Updated: Eugene senator will look to expand Oregon’s bike helmet law
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 am
[Updated 7/24, 5:40pm: *See below]
to expand Oregon’s helmet law.
(Photo © J. Maus)
State senator Floyd Prozanski (D-South Lane and North Douglas Counties) plans to introduce an expansion of Oregon’s bicycle helmet law in the 2009 legislative session.
Prozanski told me via telephone this morning that he plans to make Oregon’s current helmet law — ORS 815.485, which only applies to people under 16 years old — apply to everyone who rides a bike.
Pointing out his strong record of support for bike-related legislation, Prozanski says “a combination of things” have led him to this decision.
The man involved in Eugene’s most recent bicycle fatality did not have a helmet on, although Prozanski says “it’s questionable” if the helmet would have made a difference. Prozanski also said he’s read and heard about fatal crashes in Portland where the rider was not wearing a helmet.
Reflecting on his desire for this law, Prozanski said, “I guess maybe as I get older, I feel there are certain things we can do that enhance safety but at the same time not be over-burdening.” He also said that he expects broad public support for the law, much like Oregonians supported a mandatory helmet law (as a citizen initiative) for motorcycle riders back in the ’80s.
“Based on that,” he said, “I’d be surprised if the general public would disagree with that same concept for all cyclists.”
Prozanski said his idea has the support of Cycle Oregon and that he’d also consider expanding programs that would help distribute helmets to people unable to acquire one and/or approaching helmet manufacturers for assistance.
This effort by Prozanski will set up an interesting conversation with Oregon’s largest bicycle advocacy group, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance.
The BTA has worked closely with Prozanski to pass bike-friendly legislation (most recently a rural safe passing law), but they do not favor mandatory helmet laws. In February, they drafted a letter advising Vancouver lawmakers to re-think their positions on the issue saying, “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.”
Oregon’s current helmet law requires all persons under the age of 16 to wear a helmet while riding on public right-of-ways. The fine for riding without a helmet is $25.
Back in February, the City of Vancouver Washington passed an all-ages helmet law by a nearly unanimous vote.
[*UPDATE: The Cycle Oregon Board of Directors does not support this law proposal. I initially wrote that they supported it because I heard that from Sen. Prozanski. However, I did not take the time to double-check that position and I have since learned they do not support an all-ages helmet law. Sorry for any confusion and I regret the error.]
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
July 22nd, 2008 12:08
This is hopefully a well-meaning effort on Senator Prozanski's part, but he's badly underinformed. Senator, with all due respect, this initiative will do nothing to promote bike safety.
An all ages helmet law would not by any means address the biggest threats to bicycle safety (the big threats are cars, dangerous driving behavior, lack of bike infrastructure, and lack of other bikes on the road) -- and it would give the few folks out there who genuinely do want to make life hard for cyclists, and have the power to do so, a great new tool for their vendetta.
For more background on why adult helmet laws are counterproductive, check out this interesting article by Peter Jacobsen (who presented on this research at the Towards Carfree Cities conference here last month), discussing a correlation with the all ages helmet law in Australia and an increase in bicycle fatalities. This link is for the pdf:
http://www.tsc.berkeley.edu/newsletter/Spring04/JacobsenPaper.pdf
July 22nd, 2008 12:10
Oh, can I be the first of maybe 500 posts?
Has Prozanski had his head in a bucket the last few years? I can't believe he's so unaware of the firestorm he'll cause if he follows through on this.
July 22nd, 2008 12:12
Let the pro-helmet/anti-helmet games begin!
(can we talk about fixie brakes too?)
July 22nd, 2008 12:12
Most people are scared of real freedom and like the government telling them what to do, so I wouldn't be surprised either if the general public supported this.
If we want to stop bicycle fatalities, we should just ban bikes from riding on the streets, or better yet, ban cars! Helmets will not save your life in most cases if you are struck by a car.
Remember the sad story of the bicycle racer at PIR who slammed head first into a pole and died? He was wearing a helmet. Maybe we should ban racing to make people safer.
It's just another thing for police to waste their time doing: ticketing cyclists for not wearing helmets.
I'd be curious to know if they are enforcing this law in Vancouver and how many people have actually been cited since the law was passed.
July 22nd, 2008 12:13
Breaking news update-
Recent studies have shown that nearly 100 percent of people involved in motor vehicle accidents were not wearing helmets at the time. In addition the study concluded that concussions occurring during the act of sexual intercourse, almost always occurred when the participants were not wearing helmets.
Video at 11.
Who is voting for these idiots?
July 22nd, 2008 12:16
@Elly #1 -
Is that the correct link? That article mentions nothing about helmets...
July 22nd, 2008 12:17
I see plenty of kids, everyday, in Beaverton not wearing helmets. (Not to mention riding down the wrong side of the road). Good luck enforcing that, you'll need plenty.
July 22nd, 2008 12:21
Wow. A legislator who has no idea WHY we need a law, but he's going make sure we have one. I'm shocked.
Can somebody get this guy to do a little research on the subject? Its hard to fathom why we want to do anything to decrease the number of cyclists (plenty of evidence that this is the biggest impact of helmet laws) and motorst familiarity with cyclists.
July 22nd, 2008 12:25
If you do a search at the British Medical Journal site for helmet laws you'll find several peer-reviewed studies that support the conclusion that helmet laws have the perverse effect of increasing societal health costs (by discouraging cycling they increase sedentary lifestyles and lead to motorist unfamiliarity with cyclists).
July 22nd, 2008 12:25
It appears that Oregon is the new Vancouver.
Prozanski,
Keep your ideals off of my head.
July 22nd, 2008 12:25
Horseshit! This is the same as requiring chastity belts to lower the rape rate. There's too much more to do in regulating the behavior of drivers to waste time and resources on a helmet law.
July 22nd, 2008 12:29
How about a state funded campaign to encourage ridership and use of a helmet funded by an increase in the gas tax.
July 22nd, 2008 12:30
"I'm with the Government and I'm here to help".
Anyone hear of the concept of "personal responsibility"?
Less government is better government.
July 22nd, 2008 12:31
Will pedestrians and drivers be required to wear helmets too?
People like to believe helmets are way more protective than they actually are: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1610264,00.html
Why does everyone think they know what's good for everyone else? This entire notion is terrible.
July 22nd, 2008 12:32
Ya'll are writing him letters right?
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
July 22nd, 2008 12:32
if this becomes law, i'll stop wearing a helmet on priceple alone.
July 22nd, 2008 12:35
Don't do it man...
