Curtis Green, photo
After a couple of months of prodding, I (and others) got the Dallas Morning News to report...
Dallas police again enforcing law requiring bicycle helmets on all riders[snip]
11:26 PM CDT on Friday, October 9, 2009
By DIANE JENNINGS / The Dallas Morning News
djennings@dallasnews.com
After suspending enforcement for several months, the Dallas Police Department is again ticketing people for violations of the city's bicycle helmet law.
City Attorney Tom Perkins said enforcement was halted in June after a state district judge issued a ruling on the local ordinance that rendered it unconstitutional.
Sgt. Warren Mitchell, public information officer for the Dallas Police Department, said officers do not use the law inappropriately.
"This is more of a safety issue than anything," he said. "Bicycle accidents occur all the time and hospitals are filled with patients from those injuries who were not wearing helmets."
The cycling community is divided over the issue of requiring helmets, said Jason Roberts, co-founder of a biking advocacy group, Bike Friendly Oak Cliff. He's fairly ambivalent on the issue, he said, but, "I'm more of an advocate for wearing helmets due to the fact that we're being forced to ride in lanes with cars.
"Once we can get dedicated pathways built, I will feel more comfortable," Roberts said.
Lies and ignorance highlighted in red.
The (no doubt unintended) lie is the comment about hospitals being filled with brain-injured cyclists. Total fabrication, with no statistical basis or evidence. Pure propaganda from the helmet manufacturers who paid for the lobbying efforts to pass mandatory helmet laws (increased sales). A DPD lieutenant told me when the law was first passed that the police liked it because it gave them "probable cause" to stop a "suspicious looking" cyclist.
The ignorance comes from comments about a helmet protecting a cyclist from cars. The design speed of a bike helmet is about 15 mph... about the velocity your head attains when you simply fall off a bike while standing still. The protection a helmet affords is more suitable to the conditions found on a segregated facility (which have a three times higher rate of serious injury per miles traveled). That's why bike helmets have a warning sticker in them about not being used with motorized vehicles. More myth and propaganda.
I like bike helmets, and was an early adopter. They provide some protection, and some is better than none, but there are many unanswered safety questions about their usage, including increased head/brain temperatures and rotational neck damage. But one of my favorite benefits of wearing a bike helmet is the increased visibility they bring to cyclists.
It is interesting to note that the police were not enforcing the law on Wednesday when they escorted a parade of primarily Anglo segregationist-cycling advocates to City Hall. Wouldn't want to embarrass any politicians by ticketing their supporters... or perhaps they just didn't look "suspicious".
10 comments:
The hospitals are not filled with cyclists with head injuries. In fact, the is nary a cyclist with any kind of injury at all in our hospitals!
Riding a bicycle on the public road is inherently safe. In spite of all the scofflaw cycling going on, the injury/death rate is still less than the dangers posed by your bathroom. ((Don't get in your tub without a helmet?)
Riding lawfully, and understanding where the greatest danger from traffic lies, so you can pay attention for those things, will make cycling the safest activity in your day.
"...due to the fact that we're being forced to ride in lanes with cars." What a silly ignorant statement! And Jason Roberts wants to promote cycling? We need better advocates.
Ordinance is still unconstitutional. Nothing has changed in that regard. Why the hard-on by the city to start enforcement again? Getting near the end of the year and need to make budget?
I also do not understand Jason Roberts comments. He spent all last week throwing "distance cyclists" or "2%ers"(whatever that is) under the bus while promoting bike lanes for people "riding under 8 miles roundtrip". Those under 8 mile trip cyclists will not wear helmets. No sir.
I looked up the criminal background of Sergio Portillo. The martyred saint of Dallas helmetless cyclists. He is no Boy Scout. Convictions for drugs, burglary, injury to a child etc. Someone whose case you would not want to champion. He still has a coke case on appeal from 2008 but looks like he beat the other coke charge that lead to the unconstitutional ruling. Where the city attorney thinks he has the ability to allow ticketing is beyond me. He would need to somehow reconvict Portillo.
