Austin may shift gears on helmets for cyclists
Former mayor credits helmet for mitigating his injuries in November crash, pushes for broadening 1997 law
By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, June 16, 2006
Call it "Bruce's Law."
The Austin City Council, pressured by former mayor and bicycle accident victim Bruce Todd, next week will begin what could be a lengthy process to broaden the city's bicycle helmet law. Or, more accurately, rebroaden it.
The council under Todd in May 1996, over the vigorous objection of a roomful of serious cyclists, passed a law requiring that anyone riding a bicycle in Austin wear a helmet. The law carried a $50 fine for a first offense, double that for repeat convictions.
But the cyclists kept pressing the issue, and in October 1997, less than four months after Todd left office, the council changed the law to apply only to cyclists under 18 and to parents who allow their children to ride helmetless.
Enforcement has been light. The city's Municipal Court reports just one case since 2002, when records were computerized.
Now Todd and his allies would like the council to bring adults back under the ordinance.
"What this is about is protecting lives and mitigating damage," Todd said Thursday. "Some people might think it's just because (I) passed the law to begin with. But that really has nothing to do with it. This is just common sense."
Todd said that he has spoken with the entire City Council (which will get two new members in the coming days) and that the reaction has been "extremely favorable."
But the early signs from the cycling community are mixed, at best.
The Austin Cycling Association, which has collected $1,700 to buy bicycle helmets in Todd's honor since his Nov. 27 crash, supports helmet use. But the organization's membership voted June 5 to oppose changing Austin's law to make wearing helmets mandatory.
"The ACA believes that a community campaign will be more effective in improving bicyclist safety and helmet use through education," the group says in a statement posted on its Web site.
Scott Korcz, president of the cycling association, said "there are passionate opinions on both sides" on the mandatory helmet debate, not just in Austin but throughout the United States.
"The tradeoff is safety versus freedom," said Austin City Council Member Brewster McCracken. McCracken, along with Mayor Will Wynn and council colleague Betty Dunkerley, is sponsoring the June 22 agenda item to call a public hearing on Todd's proposal.
The hearing would occur no earlier than July 27, the council's next meeting after a monthlong summer break, and probably later. McCracken and Todd said the plan is to have the ordinance reviewed by a council subcommittee and the city's Urban Transportation Commission and then hold the hearing.
No copy of the ordinance was available Thursday. But McCracken said the most likely change is to simply bring adults under the current law, which carries a $20 fine for the first offense and $40 for repeat offenses. The current ordinance allows a citation to be dismissed if the Municipal Court receives proof that the cyclist acquired a helmet within 30 days after getting the ticket.
Robin Stallings, executive director of the Texas Bicycle Coalition, said his organization at this point has no plan to take a position on the ordinance.
"We're not sure if this is the most effective way to get increased helmet use," Stallings said. "Does it increase helmet use, or does it depress cycling? If you depress cycling you're going to decrease injuries, but you're also going to increase obesity."
Dallas has had an ordinance requiring helmets for everyone since 1996, and Stallings said Seattle and several other Washington cities have such laws.
Todd still has a cracked piece of navy blue, plastic headgear that helps explains his commitment on this issue. He was riding alone in an Austin Cycling Association-sponsored weekend ride in November when he pitched to the ground on U.S. 183 south of Lockhart.
No one saw the incident, and his memory of it was obliterated.
But Todd broke bones on the right side of his face and suffered concussive brain injuries. As best he and the doctors can reconstruct things, the right side of his body and head hit the pavement, and the helmet kept his brain injury from being crippling or even lethal.
"The helmet had severe injuries," Todd said. "I had notable but passing injuries that are getting better every day. . . . It may be a shame that this has to be a law. But it is no more invasive than seat belt laws were 30 years ago."
bwear@statesman.com; 445-3698
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
I have a problem with alcohol so I think the whole world should stop
drinking....
:rolleyes:
Im a vegitarian so nobody should eat meat...........
:rolleyes:
I like Chocolate ice cream so Vanilla should be banned......