Keep the government off my scalp.
However, rather than everyone get into a heated debate how about we all write to the MAN himself and let him know our feelings?
July 22nd, 2008 12:41
How about mandatory helmets while using ladders? or maybe walking helmets?
July 22nd, 2008 12:44
i wear a helmet and i think everyone should, but anything, like this law, that might keep a person from getting on a bike and riding is a bad thing.
July 22nd, 2008 12:45
and i'm with toddistic. i might stop wearing my helmet in protest.
July 22nd, 2008 12:50
I actually discontinued wearing my helmet in protest when the Vancouver helmet law was passed. And I haven't worn one in the 'Couv since...
But they won't pull me over for it!
July 22nd, 2008 12:51
I can see how this could easily pass. Most people don’t ride bikes for transport. All road users remember other travelers that break laws, are inconsiderate and/or are dangerous, and I imagine that most of the non-biking public would see requiring helmets as being beneficial. It’s going to be difficult to stop this from passing if it gets written. Contact the BTA and Sen. Floyd Prozanski to try to stop it from moving forward.
July 22nd, 2008 12:56
Sigh.
And this poor soul thinks he is helping make the world safer.
Wonder how many injury accidents are caused by people talking on the cell phone will driving, vs how may injuries would be avoided if everybody wore helmet.
Or maybe a 3 foot passing rule?
Or a stiff vehicular homicide law.
Or increased enforcement of existing laws.
Please do something about safety, not pass more stupid laws.
July 22nd, 2008 12:58
To quote Yehuda Moon, "It's a car problem, [Prozanski]. Why make bicyclists try and fix it with a styrofoam hat?"
http://www.yehudamoon.com/index.php?date=2008-07-09
July 22nd, 2008 13:03
This is going to pass. Think about the number of people commenting on this sight every time there's a chance to say, "See, I told you so. They should have been wearing a helmet."
July 22nd, 2008 13:04
Here's the letter I'm sending to Prozanski.
sen.floydprozanski@state.or.us
Feel free to modify it or use it as is and send one yourself:
Hello Senator Prozanski;
I'm writing to ask you not to promote a helmet law for adult cyclists. I agree with you that helmets are important and I certainly do wear one, but a law fining cyclists for riding their bikes is a terrible idea. Some people can't afford helmets. And sometimes even the most committed cyclist has things on her mind and she forgets.
More bikes on the road means fewer cars, and that makes everyone less likely to get hit by 2000 pounds of steel. This law will discourage cycling and result in more cars on the road.
I appreciate your interest in cyclist safety, but I think your effort would be better directed at making helmets more readily available to people who can't spare $15 to get one. Young adults in particular often have more debt than spending money when they're first starting out, and in the calculus between buying a helmet and being $15 short on rent, there's no contest.
Additionally, any laws aimed at making car drivers more responsible for their actions behind the wheel of 2000 pounds of metal would result in better safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and even other drivers.
Thank you for your time.
July 22nd, 2008 13:09
Patrick (Comment #22) got me thinking.
Who is it that promotes the stereotype of bicycle helmets saving lives?
Is it actually promoted by any scientific studies? Do manufacturers of helmets or bikes (often one and the same) promote helmet mythology?
I recall when we bought our bicycles from Bike Gallery, having talked with a staff member for a good 30-minutes about our biking goals (basically replace our car for errands, commuting), he helped us decide on a bike and then transitioned straight into recommending helmets like it was the law or the wisest thing in the world.
I know that novice riders report feeling safer in a helmet and probably more likely to ride as a result. But if it is of no real value—medically, scientifically—way do the manufacturers and sellers promote it?
There is a lot of advocacy going on right now, thankfully, but part of the package is photos of helmeted riders. Only hooligan bike messengers in 80's movies starring Kevin Bacon don't wear helmets… right?
July 22nd, 2008 13:10
I'm with the "afraid of freedom" comment (Roma). Why must everything be controlled? Let people make the judgement for themselves.
I am a ritual helmet wearer, and daily bike commuter. I've even been in a bike accident where the helmet saved me, yet I love to ride to the grocery store, occasionally, without a helmet. Isn't this like wearing a lifejacket in a swimming pool?? It *could* save a life.
It's a shame to see a community's rights and privilages peeled away because of a handful of incidents and some narrow thinking by some powerful people.
July 22nd, 2008 13:12
To think this type of legislation is a good thing just proves that Floyd Prozanski is a weak spined politician.
Prozanski, start off by banning cell phones in cars, fast food drive throughs. Pass a vehicular homicide law, then we can talk about helmets.
July 22nd, 2008 13:16
Yikes. Try this link instead:
www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf
July 22nd, 2008 13:21
Hey Steve (#5) -
Were they wearing seatbelts? Because that is the relevant analogy.
July 22nd, 2008 13:25
"I'll stop wearing a helmet if they pass this law, in protest."
A couple of nominees, it seems...
http://www.darwinawards.com/
July 22nd, 2008 13:28
Anyone interested in having a No Helmet Day...?
July 22nd, 2008 13:41
This comes down to a simple question.
How much govt interference in your life is acceptable?
They can make a lot of things safer (or not) by passing laws. They can use "studies" to prove their point. And somebody can use the same data to disprove it.
At some point the nanny work needs to stop and people need to make up their own minds.
If you want to wear a seat belt - then do. If you don't want to wear a helmet - then don't.
Last time I checked - this was still the USA and we are given the rights to act as free men and women. I think it is in something called the constitution.
Unfortunately (or fortunately) being free means having the right to splatter myself over a windshield if I feel like it.
July 22nd, 2008 13:42
Too bad if this passes. My three year old daughter loves to call out un-helmeted cyclists. Luckily none have become violent (yet).
I estimate that 100% of bike haters support this legilsation...but most would fight a no-cellphone-while-driving law.
July 22nd, 2008 13:46
yes, glv, not wearing a bike helmet is equivalent to attaching rocket fuel to your car and setting it alight.
i was building an actually convincing case for wearing helmets, but eff it. i don't want to be on your side.
July 22nd, 2008 13:58
Driving in your car is WAY more dangerous than riding without a helmet. When did people get so paranoid?
When I was a kid nobody wore a helmet, and we were launching our bikes off three foot high jumps. I crashed more times than I can count - never once did I get any sort of head injury.
Like one of the articles posted above pointed out: you are more likely to sustain a head injury in a car or as a pedestrian.
July 22nd, 2008 14:15
I'm pro-helmet but I don't feel too strongly about a law enforcing it either way. Though strangely I totally agree with seatbelt laws.