..."distance cyclists" or "2% ers"(whatever that is)"
This current article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=getting-more-bicyclists-on-the-road
references that “the share of people relying on bikes for transportation is still less than 2 percent, based on various studies”.
Jason’s comment “the fact that we're being forced to ride in lanes with cars.” If he is trying to ride his bicycle with a car in his lane, then he must be hugging the curb and knows not how to position himself in a lane to promote safe riding for himself and other vehicle operators. Who is forcing him to ride his bicycle on a public road?
- This shows the mindset of one who had their training wheels taken away from them too soon. Why are we surprised that a generation raised in the “safe” suburbs in which they were told to always ride their bicycles on the sidewalk and never the in the street, demand a sidewalk to ride their bikes on when they leave their suburbs? They just want a place away from stoplights and stop signs and away from the scary cars where they can just cruise without any breaks. No rules – No worries!
No rules – No worries - This was evident during the BFOC media events of last week. His “rides” are really the scary things. I went on one of them during a cyclespazmatic event last week. The turnout was good. Wide range of ages, bicycles and experience. There were many beginners that had never been on a ride before. There were also very experienced cyclists with many tours and commutes under their belt. The ride used a critical mass mindset that resulted in ignoring every signal and traffic control device on the road. Every red light and stop sign was run. Even an elderly woman pedestrian was ignored. She was stuck in the middle of a crosswalk as the parade rolled along. Left turns were made by riding on the wrong side of a multilane road. All traffic was to stop and yield to this parade. I was amazed at the patience and good will of the folks that waited through their green lights as the ride ran the red lights. Such poor riding! Such a poor example!
The rules of the road were ignored because the leader thought that having a critical mass of bicycles on the road absolves them from obeying any of the rules of the road. The critical mass bullying that elevates his use of the public road above anybody’s other use of the same public roadway at the inconvenience of others shows the narrow vision of this group.
Even though I have been a VC for over 20 years with thousands of accident free (and mostly hassle free) miles – this was the scariest ride I have been on. I think that Jason’s idea is great to have easy, slow paced rides that highlight history, architecture and culture in the city is great. But the execution was flawed and dangerous.
The sad reality is that the price of gasoline in this town will have much more impact that any isolated bicycle trench with a safe and friendly 8 mph speed limit in OC.
Tim,
Please contact me off-list And thank you for your comments.
Anyone for a VC critical mass ride?
Stu, a VC Critical Mass ride is simply one cyclist, achieving every positive result of a CM ride with none of the negatives.
It's not critical mass numbers, but we're leading group rides that are entirely law-abiding and predominantly stick to multi-lane roads. It's a great way to introduce people to vc practices in a fun, social setting.
Keri, I was introduced to vehicular cycling principals in the early '80s by a gentleman named Gene Carr who led Saturday group rides out of a local bike shop, with up to 30 riders. He stressed obeying all traffic laws, and it was great fun.
A local bike-ride promoter is making plans for a several hundred rider bike rally that will obey all traffic laws, and not require a special permit or police escort/traffic control. A VC-CM.
Getting several hundred riders to be mindful would be a sight to see. But I bet it can be done if that is stressed and established up front.
The problems I've seen on official and unofficial mass rides comes from the lack of structure or stated expectation that people follow rules and be deliberate and mindful of their position on the road, and others around them. Thus they ride with their heads wedged in their saddles.
Tim commented...
"...'distance cyclists' or '2% ers'(whatever that is)'
This current article references that 'the share of people relying on bikes for transportation is still less than 2 percent, based on various studies'."
Do you have information to substantiate that perception? The context of that statistic — which is also quoted above — pertains to those who "rely on their bikes for transportation". Few competent, vehicular cyclists are reliant upon their bicycles for transportation; we have chosen to use our bicycle as a primary means of transportation. In fact, those who are reliant upon their bikes for transportation are little involved in any aspect of bicycle advocacy and are most likely to ride in an infearior and/or illegal manner.
If this is, indeed, the statistic from which Roberts derives his derisive term "two-percenters", then he is even more ignorant and deranged than his previous comments would suggest. For he and his sycophants comprise the vast majority of the two percent tail.
Post a Comment