Whether you are for or against a mandatory helmet law, I think it’s safe to say we haven’t heard the end of this yet.
Playing into my hunch is an editorial in today’s Portland Tribune: Bicycle helmet law’s a no brainer. In the piece, the Tribune shares the type of soundbyte that will be very persuasive to a number of Oregonians. Here’s an excerpt (emphasis mine):
“… Prozanski was on exactly the right path in suggesting that bicyclists of all ages – not just those under 17 – should be required by law to wear helmets.
Objections to such a law are based on personal freedom. But when it comes to vehicle safety, why should those who ride bicycles be treated differently from the operators of motorcycles or cars?Oregon law requires that motorcyclists wear helmets. It requires that all drivers and passengers wear seat belts. The rationale for these laws is that society must pay the price of immediate and lifelong care when a helmetless motorcyclist suffers a head injury, or when someone who is not wearing a seat belt is hurt in a car wreck.
That exact rationale applies equally to bicyclists. If Prozanski isn’t willing to pursue this safety initiative, then another legislator should take up the cause.”
If you are against a new helmet law, I would suggest reading this editorial carefully and honing your rebuttals. I would not be surprised if “another legislator” took the Tribune’s advice.