I've said this before (in jest, mainly) and incurred wrath as a result, but again: if you're in an accident where a helmet would have protected you and you weren't wearing one, you should forfeit the right to a speedy ambulance ride.
July 22nd, 2008 14:20
My wife has a really bad habit. She yells at cyclists without helmets to "put on a helemet". She thinks herself entitled since she is an avid commuter (125 mi/wk in the winter) and has worked in emergency rooms for a few ears.
Forget the battle of the statistics, she has seen numerous head injuries, both with helmets and without, and thinks that not wearing a helmet is about as smart as not wearing your seatbelt.
Well last week, I got her to agree not to yell at people anymore, since the mutual assault on Mississippi Street last week. I told her, that I did not want to get beat-on protecting her from the consequences of her comments. There are some real "no-helmet" zealots out there.
July 22nd, 2008 14:40
F*** yes I wrote him. This guy's willingness to impose the ignorance of the majority on the minority of cyclists who are already healthy and safe is enraging. I also Cc'd my own state senator and state rep.
July 22nd, 2008 14:45
This is absolutely ridiculous! The state has no right whatsoever to treat its citizens as children. This trend is absolutely detrimental for society at large - if you treat people like children they will become less and less responsible and you'll have bigger and bigger state. For what????
July 22nd, 2008 14:45
The existing law that requires those 16 and under to wear helmets is woefully ineffective. The long-term awareness/education campaign and enforcement for the law are essentially nonexistant. When it was first passed several years ago compliance was high, now it isn't so good. Seems that we should focus on improving compliance with the existing law before requiring helmets of all bike riders.
July 22nd, 2008 14:46
I always wear a helmet. Just got back from Paris. Nobody wears helmets there. I find it interesting that in our country, with less socialized medicine, we go to the helmet laws right away, while in France, where the injuries are clearly a public burden, they don't. A year or three ago there was an interesting story in the Atlantic on the bike underculture of mostly immigrant workers who cannot afford cars or insurance, or can't get licensed, or whatever. These folks don't wear helmets, and they are probably the people for whom ER treatment is publicly financed. Well, I predict a law won't make 'em wear helmets.
July 22nd, 2008 14:47
Dave #11:
"This is the same as requiring chastity belts to lower the rape rate."
That is the perfect analogy.
July 22nd, 2008 14:56
"yes, glv, not wearing a bike helmet is equivalent to attaching rocket fuel to your car and setting it alight."
What on Earth are you talking about? I made no such comparison. In fact, that's just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard...today.
July 22nd, 2008 15:10
I don't think this is a "freedom" issue. I think it is a ridership issue. Will it increase ridership? Maybe it will, via voodoo psychology where it elevates the sensibleness of bike riding in the minds of zillions. I doubt it. I don't think it will make much of a difference to ridership either way. What would really help with safety, in the line of mandatory changes to bike-and-rider, is to make it unlawful to sell a bike without lighting that conforms to the law for nighttime riding.
July 22nd, 2008 15:23
G.A.R., John Pucher always argues that Denmark and the Netherlands have such high ridership levels _because_ of no helmet laws because then it seems casual instead of serious... that and with better bike, facilities, of course. I recommend helmets for long distance riding but never wear one around town.
http://commutebybike.com/2008/07/21/blond-wigs-keep-you-safe-an-interview-with-dr-ian-walker/
And in that Podcast the guy argued that car drivers stay farther away from people without helmets (and women).
July 22nd, 2008 15:24
HA!
The only way for cycling to truly progress as a viable means of transport is for rider safety to increase. In order for that to happen we need a fundamental shift in how we view cycle transport. First, stop viewing all cyclists as if they're engaged in some extreme sports experience. They're not.
Second, stop riding as if you're engaged in an extreme sports experience. You're not ( or rather shouldn't be while on the street.) Just ride a bike. Sensibly, casually, safely.
If there is even a perceived need for a helmet then obviously cycling is not safe. The goal should not be socking plastic noggin holders on everyone, but rather curtailing the vectors of endangerment:
Primarily the auto-centric design of our streets and roadway laws.
If we severely limit the ability for those among us to use an automobile in the city and I think the need for helmets would almost evaporate.
July 22nd, 2008 15:48
As I see it, at the center of this proposal is not the helmet or even bicycles; but the age thing.
When you have a law specifically for persons under 16 years old and you decide to apply it to every adult person, the point you are making is that there's no valid distinction between a child and an adult for that matter. Its a rejection of the very concetp of capacity.
I think this a very serious issue: politically, here you have the government assuming a paternalistic role, and that runs against the very fundaments of liberal democracies. Culturally, this simply reinforces the trend of infantilization, about which much has been written, being the state of society that prevents the individuals from reaching full maturity by denying them the experience of personal responsibility and self-reliance.
First you scare them to death; then you pretend to offer protection. That's the formula of current politics in America.
July 22nd, 2008 15:48
One of the most liberal places in the country and soon the government is going to tell us to stop smoking in public, now this. Both are crazy in my opinion.
What happened to the government helping people where they cannot help themselves? Why are they bothering with crap like this?
~n
July 22nd, 2008 15:50
I emailed the senator. Thanked him for his intentions on safety, but expressed my belief that this is the wrong route to take. That I would rather see the money spent on ways to prevent collisions entirely, than ways to prevent my head from being injured when I'm in a collision.
July 22nd, 2008 15:53
I am pro-helmet. I have had more than one friend who can point to his helmet and say that thing saved his life. I've instilled the values of wearing one in my wife and my kids. No amount statistics and peer reviewed studies will make me give up my helmet. The consequences, no matter how remote some academics consider them, are too much for me to risk.
However, having said that I cannot support this law. If the good senator from Eugene wants to show some genuine leadership and concern for cyclist safety then I suggest he work towards bringing Oregon in line with the 47 other states that have a vehicular homicide law on the books.
July 22nd, 2008 15:55
"Pointing out his strong record of support for bike-related legislation, Prozanski says “a combination of things” have led him to this decision." editor Maus/bikeportland
Well, like what "...things". During the interview, beyond vague ramblings, did he mention even one single specific reason why he felt this legislative proposal was warranted?
Here's what I'm waiting for: a vigilant legislator that takes on the idea of licensing cyclists as a proposal for legislation. If animosity towards people riding bikes might be a reason why an all inclusive helmet use law receives serious consideration, I believe there's likely to be a whole lot more of it behind the idea of licensing people to ride a bike. Sen. Floyd Prozanski's vigilance in proposing to initiate this particular helmet legislation seems to me to be excessive, but perhaps his willingness to do this is a lead-up to proposing bike related licensing.
