enough to even ride in the rain\"

    Well, you understand what I am saying...

    I expect you all to be in the park tonight...Rain or Shine.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Val March 10, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Wow...just noticed this post, and I am amazed. Amazed, to begin with, that ANYONE has the unmitigated audacity and awe inspiring cojones to challenge such a law in the face of the avalanche of \"politically correct\" criticism that would (and has) be triggered by it. Dread Pirate Roberts rules! Don\'t ever let them initmidate you. I am also amazed by the support this ride is recieving. It seems that there may me some hope for the future of rational thought in relation to bicycle safety. Way to go, people. I am almost tempted to travel down from Seattle to add one more presence, but I doubt that it will fit into my schedule or budget. I\'ll be there in spirit (not as good, I know, but something). As for all the commentors who begin any consideration of this issue with the ironclad assumption that riding a bicycle in anything but a helmet absolutely WILL cause the rider to sustain a traumatic brain injury, step out of your own little box and look at the majority of the cyclists around the world. Most of them are amazed that we even think about it; it is not a common experience for anyone but us, and not nearly as common for us as you seem to assume. What makes cycling dangerous is doing it in the USA, and even that does not need to make it nearly as dangerous as you think. We do need to make things safer, and we are, though slowly. I will continue to be responsible for my own safety, and no, you don\'t get to tell me what kind of hat to wear. Dread Pirate: I might be able to help your research with a link or two; when is the paper due?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 10, 2008 at 11:40 am

    In response to Dabby #53
    You are right. Let\'s do it.
    I am ready to ride. Weather be damned.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spencer March 10, 2008 at 11:44 am

    This is a difficult issue to decide on.

    On one hand, we do have helmet laws for motorcycles and seat belt laws for cars on public roadways. The heart of a lot of the discussion on this blog is about equality of bicyclists on the roadways. Vocal discent on this issue undermines the argument for equality.

    On the other hand, when rding to store to get the milk, I don\'t put on a helmet and enjoy the sensations.

    I guess I come down on the side of having the freedom to chose for myself and not wear a helmet, but I wouldn\'t use a mass ride to protest it. Letters to the councilmen/women, especially around election time, is enough for me. Please remember the greater goal.

    Regarding comment #17, we all pay higher insurance rates so hospitals can cover the cost of treating un-insured ER visits. A backward ass way of dealing with it, but maybe that will change.

    In Oregon the state and Counties kick in money to help offset this cost. So in a way, we do pay for those injuries. Just because a person gets a bill doesn\'t mean they pay it. Usually they just take the credit hit and negotiate with the hospital for a reduced fee or payment plan and the rest is writen off as a buisness expense.

    Nothing in life is free.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Agent Lekker March 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Spencer #43. What is the greater goal?
    To encourage more people to cycle?
    To make cycling more enjoyable?
    To make cycling safer?

    Regarding this ride, my goal while out in the rain is to raise awareness that our city council voted on an ordinance without research (\"statistics be damned\" Royce Pollard), without the manpower to enforce it, without a plan to implement the any other components to make the streets safer. If you listen to coucil testimony you will see why this bandaid ordinance is so hard to stomach.

    Helmets are only one small piece of an overall plan, and if we are not working on any other part then Vancouver will never be bikable.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell March 10, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    No rain is going to stop us!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • E March 10, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    The problem I have is not with the law itself, as such - helmets do save lives and brains - but that the city of Vancouver promotes it as a way to protect cyclists while doing NOTHING to affect the behavior of cyclist-killing motorists. Slow the cars down FIRST, and then maybe you can talk about helmet use. It\'s ridiculous. It\'s like requiring women to wear special pants to protect themselves from rape, while doing nothing to hinder the activity of rapists.

    Have a great ride, and I\'m sorry I cannot be there. Roberts, you rock.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Opus the Poet March 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    I was there in spirit, was anybody there in person?

    Once again, I think everybody should use a helmet. I also don\'t think the government should force us to use helmets, unless the government is going to also pay for all injuries we might suffer and therefore have a legitimate need to prevent injury.