:rolleyes:
unkchunk
If those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it, I hope Bruce Todd's helmet will save him the next time. He doesn't seem to be overly concerned with what caused the actual crash. So it will happen again.
genec
While I do wear a helmet, I just don't go along with all the nanny laws that have cropped up in the past 20 years or so. Personal safety is just that: personal.
Perhaps we should get back to fundamentals, such as my rights go as far as your nose.
Neist
The law wouldnt be heavily enforced. I mean.. you think a cop is going to pull over every cyclist they see riding around? come on...
bluebottle1
This is really no surprise in Austin. I'd half expect them to make it a ticketable offense to run with scissors.
oboeguy
I just about always have a helmet on the old lemon but a law for mandatory adult helmet use seems to me to be ridiculous. OTOH, how different is it from seatbelt laws? For some reason the latter seems sensible, while helmet laws seems lame.
Neist
I just about always have a helmet on the old lemon but a law for mandatory adult helmet use seems to me to be ridiculous. OTOH, how different is it from seatbelt laws? For some reason the latter seems sensible, while helmet laws seems lame.
I dunno.. it doesnt really bother me all that much. How often are people ticketed just for not wearing a seat belt. Jaywalking? Littering? Most petty crimes are overlooked, at least around here.
For example, as of July 1 in Oklahoma it is a punishable offense if you pass a cyclist within 3 feet to their side (granted you actually hit them and do physical harm). Will it ever be enforced heavily? Doubtful...
Old Dirt Hill
I used to have a problem with seatbelt laws even though I nearly always wore a seatbelt myself. Someone explained to me that although I may not care if John Doe goes flying through his windshield, I would probably care when I found out that he didn't have insurance and I ended up paying part of his medical bill through higher medical bills myself. Still, I'm not sure that I agree with seatbelt laws and helmet laws would be the same principle in my mind - completely ignoring the fact of whether or not helmets actually save lives.
That all being said, I still buckle-up all the time and I wear a helmet everywhere I go.
edit: I'm not sure what point I was trying to prove. Oh well. ;)
bbonnn
I was in Austin when this happened the first time around. There was a lot of kvetching on both sides, freedom vs. safety. The irony was that Texas didn't have a motorcycle helmet law at the time.
The way I see it, it's another way for car-culture to demonize a small number of cyclists. When I was there a month ago, I saw lots of people riding around without helmets (and a lot without shirts, which was a bit of a shock and memory -- people just don't go shirtless in Silicon Valley). I'm a strong helmet advocate, but, seriously, don't Austin lawmakers have anything better to do?
FLBandit
I dunno.. it doesnt really bother me all that much. How often are people ticketed just for not wearing a seat belt. Jaywalking? Littering? Most petty crimes are overlooked, at least around here.
For example, as of July 1 in Oklahoma it is a punishable offense if you pass a cyclist within 3 feet to their side (granted you actually hit them and do physical harm). Will it ever be enforced heavily? Doubtful...
I dunno, I have gotten a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. It's now a primary offense here, so they don't need another reason to pull you over. I also got a ticket for no eye protection on my motorcycle once.
markf
I just about always have a helmet on the old lemon but a law for mandatory adult helmet use seems to me to be ridiculous. OTOH, how different is it from seatbelt laws? For some reason the latter seems sensible, while helmet laws seems lame.
Seatbelts keep your whole body inside a reinforced metal cage with padding and airbags to cushion any impacts, and prevent you from flying into and injuring other passengers in the same vehicle. Over the years they've been shown to greatly improve your chances of surviving an auto accident or escaping serious injury in an accident.
Motorcycle helmets offer a fair bit of protection to your head (and your face if you're wearing a full face helmet) in an accident, but they leave lots of other important bits and pieces unprotected in an accident, so you've still got plenty of opportunities to die or be seriously injured in a motorcycle accident. I'm not sure what impact helmet laws have had on motorcycle fatalities or serious injuries.
Bicycle helmets are not designed to protect anyone travelling at more than 12-15 mph, they are suspected to contribute to certain types of brain injuries (rotational injuries, to be precise), and bicycle helmet laws have not reduced the risk of serious head injuries or death due to head injuries in jurisdictions that have enacted them. In fact, the countries where cyclists are least likely to be killed or seriously injured are those countries where cyclists are least likely to wear helmets.