When the legislature meets again in '09 it should be interesting to see if Prozanki proceeds with this. I can imagine that the recent collision of guy on a bike Karl Hugo with a truck is likely to be cited as one local example of why an all inclusive bike helmet law is called for.
recent serious injury collision...injured guy on bike not wearing helmet
July 22nd, 2008 16:06
Snowflake Seven (comment 27):
I'm w/ you on the lack of evidence. See http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7543/722-a?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cycling+helmets&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT for a peer-reviewed critique of helmet laws, suggesting that the data supports the conclusion that helmet laws decrease the amount of cycling done, but not the amount of injuries. There's other literature coming out of Europe that also suggests that helmet laws decrease cycling participation and thereby contribute to diseases of sedentary lifestyle.
July 22nd, 2008 16:25
I never used to wear a helmet until I heard a co-worker say of a friend who had crashed her bike, "she's doing better, and is getting to where she can talk normally again." Pretty much did it for me :).
Still, I would never, ever impose my choice to wear a helmet on others.
I'm against babysitter laws, and babysitter legislators.
Thanks but no thanks, Senator Prozanski.
July 22nd, 2008 16:29
How about piggybacking this with a rolling-stop law like Idaho's?
July 22nd, 2008 16:32
It seems like the good senator is out of touch with the "cycling community".
I would rather see our current laws enforced more, and more fairly and consistently, than a nanny-state law like this hit the books.
I'm pro-helmet-- for myself. If you choose not to wear a helmet, well, it's your brains, do with them what you will.
Stupid. I'm sure he has good intentions, but you know what they say about the road to hell....
July 22nd, 2008 16:46
I'm not sure how I feel about a helmet law. I agree that there are behaviors out there that are much more hazardous to cyclists than not wearing a helmet. And the arguments/statistics showing that helmet laws reduce ridership are also compelling.
That said, I almost always wear a helmet. I'm quite sure a helmet has saved me at least once from becoming the mental equivalent of a zucchini. Working in bike shops, I've seen lots of helmets smashed in very convincing ways, and I've had friends who work in ERs tell me the prettiest stories of un-helmeted riders (bike and motorcycle). To me, it just makes common sense to try and put some styrofoam between your brain and the cement.
Does that mean the gov't should force you to wear a helmet? I don't know. One thing I wonder about is: if you wreck and have a head injury because you were exercising your freedom not to wear a helmet and you don't have health insurance, do you expect the gov't to help with your medical bills? Why should I, the taxpayer, pay the price for your decision? I have to admit, I see a lot more people willing to take risks than I see people willing to accept the consequences of risk.
July 22nd, 2008 16:57
Horse pucky, let them ENFORCE the law they have. I see more adults waring helmets than I do kids....put some meat in the existing law and JAIL the parents of kids riding without helmets.
July 22nd, 2008 17:05
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm living in TX, but if I win the Lottery I might move to Portland and buy/open a bike shop, then I would have to live with local laws. I wear a helmet every time I ride a bike, a full face helmet in fact (and I drown in sweat in the TX heat). Given that you would think I would be a rabid supporter of helmet laws, but you would be wrong. Like the Yehuda Moon quote from earlier, "It's a car problem..." I wear a helmet because it saved my life, but wearing a helmet didn't keep me from being brain damaged. I have been unemployed since 2002 because of my brain damage because someone in a motor vehicle decided I shouldn't be allowed to live because I rode a bicycle on "his" street. Get the crazies off the roads, punish the ones that hurt people before you catch them, and do something about people that won't allow bikes to exist in the same section of road with them.
Oh, and read my blog. I write about bike safety and you guys get featured in it from time to time.
July 22nd, 2008 17:17
You are right who needs helmets!! pish posh. Bikers don't need helmets they need Next of Kin tags for their head. That way when they die falling off their bike at speed we can find who to send the body too.
Come on people grow up.
Put a Helmet on. it's not like you have all that many brains to start with. Protect what you have
July 22nd, 2008 17:53
I'd fully support this legislation if the good senator would also push for more funding for bike infrastructure throughout the state.
July 22nd, 2008 17:55
I wear a helmet *almost*/ all the time, except for little grocery trips, etc, and when I forget. But that's not the point. It sure is a great idea to wear a helmet but I am all about personal freedom, and one more restriction (when we already have to many) is just bad new. It'd be great if anyone could post an email link so I could write the senator and tell him how I feel about the proposed legislation. Is this the kind of legislation that doesn't go on the ballot, and is either passed or failed on the floor? I think the general public should definitely have a say. Helmets are more expensive than four tickets for riding without a helmet, right? So that will cause some problems, plus imagine what a waste of resources it would be to pay all the cops to pull people over for not wearing helmets when they could be doing something much better with their time....
July 22nd, 2008 18:02
#26, Thanks for the address. I will definitely be writing a note to Senator Prozanski. This is a sadly misguided use of the legislature.
I personally would never ride without a helmet because it can be life saving. But, it is not a magic shield that will protect all bike riders. Having this law will just validate motorists who believe bicyclists really don't belong on the road because it's "way too dangerous to mix bikes with cars & trucks".
As indicated by #29, Senator Prozanski's efforts would protect not only individual bicyclists but auto drivers and pedestrians, if he directed his energy to banning cellphone use.
I encourage #53 to consider reading Bob Mionske's "Bicycling and the Law". Bicycle licensure would be unconstitutional. I agree there should be some mechanism to ensure anyone on the road has been informed on the "rules of the road". Maybe along that line, sure seems like operators of vehicles in the 2 ton or greator range could easily be periodically "retested" to ensure they are reminded of the rules and any new changes.
July 22nd, 2008 18:08
Periodic retesting for motor vehicle licensure with inclusion of bicycling rules in the manual and on the test will reach a large proportion of bicyclists also since many cyclists also have a drivers license.
July 22nd, 2008 18:09
Periodic retesting for motor vehicle licensure with inclusion of bicycling rules in the manual and on the test will reach a large proportion of bicyclists also since many cyclists also have a drivers licenses.
July 22nd, 2008 18:26
I would like to point out then when Austin,tx passed a helmet law for cyclist (which was later repealed) a study was done showing that on average 92% of those issues citations where minorities. Just sayin'
http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/helmet-laws.html
link with info.
