Last night, Vancouver City Council decided to postpone their vote on a new helmet ordinance. The ordinance, which initially sought to only apply to kids under 18 years old, is now likely to apply to everyone.
Jan Bader at the City Manager’s office told me that the Council did not pass the ordinance last night and instead, “sent it back to staff for revisions to make it all ages.”
“We’re going to rework it,” she said, “and look at suggestions from testimony received last night from local bike clubs.”
One of those clubs is the Vancouver Bicycle Club. I spoke to club President Corey Rose yesterday. He said “I just think everyone on a bike should have a helmet,” and he confirmed that the club sent a letter recommending the all-ages provision to Council.
City Manager Bader added that she thinks the Council is unanimous in its support for an all-ages provision and that the issue will likely be back in front of council for a vote by the end of February.
They should be repealing the mandatory helmet laws up there, not adding new ones.
Robert
The Industrialized Cyclist (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com)
ghettocruiser
I just think everyone on a bike should have a helmet
And I think everyone should walk up or down one flight of stairs rather than taking the elevator.
Maybe I should try to make it a law.
JusticeZero
Exactly. Helmet laws increase gross head injury rates and reduce bicycling, hardly things we should be supporting.
Forcing bike helmets=more injuries, and less bicyclists. Also, bike helmets=kiss your bikeshare program goodbye, as has happened in a couple cities. 'Hey, we want to increase livability with rental bikes like we see in bike-friendly European cities! Um... but we can't rent hygenic helmets at the same time. Damn all!'
I don't wear a helmet; helmets screw up my layering strategies, and they're no more helpful on a bicycle than they are driving a car. car drivers should be forced to wear helmets before bikes should; they get all sorts of head injuries.
The correlation is demonstrated all the time, but people still want to make it a law to stick a piece of plastic on your head like it will make you safe. Why don't they mandate something like effective lights or reflective clothing? Those would save a hell of a lot more lives than helmets would, no matter how you slice the numbers. I'd support an ANSI vest law long before a helmet law. Why doesn't anyone try to push an ANSI reflective clothing law somewhere? How about legal standards for head and tail lights? We all see some stupidly huge correlations in that regard.
rwp
Three questions:
Aren't head and tail lights from dusk to dawn mandatory already?
What's the source for the claim about increases to gross head injury rates?
What's a "layering strategy"?
scarry
That sucks, definitely anti-bike, and will be used selectively. And how can a locality such as a city make such a law anyhow, what about riders coming from other places, are they supposed to get a helmet when they enter the town.
If they want to make cycling safe, just slow down the motor traffic, hold drivers strictly liable for any injury to cyclist or ped. Permanent revocation of driving privileges for DUI's.
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
-=Łem in Pa=-
Why just the opnions of bicycle clubs ?
Bicycle clubs hardly represent the interests of
any majority.
Lets get the NRA to write up some gun laws or developers
to design infrastructure while we're at it :rolleyes:
randya
Lets get the NRA to write up some gun laws or developers
to design infrastructure while we're at it :rolleyes:
oh wait, we do these things already
:eek:
-=Łem in Pa=-
'zackily !
See how well its working out ? ;)
JusticeZero
Aren't head and tail lights from dusk to dawn mandatory already?
What's the source for the claim about increases to gross head injury rates?
What's a "layering strategy"?
1: Yes, in many places, but there is no standard as to how bright they should be or how they should be made. I have a spare tail-light which apparently fulfills the law; it is about the size of a small key chain and runs off of a watch battery. Does it give me the visibility I need to be safe on the road which I typically share with cars traveling 60-65 MPH? I'd say no. I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for lights and reflectors approved by the US DOT, especially if the bikes were designed around the need to install them.
2: New York Times article. I saw it in a different form before, I currently see it at http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html They reduce the severity of head injuries, but they increase the rate of all injuries, so they mitigate better against head injuries that statistical evidence indicates would not have happened otherwise. This is, I might add, the same thing that I saw in studying motorcycle helmets in college in a statistics course.
3: I live in Alaska. I commute. I have to adjust my clothes based on the weather. Helmets make it really damned hard to keep my ears warm unless I wear balaclavas that are far too uncomfortably warm for the weather that day; I often wear a fleece ear covering that does NOT work with a helmet (i've tried) in order to keep my head uncovered so that I will be losing heat more controllably, given the difficulty of adding and removing layers under a reflective vest and windshell compared to pausing briefly to switch hats.
I consider helmet law afficionadoes to be "The Enemy". I'm doing my damnedest to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, and the helmet law people are doing their damnedest to get people off of their bikes and into cars. It really is that simple; there are a lot of things that can be done to increase bike safety that would be more effective and less damaging to bike ridership than helmets, but I don't see people pushing hard for them, I mostly see the car lobby pushing harder for bike helmets and drowning anyone else out. Where are my mandatory bike safety courses in driver ed and schools? Where are my standards for head and tail light visibility? A TOY safety standard? What a joke. Where is my requirement for ANSI reflective materials on the outer layer of bike clothes? Where are my police flashing lights at people biking against traffic? All those things would save a hell of a lot of lives. Helmets? If those were HALF as effective as any of the things I just listed would be at saving lives, there WOULDN'T BE ANY CONTROVERSY.
maddyfish
Cars kill more people than bikes, why not mandory helmets for car drivers?
CB HI
Bet they could prevent more head injuries by passing a mandatory pedestrian helmet law.