    Opus

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dread Pirate Roberts March 10, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Thank you everyone for your encouragement and crictism.

    Val #54 my project is due the 20th any help would be welcomed!

    Again thank you and all those who came on the ride (15 people!!!) you were the greatest and I encourage you to go to a council meeting. As for those there Spiritually we were sorry you coudn\'t come.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Russell March 10, 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Might I say, excellent ride, and I hope all of us made it home safe. I was only almost hit on my way there, but the trip home was a breeze.
    Thank you everyone for coming!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Val March 10, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    So how many made it? Did it seem to have any effect? Do tell, do tell. Dread Pirate Roberts: contact me at: instigator@thebikesmith.com and we can see what help I can be.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Editor) March 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    I think we had about 15-20 people... for how interested folks were in this ride, I thought we would have had more... even on a rainy night in vancouver.

    But if you didn\'t make it you missed a great ride... and free ice cream!

    Thanks Mr. Dread... now that I know who your mom is, I have no doubt our paths will cross many more times in the future.

    Stay tuned for photos and a full wrap-up by tomorrow AM.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt Picio March 11, 2008 at 8:36 am

    I made it up into North Portland to meet with two friends to ride up with, but one of them was really late and we weren\'t ready to go until almost 5:30pm (still at least a half-hour away)

    No, I\'m not going to name the guilty party. We were there in spirit, if not in presence. I\'ll make sure I ride up sans helmet at some point in the next 2 weeks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dr. Benjamin March 11, 2008 at 10:10 am

    Thanks for bringing attention to this issue and bringing us together for the ride DPR!

    As a recreational biker and skater, I know the importance of safety gear and effectiveness of a helmet. But I also know that suiting up in body armor and signal flares to take my bike down the street to the grocery store gives everyone else the impression that cycling is dangerous and time consuming. Cycling for casual, everyday use will never seem practical if we all treat it like an extreme sport. There\'s a time and place for lycra, helmets, and reflective clothing. There\'s also riding that can be done in blue jeans, baseball caps, sun hats, and skirts.

    Vancouver is trying to fix the wrong problem. The bikers, skaters, and pedestrians are unsafe due to the streets, traffic conditions, and poor planning the city has embraced- not because of what they wear.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Patrick March 11, 2008 at 11:33 am

    Bicycle helmets aren\'t magic. They are made of polystyrene foam. They provide a modest amount of protection. At the low speeds most recreational riders are going, they probably are not necessary. Yep, you are a LITTLE safer wearing one than you are without. Same holds true for riding in a car. Anyone who thinks this law is a good idea should also support mandatory helmets for all occupants of motor vehicles.

    Let me be clear: I am opposed to mandatory seat belt laws as well. But that said, only IDIOTS fail to wear safety belts.

    If government were really sincere about public safety, the first thing they would do would be to ban tobacco use.

    My biggest reason FOR wearing a bicycle helmet: I like having a place to strap a few lights. Helmet mounted lights are great, and probably contribute much more to my safety than the helmet itself does.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • carl April 11, 2008 at 10:58 am

    Pro law folks please remember that this law effects skateboarders and anyone else with wheels.

    The law says police can detain you to run warrant checks and search you simply for skating on a street or sidewalk.

    Police detained me yesterday and told me to go to the \'extreme sportspark\' 10 miles away, which was built for bikes and has no real street terrain for skateboarding.

    I appreciate that the city is trying to meet skateboarding needs by building a park, but I doubt they\'ll be sharing the bill when I get impaled by a handle bar.

    I moved here because my company couldn\'t find someone locally to fill a vital position in the company, but I\'ll be returning home when the housing market stabilizes because of the gestapo-like (and probably overweight) lawmakers.

    Vancouver may be making a few dollars by giving me tickets, but they\'ll be losing many more when I move away. I didn\'t come here to make chump change.

    See ya\'ll at the clock tower, where I\'m also not allowed to skate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.