July 22nd, 2008 18:32
When is this poor dead horse going to stop being beaten. I don't want to have to trouble with a helmet for my block-long trip to the store.
July 22nd, 2008 19:22
not to worry! not to worry, comrades!
in spare time, I am prototyping new safety helmet which can fully defeat 3,000 kilo SUV traveling at 40mph!
I am hoping that the great Floyd Prozanski would be willing to act as glorious test pilot!
After this legislation, I am wishful that the great representative of North Douglastan, introduce a bill to outlaw all known diseases!
July 22nd, 2008 19:33
2GOAT, I agree with your points in posts #62 and 63. As a driver, I would love to be re-tested when I renew... laws change, it would be nice to stay updated.
Of course, since I also ride, and frequent this site, I'm better informed as to the laws that have changed than, I think, most of my fellow drivers. I try to keep my immediate family and friends updated, which I know they appreciate (they've said so).
Even if it's an open-book test, mail-in renewal thing it would be better than nothing!
July 22nd, 2008 19:43
As someone who protested the Vancouver helmet law, despite the fact that I wear a helmet myself, this is certainly a step in the wrong direction.
At least in Vancouver, I have noticed no difference since the law was passed. Maybe it was the fact that the council went against most of the people commenting on the law, or possibly the fact that they didn't tell anyone.
At least Royce Pollard wants Light Rail on the CRC. That's about the only good thing I can say about these "Statistics be damned" people.
July 22nd, 2008 20:50
Do you really think that living in a state where the courts have ruled it unconstitional for DUI checkpoints, that a helmet law would stand up against the Oregon Supreme Court?
I'm not worried, its unconstitutional and nothing but misplaced priorities.
FYI to Sen. Floyd Prozanski: YOU ARE NOT MAKING A DIFFERENCE!
July 22nd, 2008 20:53
I've already sent him a lengthy email detailing why I do not support such a law.
I also forgot my closing tag in my previous post. Epic Fail.
July 22nd, 2008 22:18
Back in the early 90's when they were passing the youth helmet law, i tied a helmet to my rack and drug it all around Salem for months to protest our loss of choice. . . Of course i wear a helmet, most of the time, but if this stupid fear-based idea gets close to the floor i'll start dragging a helmet or two behind me yet again, and would encourage all who oppose this law to do the same.
July 22nd, 2008 22:21
At 53 yrs I believe I'm old enough to decide when I should wear a bike helmut or not. Cops have better things to focus on than what kind on hat I'm wearing.
July 22nd, 2008 22:37
I choose to wear a helmet, especially because it has my mirror attached. I am in favor of helmets but not of helmet laws. This is not about safety it's about freedom of choice. Choice, perhaps, for that one block ride to the store. What if we all choose to boycott Cycle Oregon this year. Will they change their tune?
July 22nd, 2008 23:12
no way, no how.. i wear a helmet 95% of the time.. i don't need the cops harrassing me for the 5% of the time I do not wear a helmet.. and we ALL know exactly the type of priorities the cops have when it comes to traffic laws...
July 22nd, 2008 23:19
It's hard to believe that a legislator who proclaims to be a bicycle advocate can be so misguided on this issue...
What is really problematic with a general helmet law is that it applies the same standard to all types of cycling and dismisses the notion that most adult cyclists are able to use their own good judgment about when to wear a helmet and when not.
While I spent the first 25+ years of my life riding a bike on a daily basis without ever feeling the need for wearing a helmet, I gradually evolved into a 100%-helmet-wearing cyclist based on some basic rules of thumb I adopted over the years.
My personal shortlist of when I think it's smart to wear a helmet:
1) bike touring or long recreational rides
2) mountain biking
3) riding with clipless pedals
4) bike racing (mandatory anyway)
5) any rides involving high speed (think fast descents or paceline riding)
The last rule is the one reason why I personally feel a general helmet law makes sense for motorcycles, but not for bicycles. If you go down on asphalt at a speed in excess of 30mph, a helmet just seems a no-brainer (no pun intended), but for cyclists who cruise around town or on the Esplanade at much lower speed, wearing a helmet should remain an option, albeit a smart one.
July 22nd, 2008 23:41
This idea is just plain not right. Enough said...
July 23rd, 2008 00:07
Next up: a law requiring that pedestrians wear their galoshes in the rain.
The more I think about the Ladd's stop sign sting, the more I think a law like this would be a fabulous new way for the PPD to shake down cyclists for free money.
Why is Cycle Oregon supporting this? For free publicity? Maybe they should go on the angry mailing lists, along with Senator Poppins.
July 23rd, 2008 01:47
I'm against this law. Not because I'm anti-helmet or think it will give the cops another excuse to harass cyclists.... but how many more friggin' laws do we need that people will bend or ignore.
It's like America is turning into some idiot land - do we need 27 warning stickers on a friggin' ladder? "Caution hot coffee is hot" is just the beginning my friends.
I've got a better idea. When people are born why don't we just have the baby sign some sort of global EULA, like the ones that come with every piece of software you own. The 97 page document that no human actually reads but checks the "I agree" box because they just want to get on with their friggin' life.
This would free us from stuff like the warning on a razor scooter: "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT MOVES WHEN USED."
...and to blather on, case in point is Mr. Maus recent speeding ticket. He broke the law, yes.... but EVERYBODY breaks this law. Like the stop signs in Ladd's addition, everybody does the "slow and go" for these stop signs because the stop signs seem "unreasonable" for lack of a better term. A reasonable person can come to the roundabout, see that there are no oncoming cars/bikes/giraffes/submarines and proceed. When faced with the stop sign a reasonable person thinks "what friggin' idiot put a stop sign at a roundabout" ... and that way leads to anarchy!
July 23rd, 2008 07:45
Has anyone read the proposed legislation yet? There is a provision that actually says that cyclists would be required to wear elbow/knee pads and mouthguards! Dental insurance does not cover dental work for bicycle related accidents if you were not wearing a mouthguard.
July 23rd, 2008 07:47
i wear a helmet off and on, but i notice when i don't cars don't come as close to me. And when i do i'm normally banging on the side of someones car who's veering into the bike lane.
and yes i've been hit by a car. i've split my head open, but after paying attention to what i mentioned i still rarely wear one.
July 23rd, 2008 08:18
Chris B: could you post a link where you found the proposed legislation?
July 23rd, 2008 08:33
Cheers to Sen. Prozanski! Its about time. Its just too bad that it had to come to this. I see people here are complaining about the "restrictions" they'd have to face - not to mention bad hair days if they have to wear a helmet. As someone who has taken care of people with closed head injuries from not wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle, I'd rather deal with a bad case of helmet hair than living the rest of my life in a wheelchair and a drool cup, but that's just me, I guess.