I could rant on for quite a while in this vein, but this pretty well sums up how helmet laws are different from seatbelt laws, and why seatbelt laws seem sensible, while helmet laws seem relatively lame.
FWIW, I've been wearing a bicycle helmet very consistently since I returned to cycling in about 1979, although I've been more likely to cycle without a helmet in the last two or three years. I can remember 3 instances (last one was about 1987) where a bicycle helmet prevented a fairly serious head injury. All 3 episodes could have been avoided by more sensible behavior on my part (OK, I'm a slow learner).
Saintly Loser
Someone explained to me that although I may not care if John Doe goes flying through his windshield, I would probably care when I found out that he didn't have insurance and I ended up paying part of his medical bill through higher medical bills myself.
That's the "social cost" argument for nanny laws, and to my mind, it's flawed. Sure, if John Doe runs up a substantial medical bill at taxpayer expense, it will cost you some small amount of money. On the other hand, if John Doe flies through his windshield, or off his bike, and gets killed, think of all that money that will be saved. He won't collect Social Security. He won't be covered by Medicare when he retires and requires expensive geriatric care some years later. Or Medicaid, if he has no insurance, before he's of retirement age. If he's a veteran, he won't use the services of VA hospitals or education benefits. He won't take out a government-guaranteed student loan that he might not repay, forcing the taxpayers to repay the bank. He'll never go to prison. The list goes on and on. . .
So I'm pretty skeptical about "social cost" arguments for helmet laws and the like.
That said, I think wearing a helmet is a pretty good idea. I always wear one when I'm riding my motorcycle, and nearly always when I'm on my bicycle.
randya
Some additional background and history from bicycleaustin.com
Austin Helmet Law
Summary. In 1996, the City Council passed a wildly unpopular all-ages bicycle helmet law. (Passed 5-9-96, police started enforcing on 8-18-96). As a result of public outcry, on 10-2-97, the City Council modified the helmet law so that it applies only to minors (17 & under). They also reduced the fines to $20 for first offense at $40 for subsequent offenses. The law is in effect on all public property within the city limits, including streets, bike trails, and parks. Violation is a Class C Misdemeanor. As of June 2006, the city is considering bringing back the helmet law for adults. (See our front-page article.) Stay tuned for more.
History. Predictably, following passage of the original 1996 helmet law, cyclists were jailed left and right (yes, many were arrested, not just ticketed). The League of Bicycle Voters circulated a petition get the City Council to repeal the ordinance, and other cyclists tried to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional in court. In the meantime, the City Council changed the ordinance to apply to minors only, but would not repeal the ordinance outright. The minors-only provision is still a problem. Before the council made the helmet law kids-only, 70% of no-helmet tickets given to kids were given to black & Hispanic kids. After the helmet law was made kids-only, that figure jumped to 92%. (From research of police department records done by a volunteer with the League of Bicycling Voters, Jan. 1999. Also check out this article from Florida about a 9-year-old boy who was handcuffed for not wearing a helmet.) Despite this problem, and others listed below, there is no longer any organized opposition to the helmet law. There's more on the history of the Austin helmet law from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
More at: http://bicycleaustin.info/laws/helmet-laws.html
chicharron
Maybe the former mayor of Austin did suffer head injuries that he is not aware of. That is why he is suffering from impared mental capabilities and lack of judgement.
N_C
I support this if it is enforced. If not, leave well enough alone.
As far as safety vs. freedom. Well first of all freedom is not absolute, it was never meant to be. Second, how can you go on enjoying freedom if your dead from a head injury because you felt being made to wear a bike helmet was limiting you in your freedom? I think it is better to have a not so absolute freedom limited to help keep people alive so they can enjoy their freedom, then not.
Those who do not wear a helmet are Darwin Award recipients.
Old Dirt Hill
So I'm pretty skeptical about "social cost" arguments for helmet laws and the like.
Hmm...now I really am trying to remember what the point of my original post is. :o
Anyway, I did mention that I'm still not sure how I feel about these types of laws in general, which your post makes me realize again. Thanks for making me see both sides of the social cost argument.
chipcom
As far as safety vs. freedom. Well first of all freedom is not absolute, it was never meant to be. S.
