According to the way it was described, the board could could adopt the ordinance as is or adopt one or both of the other options. I spoke in favor of adopting the two options. I brought up the CDC data showing the higher occurrence of injuries and fatalities for age groups 4-9, 10-14, and 15-19 and some other info from the Washington Dept of Health site as well. I spoke against fining event organizers for individuals taking part in the event who weren't wearing a helmet because participants sign a waiver acknowledging the hazards of the activity they're about to participate in. I can't speak for all organized events, but I have yet to attend one that didn't state a helmet was required.
I laughed when I saw the Review article yesterday. (You may have to log in to see it completely.) From my introductory comment you'd think I was some curmudgeon who didn't want the gub'mint tellin' me what do to.
One critic, Hank Greer, said he is a bicycle commuter who recognizes the value of wearing a helmet. He said he uses a helmet for his commutes, but doesn’t think he should have to use one for “puttering around the neighborhood.”
Why couldn't they have quoted the guy who spoke against the ordinance with his "Safety is a philosophy and it doesn't apply to me" speech? Now he was a critic.
3 comments:
I like the idea of not ticketing for infractions. It would be just like the texting/talking while driving law then!
I'll wager there be no more substantive action on bicycle safety this year, no matter the outcome of the vote.
The whole point of helmet laws is to forestall other safety measures with higher rates of efficacy.
It's just politics.
It will just end up as another un-enforced law like the Helmet Law in California. All it does is teach children that some laws can be ignored and there are no consequences. The police will never take the time to stop a kid unless it is a reason to pull them over to ask about some other crime.
Post a Comment