Texas - WRL No-Helmet Tickets???

Heard a rumor, from (older guy at WRL-RBM can't remember his name, but he's been there for umpteen years), while the wife and I were goofing around on our bikes (Saturday). Seems the DPD were handing out tickets to bikers w/o helmets. Judging by the lack of posts here already, I'm guessing either nobody here saw it or experienced it. The subject came up cuz we weren't covered (wife HATES a helmet).

I always wear one there. Several days ago when it was nice, I was out there, and saw a policeman on bicycle. Of course, that was right after Christmas and I think half the riders out there didn't have helmets. Come to think of it, when I rode on the Katy Trail, I saw two or three policeman there. I forgot my helmet that time, but the other riders I saw mostly didn't have one either.

They should just put up a sign at White Rock Lake, "Helmets required in Dallas". I'll bet half the people out there just don't know it's required in the first place.

I think it is up to the officer and what kind of mood they are in that day. I do know that there is pressure for the lake officers, from their superiors, to show "increased activity" while on patrol at the lake including traffic enforcement for cyclists as well as city ordinances.

I think the construction on the West side has stimulated the idiot factor in several infrequent lake cyclists not to mention the runners that insist on running the wrong way in the wrong lane. Weekends at WRL are not too much fun.

<nevermind>

Anyhow, thanks for the heads up.

If we, as cyclists are going to demand rights to the road, we have to obey the laws.

Ignoring a law is a no-win choice of action, however unfair or unjust you may deem the law to be.

Have you written, emailed or called your city council representative about this ordinance? Have you gone to a city council meeting to express your feelings about it? There are things that can be done to change laws. Rally the troops, march (pedal) on city hall or start a petition. If enough people agree that this law is unfair, it shouldn't take too much to overturn it.

I think it is up to the officer and what kind of mood they are in that day. I do know that there is pressure for the lake officers, from their superiors, to show "increased activity" while on patrol at the lake including traffic enforcement for cyclists as well as city ordinances.

I think the construction on the West side has stimulated the idiot factor in several infrequent lake cyclists not to mention the runners that insist on running the wrong way in the wrong lane. Weekends at WRL are not too much fun.

+1

I just wear the helmet, don't think twice about it now. And WRL is risky now on the west side. Between joggers on the wrong side, Children weaving, and extreeeeeemly long dog leashes, you never know when you might go down. Right now you can't actually "ride" the west side; you have to mosey along.

hmm I always thought the Dallas helmet ordinance was kids only. It's adults now?

hmm I always thought the Dallas helmet ordinance was kids only. It's adults now?

I couldn't find an official website about the helmet ordinance, but I did find this link that lists helmet laws by city:
http://www.helmets.org/manddate.htm

Apparently, this has been in effect since 1996

The city code is here:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Texas/dallas/volumei/preface?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:dallas_tx

Section dealing with helmets states:
SEC. 9-8. BICYCLE HELMET REQUIRED.
(a) A person commits an offense if he operates or rides upon a bicycle or any side car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle without wearing a helmet.
(b) A parent or guardian of a minor commits an offense if he knowingly causes or permits, or by insufficient control allows, the minor to operate or ride upon a bicycle or any side car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle, without the minor wearing a helmet.
(c) A person commits an offense if he transports another person upon a bicycle or any side car, trailer, child carrier, seat, or other device attached to a bicycle, without the other person wearing a helmet.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a), (b), or (c) that:
(1) the bicycle was not being operated upon a public way at the time of the alleged offense; or
(2) for a first offense only, the person owns or has acquired a helmet for himself or his passenger, whichever is applicable, prior to appearance in municipal court. (Ord. 22764, eff. 9/1/96)

It sounds like you don't need one if it's not a "public way" but I don't know if that includes bike paths or not.