Whenever I see riders out without a helmet, I assume that they have so little regard for themselves that they are likely going to do something really stupid on their bikes. Yeah yeah - I know: its your "right" to squash your brains, but then who pays for your care? Tax payers and insurance policy holders, for starters, not to mention your families. If you want your mom to change your diapers for the rest of your life, go for it. I just don't want to pay for your stupidity. Of course, the plus side is that you won't be able to reproduce anymore, bringing even more nincompoops into the gene pool.
One poster here pointed out that he shouldn't have to wear a helmet because cars are dangerous. Yes they are, and that is why I wear a helmet and don't blow stop lights.
I would love to see Portland's bicycle community grow up and stop thinking that somehow they are above the laws of traffic and physics.
July 23rd, 2008 08:47
Well Gracie,
If you have seen so many traumatic head injuries because of no helmet, then you must have also seen many more traumatic injuries WITH a helmet. A piece of styrofoam does not prevent traumatic injury from a 3000 pound vehicle.
If your delusions make you feel safer, great. Enjoy your personal La La land. Just leave the rest of us out of it.
July 23rd, 2008 08:48
gracie, its about freedom to decide. we wouldnt have to worry about insurance, state taxes, etc. if we didnt already live in this nanny state.
July 23rd, 2008 08:53
What fools like Gracie don't seem to understand, is that by their 'Logic' bicycling itself should be made illegal.
It is obviously foolish to put yourself into traffic on a bicycle. Who is going to pay for the injuries when a car hits your styrofoamed head and squishes it like a grape?
Gracie is a sad little sheep in need of a shepherd.
July 23rd, 2008 08:55
Hahaha! I figured I'd get a rise :-) I fail to see how being pro-helmet makes one anti-bicycle. Dream on folks. HSo glad I made your days.
July 23rd, 2008 08:57
I know you fail to see that Gracie. That is why you are an ignorant simpleton. Be sure to not slip in the shower sweety!
July 23rd, 2008 08:58
I fail to see how being pro-life makes one anti-choice..
July 23rd, 2008 09:02
I'm happy to see a vocal and curious minority with enough intellectual capacity to resist the temptation of bullish consumerism under the guise of caring wisdom.
Some of you may also enjoy, or already know of this source of information on the subject. I apologize if it has been posted in the past.
http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/
Chris Boardman elaborated well on the subject in the June 2007 issue of the UK publication "procycling".
Someone please scan and post the article if you have it available as it is difficult to find online.
peace and joy,
July 23rd, 2008 09:13
Correction: ORS 814.485 http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html
July 23rd, 2008 09:13
I wear a helmet 99% of the time and I am against a helmet law. It just gives the Police one more thing to harass us about, don't we get harassed enough? Don't we have enough rules to follow?
July 23rd, 2008 09:14
I forgot to mention that I also wear a helmet.
July 23rd, 2008 09:18
To address the epidemic of rapes raging in our streets, we have decided to ban short skirts.
All pedestrians must now wear day-glo safety vests when crossing the street.
Coast Guard-certified life jackets are mandatory in the swimming pool.
Owing to the hazard of sneaker waves, all beachgoers must now wear rearview mirrors on their sunglasses.
The possibility of murder by psychopathic snipers compels us to pass a law requiring everyone to wear kevlar vests whenever outdoors.
To prevent the danger of death from complications arising from urinary tract infections, it is now illegal to wipe your ass back-to-front.
What are you complaining about? We're doing this for your own safety!
IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE IT'S WORTH IT!
July 23rd, 2008 09:20
I propose that all users of the road system wear a helmet in proportion to the gross weight of the vehicle. "All drivers and occupants would have to wear a helmet equal to 0.5 percent of the gross vehicle weight." A 170 pound cyclist with a 30 pound bike wears a one pound helmet. The driver and occupants of a 7500 pound Suburban each wears a 37.5 pound helmet. That ought to cut down on oversize vehicles.
July 23rd, 2008 09:32
To Senator Prozanski and anybody else that wants me to wear a helmet - Please stop trying to save my life.
I wore a helmet today, but i may not tomorrow, and a helmet law won't change that. Pretty much boils down to riding without ID and getting creative with names.
July 23rd, 2008 09:48
hey folks... please try and not let this thread devolve into name-calling.
thanks.
July 23rd, 2008 09:51
Please, read the study:
http://tinyurl.com/helmetstudy
Anecdotal evidence is fun, and can be convincing in the absence of actual science. But if you read and understand this paper, I hope you'll be convinced that helmets don't reduce head injuries, though they DO significantly reduce bicycling, which can lead to an overall increase in bike/car collisions due to the decreasing 'safety-in-numbers' effect.
This paper is a summary and critique of a large number of existing studies, and is the most broad and general analysis I've seen on the topic.
Thanks, Paul, for posting this.
July 23rd, 2008 09:52
I have a question: Will mandatory helmets come with a mandatory fitting class? Improperly worn or ill-fitted helmets can actually INCREASE your chances of injury in a crash. Here is one article about that: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3225/is_5_69/ai_114023802
Do we think people who are not used to wearing helmets, have never worn one, and have never cared how to properly fit one, will do the necessary research to be safe when forced to wear one?
I wear my helmet 99.99% of the time I ride, but I've also taken the time to find out how to properly wear one. There is some discomfort when first wearing a helmet, and that discomfort can quickly be relieved by over-loosening the straps or shoving the helmet too far back on the head, both of which make it less safe.
I already see far too many kids (mandatory helmet wearers), and even some adults riding around with either unbuckled straps, straps that are clipped, but hang down 3" from their chin, or helmets that are tilted way back on their heads. My guess is that a large contingent of adult mandatory helmet wearers would wear theirs in the same ways.
We see similar behavior in folks who ride around with the shoulder harness of their seatbelt tucked under their arm, or slouch so much that the lap belt is around their belly instead of their hips. People must be educated about proper USE of safety devices or they will not be any safer--and in fact may be at higher risk for injury.
July 23rd, 2008 09:52
*Letter for the lazy*
Hello Senator Prozanski;
I'm writing to ask you not to promote a helmet law for adult cyclists. While I appreciate your interest in bicycling safety, mandating helmets for adults is an insignificant step for bicycle safety in Oregon and may end up costing the state tax payer dollars, while failing to improve the respective safety of cyclists.