Yes, YOU know the definition and origins of freedom, just ask you. What a mutt. :rolleyes:
Those who do not wear a helmet are Darwin Award recipients.
When you can't get someone to bend to YOUR wishes, resort to degradation, name-calling and demonization - how very nazi of you.
Eatadonut
I support this if it is enforced. If not, leave well enough alone.
As far as safety vs. freedom. Well first of all freedom is not absolute, it was never meant to be. Second, how can you go on enjoying freedom if your dead from a head injury because you felt being made to wear a bike helmet was limiting you in your freedom? I think it is better to have a not so absolute freedom limited to help keep people alive so they can enjoy their freedom, then not.
Those who do not wear a helmet are Darwin Award recipients.
And that's their choice. Your argument is all wrong. You say we can't go on enjoying freedom if we're dead. Well, if you don't give us the choice, then when are we EVER to enjoy freedom? You're also making the classic mistake of assuming the law is needed. I wear a helmet almost every time I'm on a bicycle, but I would be down at that hearing speaking my piece if I was able to do so - and not in favor of the law.
Same goes for safety belt laws. Don't protect us from ourselves, I should be able to choose how dangerously to live my life.
bike2math
I'm with Carlos Mencia on this one. If you're gonna be a "dee dee dee" and not use your ___fill in reasonable if overpriced saftey device here_____ then the Human Race as a whole is better off if we just go ahead and let you do it.
joejack951
If they wanted to save the world from costly head injuries, make drivers of every motor vehicle wear a full face helmet. No where else would a helmet law be more effective at reducing head injuries (save for requiring mandatory helmet use 24 hours a day for any living being, moving or not). [edit] And add in Hans devices and 6 point harnesses too while they're at it. [edit]
nm+
Does TRC have a motorcycle helmet law?
I'd be in favor of a law that prevented any government or insurance money from going to pay medical bills for those riding (bicycle or motorcycle). Same with seatbelts.
I'm all for allowing people to do what they want, I just don't wanna pay for it.
bragi
I usually wear a helmet, but only because I might get a ticket if I don't; I have the misfortune to live in a town with a helmet law. As a piece of safety equipment, they're next to useless, at least on the road, and they're more of a pain than they're worth, especially when it's hot out. Let's face it, a bike helmet won't increase your odds all that much in a serious accident. Most cyclists never experience any kind of accident at all, and those very few who are killed are killed by cars. A piece of styrofoam on top of your head isn't going to help much if you get hit by a pickup going 40 mph. Legislating bike helmets is useless from a saftey viewpoint, actually, and discourages the use of bikes as transportation. I'm going to work to get my town's law changed.
Eli_Damon
The real danger of such a law is the likelihood of the interpretation that a cyclist who is in a collision with another vehicle is automatically at fault if they are not wearing a helmet. The Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition has protested attempts to pass such laws in Massachusetts for this reason.
Having broken two helmets already, I would not ride on the road without a helmet and I would probably refuse to ride with someone if they weren't wearing a helmet.
UmneyDurak
Personally I'm against such a law. It will never be enforced, so whats the point? Just becomes another legislation in a long line of legislations that were passed to get someone elected. Also it might get some motorist off the hook because they ran someone over who was not wearing a helmet. Ofcourse car vs bike it doesn't really matter all that much if cyclist was wearing a helmet or not.
Platy
Austin has been called the National Laboratory for Bad Ideas. Last year they planted trees in the middle of what was supposed to be the bike lane for Shoal Creek Boulevard.
Laying aside all the issues of safety and personal responsibility for adults, I agree that mandatory helmet laws serve to demonize cyclists, visibly marking them as somehow different from other road users and engaging in an irresponsibly dangerous activity.
SamHouston
It's hard to get bent out of shape over the nanny laws, laws there more to educate than for enforcement. It wouldn't affect my freedom, I'm free to wear a helmet or not regardless of laws that aren't enforced, aren't I? I don't need the sanction of law for my personal habits anymore than Pat Robertson needs power of attorney to speak for God.