A new bill introduced in the California state senate would
require all bicyclists to wear helmets. The bill, SB 192, would also require
cyclists to wear reflective clothing when cycling at night. The fine for not
doing so would be $25.
The state already has a mandatory helmet law for riders
under 18. If the bill, by Sen. Carol Liu, manages to get passed into law,
California would be the first to make adult riders wear helmets.
She recently told the Sacramento
Bee: “This should not be a big deal. It is kind of a common sense deal.”
No kidding. Agree completely.
But believe it or not, the Bee found the California Cycling Coalition to be against the bill.
The coalition’s Dave Snyder told the Bee:
“We know that the most important thing to protect people who ride bikes is to
get more people out there riding bikes. Forcing people to wear crash helmets is
counterproductive to that goal,” he told the newspaper, because it will
discourage people from riding bikes.
Please, how is that anywhere near logical? How is getting
more people to ride bikes without helmets going to protect them? Sorry, that
makes absolutely no sense. And where’s the evidence that it will discourage
people from riding bikes? If people have ridden a bike as a kid with a helmet, and
become an adult that must wear a helmet, why would they not ride a bike because
they have to wear a helmet? Almost everybody has ridden a bike as a kid. Are we
talking about adults that have never ridden a bike (where are they?) that
decide not to take up cycling because they have to wear a helmet? Who ARE these
people?
If that opposition isn’t ridiculous enough, how about Jim
Brown of the Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates who told the Bee that he’s seen studies that show
motorists tend to drive closer to cyclists wearing helmets and give
non-helmeted cyclists wider berth. He said he’d rather see more dedicated bike
lanes be installed on busy streets.
Okay, wow, another ridiculous argument. If we take the logic
of Brown’s “studies say” argument forward, (and I must say, such a study can’t
be taken as a given in all cycling/car interactions, so what good is it?) are
we to conclude from his argument that no cyclists should wear helmets in
traffic so cars will give them a wider berth? WTF? That’s just completely ridiculous.
Sure, no kidding, we need more dedicated bike lanes. Where
in the world are there enough dedicated bike lanes on busy streets? Brilliant
observation. Nobody knew that!
OK, enough BS. This bill should pass. If people want to ride
unsafely without a helmet, the law should say, uh hey, do it, or get fined. A
cyclist crashing without a helmet is in real danger of getting an irreversible
brain injury. As in becoming a lifelong soup sipper. That potential scenario simply
does not make riding without a helmet worth it. Not to say a brain injury won’t
happen if a rider crashes wearing a helmet, but hey, the odds are greatly
reduced.
So what we’re talking about here is a vital safety
precaution. If the adult riding public is too foggy about the notion that for
their own safety they should strap on a helmet before riding, the law needs to
clear it up for them. Kind of like seatbelt laws had to do. If it keeps them
from cycling, GOOD! It’s just another irresponsible rider out of the mix. Too
many of them out there already.
Some people bristle at laws making them protect themselves
from possibly fatal injuries. But hey, this is really just common sense that
helmetless riders need to clue into.
For example, construction workers are required to wear hard
hats while on construction sites. Why? HELLO? BECAUSE THEY COULD GET HIT IN THE
HEAD BY A VERY HARD AND POSSIBLY FAST MOVING OBJECT WHILE IN THE CONSTRUCTION
SITE -- AND SUFFER A BRAIN INJURY.
Here’s are other examples:
• A parent riding with their kids. See this all the time.
The kids have helmets, but the parent doesn’t. WHY NOT? Say the parent crashes,
gets a brain injury from a sidewalk head smack, and becomes a vegetable. Who
takes care of the kids then? It’s just plain and simple: Baffling Irresponsibility.
• Or helmetless riders that blithely dart in front of a
driver without looking, making the driver helpless to do anything but hit the
rider, either killing him or her, or a causing a a debilitating brain injury
that may have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Great, the driver gets to go
on living with the horrible memory of hitting and critically hurting a cyclist
who didn’t bother to A) ride safely and B) properly protect himself or herself
by wearing a helmet and/or reflective clothing at night.
• I even know a guy who doesn’t wear a helmet when he rides
because he doesn’t think he looks cool enough in a helmet! He instead wears
some sort of a black beret, satisfied that it makes him look like a hipster.
Hey Too-Cool-for-School, put on a helmet, Daddy-O! You won’t
be very cool if you crash, hit your head and become a soup sipper.
And by the way, you don’t look as cool as you think in your “Hey,
I’m badass as Che Guevara” beret. You just look goofy, bro! And, you look like
you need to put on a helmet.
This California bill needs to pass in the interest of safety.
Period. Here’s hoping.
Cluelessness, Part II
Rode behind a couple of cylists down a fast section the
other day, when they suddenly slowed down and stopped. One of them started jawing
at a man out walking with his big dog near the trail. Problem was, the dog was
running around without a leash. The cyclist told the man in no uncertain terms
that he needed to have his dog on a leash. Probably reminded him that not only
is it illegal, it’s an injury accident waiting to happen. I didn’t hear the whole
conversation, but as I rode by the man with the dog said, “I’m sorry to hear
that.”
I could only conclude that the rider told the man that he
had hit an off leash dog while riding before, and it was a traumatic
experience. Hard to believe how clueless people can be.
Yeah, I’m gonna let my
dog off leash near the bike trail, he needs to run a little. There are bikes
that go by fast that could hit him? Really? I can’t see that ever happening…
Why should he have to be on a leash?
Up ahead on the trail I caught up to a cycling buddy and
told him about it.
“I had a bad experience like that,” he said. “I hit a dog
that was with a homeless person and killed the dog.”
My buddy has to live with that awful memory all because the
dog wasn’t on leash and under control of the owner. It was all completely
preventable. Not good.
The weird thing is, I’ve even had problems with dogs that are on a leash, but the owner isn’t
paying attention and the dog is about to get hit by me as I ride by. Once there
were owners and their dogs on each side of the path as I approached. The big dogs
suddenly jerked on their leashes toward each other into the bike path, ready to
fight, all but blocking clear passage. I yelled out, and luckily the dog owners
clued in in time and pulled their dogs as I squeaked by. But it was definitely an
injury accident that almost happened.
Dogs, I find, are never to blame for putting themselves in
danger. It’s always a clueless owner. Always. Every time. And that’s just plain
wrong when it happens. The dogs can get hurt or killed, the rider can crash and
suffer injuries, or worse yet, die. Shouldn’t happen, but unfortunately, the
widely shared malady of cluelessness allows it to continue happening.
May luck be with us all.
Til next time, remember to strap on a helmet every time you
get on the bike. Then, keep the rubber side down, ride safely, and make sure to
have a blast.
-- Mark Eric Larson
No comments:
Post a Comment