As a daily commuter in Portland, I am well aware of the risks associated with navigating Oregon's busiest roads in Oregon's largest city. Each year I log thousands of miles on my bike commuting to and from work. In my experience, bicycle safety is not a function of whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet, but rather whether or not motorists and cyclists see each other and, most importantly, whether the infrastructure of cities and towns allows for symbiotic co-existence.
While your efforts are indeed well intentioned, I believe your energy would be better served raising driver awareness of cyclists, improving cycling infrastructure, and most importantly, passing a law which holds reckless and irresponsible drivers accountable for their actions through a vehicular manslaughter law. Currently, a driver can kill a cyclist and receive little more than a $500 fine. Knowing how imperative it is to see cyclists, and understanding that their negligence will have a personal impact, will do far more for cyclist safety than a helmet law.
Additionally, the implementation of a helmet law will adversely affect those individuals who can least afford it. Helmets can easily cost upwards of $50 to $100 dollars. Will people be fined for not being able to afford a helmet and relegated to mass transportation, which may not work for their location simply because they cannot afford a helmet? Maybe you propose the state help distribute discounted or free helmets? Who will pay for this? I personally do not want my tax dollars put towards an endeavor which will have a minimal impact on bicycling fatalities. In my opinion, tax dollars could be spent in a much wiser fashion which would significantly impact cycling safety in the state of Oregon.
Thank you for the audience and I urge you to set the helmet law aside until we have reached a point where cycling fatalities and injuries are just a function of helmets.
July 23rd, 2008 10:10
Although helmets do significantly reduce bicycle fatalities (85% of all head trauma-induced bicycle deaths would have been avoided if bicyclist had been wearing a helmet), Prozanski's legislation is not a good choice.
Helmets "expire" after 5 years. The styrofoam goes bad and is not considered safe anymore. Do riders have to wear SNELL or CPS-certified helmets? If not, then what is the point of this? And if so, how will this be enforced? The BTA is right that this could reduce the number of bicyclists on the road and Elly's article points out that we are safer in numbers.
Hey, at least Prozanski is thinking of us. He might be a little misguided but he's another head listening to us.
July 23rd, 2008 10:12
gracie,
Rather than act with emotion, why don't you actually inform yourself on the actual data regarding helmet use and public safety by READING some of the articles mentioned above. The preponderance of evidence supports a conclusion that helmet laws are counter productive and lead to more societal harm than they alleviate. I take it from your post that you believe that you support helmet laws because you think that they are for the common good. You might change your mind if you look at the data.
July 23rd, 2008 10:18
@ Paul Vincent, mykle & others
Thanks for the link.
I've been trying to dig into research that might shed light on the safety of bicycle helmets and it's surprisingly spotty. For something we should all supposedly do the evidence in favor is underwhelming.
The BMJ published another study concluding that "bicycle safety" programs are actually counterproductive to actual Bicycle Safety (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582)
The latest Atlantic had a wonderful commentary called "Distracting Miss Daisy" about a wider phenomenon (i.e. not specific to bicycles) where a proliferation of regulation and signage reduce vehicular safety in aggregate (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/traffic)
John Pucher (who has been featured on BikePortland before) has concluded that the health benefits of cycling (for an individual) outweigh the safety hazards. that is, your decreased likelihood of a heart attack outweighs your increased likelihood of getting hit in traffic (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/)
If anyone has other links please share.
I'm sick of the infantilization of the American populace in the name of "safety."
OTOH I'm increasingly convinced that said infantilization is perversely making us less safe anyway.
(And because we seem to require this disclaimer: I always wear my bicycle helmet when riding.)
July 23rd, 2008 10:29
People don't even look both ways before crossing the street. New laws in Portland for pedestrians have erased decades of parents teaching their childern to look both ways. Now I witness grown adults walking out in front of traffic, without even establishing themselves at the crosswalk(if there even is one).
More laws mean less personal responsibility.
Now, can we please go mountain biking.
July 23rd, 2008 11:40
insert two cents to comment...inserting two cents now............
Just wear a helmet.
I am sure if internet forums were around back when they made helmets mandatory for motorcycles all these same things would have been said as well.
Just wear a darn helmet. I have seen to many friends either die or have severe personality changes due to head trauma from not wearing a helmet.
They work. They save your life. They let you grow old and enjoy your grand kids.
The whole argument of not wanting the government to control you is a moot point. They control you in so many other facets of your life why does it make a difference if they want you to wear a helmet or not.
Get over it, grow up, and remove the idealist blinders you grasp so tightly to your eyes.
Just wear your helmet.
two cents have been used up please insert two more cents to continue to comment.
July 23rd, 2008 11:42
I posted on one of the Oregonian's story blogs about why drivers want helmet laws. My theory was that drivers get anxious when they see cyclists without helmets because they feel they have to drive more carefully around the unhelmeted. Most drivers relax when they see helmets on cyclists because they think to themselves, "Whew! It's OK if I have a lapse in attention or buzz this guy too closely, because if I should happen to hit him, he's got a helmet on!"
I also think (and have read in a report somewhere) that when drivers see a cyclist without a helmet, they automatically assume the cyclist doesn't know what they are doing or is a novice or otherwise not a "serious" cyclist. Drivers then reason that the non-helmet-wearing cyclist will be unpredictable in his movement, perhaps prone to swerve into traffic at any moment, and that makes drivers nervous.
My guess is we could solve the driver comfort issue by having some other badge of competence, which is how many view helmets. If cyclists chose to wear a patch on their clothing somewhere visible that said "I know what I'm doing!", maybe that would be as good as a helmet at calming driver fears.
We truly have a perception problem, a psychological problem, a stereotyping problem and an education problem (not to mention a pervasive "me-first" attitude), all of which are way bigger than any helmet-wearing problem.
July 23rd, 2008 11:51
it seems like some people think the bmj study says they shouldn't wear helmets. it says no such thing. it says helmet *laws* are counterproductive.
the bmj article is convincing on two points.
1. helmet *laws* reduce cycling. boo!
2. helmet *laws* don't reduce head injuries as much as you'd expect.
but choosing to wear a helmet absolutely does reduce your chance of ending up with a head injury!!!
http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html
in summary, adults should wear helmets because they want to protect their brains. but a government that supports cycling and the health of its citizens should not require it.
July 23rd, 2008 12:05
My letter:
Dear Sen. Prozanski,
I am an avid cyclist who rides my bicycle pretty much every day of the week. I wear a helmet on most of my rides but I wish to make it clear that I do not want to have a government mandate on helmet wearing. Helmets can and do prevent injuries in certain situations. I was bicycle racing at PIR in March and crashed. I suffered a concussion and short term memory loss (with a helmet), but the helmet certainly saved me from additional complications. But that is racing.
General riding on the street carries far less risk than racing does. The risk of head injury when riding a bike as general transportation is roughly the same as having a head injury in a car accident. Not all car accidents involve head injuries (which is why we don't mandate crash helmets when driving), and not all bicycle crashes result in head injuries either. In fact, in over 10 years as a transportational cyclist, I've fallen perhaps a dozen times, and never once hit my head on the ground.
Helmet laws do nothing to lower the rate of fatalities in cycling. If you wish to do something about cyclist deaths, you'd be best to study changes to our road network to enable cyclists and drivers to intermesh more easily and more safely. Helmet laws merely lower the rate of cycling. And it's for trivial reasons too. Women don't want to mess up their hair. Men get sweaty under the helmet. But these are real reasons and are real effects that get people off their bikes.
You might ask, "why do I care about the number of people on bikes?" If you care about the overall safety of the cyclist population, one very important factor is the size of that population. Portland's fatality and crash rate has remained relatively constant despite a steady growth trend in the cyclist population. As the cyclist population grows, the rate of fatalities and crashes decreases proportionately. I have no reason to expect that the reverse trend wouldn't also take place; namely, as the cyclist population shrinks, the rate of fatalities gets larger. If you are interested in making the streets safer for cyclists, you should work to increase the number of cyclists on the streets. As the number goes up, drivers are more exposed to cyclists, the cyclists start gaining a voice so that there is a political appeal to design the streets for more mixed traffic use, and the streets correspondingly become safer for cyclists. Your proposed helmet law work directly contrary to this effect.
I'll admit; your proposal sounds good to a non-cyclist. Why not lessen the responsiblities of drivers to drive safely around cyclists by strapping a styrofoam shell to their head? Cyclists are a minority, why not force this minority to do something because it's a feel good thing to do? It might make a driver feel better about their actions that led to a cyclist falling and hitting their head; I mean, if they weren't wearing a helmet, then it's partially the victim's fault that he or she got so badly injured, right?
The way the law is written now, where children under 16 are mandated to wear helmets, is a good compromise. Teens and pre-teens are somewhat prone to doing stupid things that might get them in trouble, and they need the guiding hand of more experienced adults to keep them out of trouble. But adults are not children. Adults are able to evaluate the risk falling off their bike and hitting their head on a mile trip to a restaurant to eat lunch and trade it off against the hassle of lugging around a relatively fragile and bulky helmet. That phrase, "lugging around a relatively fragile and bulky helmet" sounds frivolous, doesn't it? But it's not. Convenience rules our world and you have to take it into account when evaluating the effect of a law on society. If it didn't, we'd mandate speed limits of no more than 20 mph and we'd all wear helmets in our cars, walking up and down stairs, and when taking showers. You cannot simply get up on the high horse and mandate a nanny state law. It is irresponsible for a Senator to even propose. Especially when the law is forced upon a minority by the willingness of a majority who is not affected in any way, shape, or form by this law.
Thank you for your time,
Brian Ratliff
Hillsboro, OR
July 23rd, 2008 12:29
Kurt Vonnegut eat your heart out, right on the money in 'Harris Bergeron'
July 23rd, 2008 13:03
Mandatory helmet wearing for cyclists is long overdue. Sen. Prozanski is to be commended.
Next is the more important step of licensing cyclists. It's the best way to educate cyclists of their responsibilities on the road and towards pedestrians.
July 23rd, 2008 13:13
Hah. We need Diana Moon-Glampers, the Handicapper General.
July 23rd, 2008 13:21
I personally wear my helmet every time I ride my bike. And I chide my friends for not doing so as well. But I'm never up for anything that gives the cops more reason or excuses to hassle people. Unless they're handing out a free helmet everytime they stop a cyclist.
July 23rd, 2008 14:12
I do wear a helmet probably 90% of the time, but I will be honest...the times when I don't want to wear one for whatever reason I doubt I will be deterred by a $25 fine that has about a 1% chance of being enforced where I live.
Just a thought.
July 23rd, 2008 14:41
For the benefit of the readership.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.
It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.
On the television screen were ballerinas.
A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.
“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.
“Huh?” said George.
“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.
“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.
George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.
Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.
“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.
“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”
“Um,” said George.
“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”
“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.
“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”
“Good as anybody else,” said George.
“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.
“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.
“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”
It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.
“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”
George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.
“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”
“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”
“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”
“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”
“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.
“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”
If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.
“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.
“What would?” said George blankly.
“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”
“Who knows?” said George.
The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”
He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.
“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”
“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.
And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.
“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”
A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.
The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.
Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.
And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.
“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”
There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.
Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.
George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”
The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.
When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.
Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.
“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.
“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”
Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.
Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.
Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.
He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.
“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”
A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.
Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.
She was blindingly beautiful.
“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.
The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”
The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.
The music began again and was much improved.
Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.
They shifted their weights to their toes.
Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.
And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!
Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.
They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.
They leaped like deer on the moon.
The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.
They kissed it.
And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.
It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.
Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.
It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.
Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.
But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.
George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.
“Yup,” she said,
“What about?” he said.
“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”
“What was it?” he said.
“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.
“Forget sad things,” said George.
“I always do,” said Hazel.
“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.
“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.
“You can say that again,” said George.
“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”
July 23rd, 2008 14:56
Helmet law?? Geez, next, they will expect us to stop at stop signs and stop lights.
What about that law prohibiting the sale of drugs???? Can't they inforce that one first??? Every day on my commute...well 5 of 7 days....I see deals going down on the water front with bike cops not far away....
OH, but then they can't cite those druggies, cause it cost money... But they can cite us working folks who have jobs to pay fines......
It just gets better and better.
July 23rd, 2008 15:26
Chad, I am all for a law requiring a fixed gear bike to have a front brake. It could be modeled on the UK and EU laws which require you to have a brake on both wheels, and defines a fixed gear hub as a type of braking device. At least then giving a ticket for "no brakes" would actually be legally justified and not Police harassment, like it is now.
July 23rd, 2008 16:23
First off I am just disgusted at how much time people waste of their own lives to try and make me safe. Now a law saying that you are not allowed to drive while drunk makes sense. The reason is that a drunk person could then run me over and kill me. Stopping them from driving drunk can save me. I want to say thanks for this law. The