CB HI
Everyone should watch the video of the council meeting to see how foolish these people are (including the cycling club members). Only one person even knew the ANSI standard included in the law has been outdated for several years.
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/cvtv/cvtvarchive2/Vancouver_City_Council/2008_Events/January_2008/01-28-08/05_Proposed_Helmet_Ordinance.wmv
randya
wow, this is incredible, something most of us can agree on!
;)
randya
Bet they could prevent more head injuries by passing a mandatory pedestrian helmet law.
I say motorists have the most head injuries.
closetbiker
wow, this is incredible, something most of us can agree on!
;)
that's one thing I've learned through all my helmet postings. Even if a person is very pro-helmet, it's most likely that he/she is pro-choice. I've found very few pro adult helmet law types..
These days, after the examples of all the various places where they have enacted a MHL law, you've got to wonder where this MHL lobby comes from? I think there are various interests involved that don't include promoting cycling as a safe, viable means of transportation.
In Canada, there hasn't been a MHL for adults enacted in years and we were the first ones (outside of NZ and Australia) to go with them. After the first 4 provinces passed the laws, 6 have turned them down. The helmet lobby switched directions are trying to get cities to pass by laws, but after a couple passed them, now they are being turned down now too. The latest city to turn one down was Saskatoon and the city council there turned it down because of input from the public. Councilors said in media after the defeat of the by law that they were amazed at how much opposition there was to the proposed by law. They had no idea the public felt that way. They just knew what the lobbyists told them.
Funny to see one of the main sponsors of the helmet lobby group was Bell Sports.
John E
To me, the larger issue is whether any city should have the authority to make its own traffic rules, including mandatory helmet laws. I thought that was, with good reason, the purview of the states, with some federal guidance.
Consider the plight of an unhelmeted nonresident adult bicyclist approaching Vancouver to pass through town -- shall we help the Sheriff assemble a posse to head him off at the pass, arrest him at the city limits, or perhaps run him out of town on a rail?
___
Disclosure: I strongly advocate helmet use for those who do not practice risk compensation, and I always practice what I preach. I equally strongly oppose mandatory helmet laws.
oscaregg
This idea is a bunch of horse feces--a helmet law without much tougher control over the behavior of motor vehicle operators is like asking women to wear chastity belts to reduce rape. Break the behavior of drivers first, then worry about what safety equipment is used by bicyclists.
genec
This idea is a bunch of horse feces--a helmet law without much tougher control over the behavior of motor vehicle operators is like asking women to wear chastity belts to reduce rape. Break the behavior of drivers first, then worry about what safety equipment is used by bicyclists.
I don't recall any mandatory helmet laws in European cities that have focused on cycling as a primary means of transport.
When in Oulu Finland, I asked about helmets, and was told that they are recommended, but not mandatory, and few few people wore them.
But here in AutoAmerica, helmets are practically mandatory.
rwp
3: I live in Alaska. I commute. I have to adjust my clothes based on the weather. Helmets make it really damned hard to keep my ears warm unless I wear balaclavas that are far too uncomfortably warm for the weather that day; I often wear a fleece ear covering that does NOT work with a helmet (i've tried) in order to keep my head uncovered so that I will be losing heat more controllably, given the difficulty of adding and removing layers under a reflective vest and windshell compared to pausing briefly to switch hats.
I saw Palmer, Ak and thought for a second that you lived in Arkansas! Not paying attention.
Wordbiker
that's one thing I've learned through all my helmet postings. Even if a person is very pro-helmet, it's most likely that he/she is pro-choice. I've found very few pro adult helmet law types..
Add me to that list.
I'm sure that many cyclists that have studied this issue for any time would come to the same conclusion: Making criminals out of anyone not wearing a helmet benefits only the municipal courts by the fines it generates (and it's questionable whether that will even cover the costs of enforcement), manufacturers of helmets and the insurance companies that will no longer have to pay out on claims because the injured party was breaking the law. Like many "good ideas" that are made into law by those that do not engage in the activity subject to the law, all this will accomplish is marginalizing the cycling populace even further.
If Corey Rose feels that every cyclist should have a helmet, he should buy them one out of his own pocket, educate them on proper usage and pay for any claims should it fail to protect them as promised.
ghettocruiser
3: I live in Alaska. I commute. I have to adjust my clothes based on the weather. Helmets make it really damned hard to keep my ears warm unless I wear balaclavas that are far too uncomfortably warm for the weather that day; I often wear a fleece ear covering that does NOT work with a helmet (i've tried) in order to keep my head uncovered so that I will be losing heat more controllably, given the difficulty of adding and removing layers under a reflective vest and windshell compared to pausing briefly to switch hats.
I wear a snowsports helmet in cold weather, which works far better than any combination of regular bicycle helmets and insulation pieces I've attempted.
My snowsports helmet says it is okay for bicycle use, however it is more than a few years old. Most of the newer snowsports helmets I see are explicitly stated "NOT for bicycle use".
I've also seen a few bicycle helmet manufacturers give a temperature range for bike helmets, and the range rarely runs down to the freezing mark.
It seems unlikely that a mandatory bicycle helmet law would take any of this into account.
closetbiker
...the insurance companies that will no longer have to pay out on claims because the injured party was breaking the law...
that's a significant point.
Here, in BC where it is law to wear a helmet, if you are not wearing one and are involved in a collision and receive a head injury, insurance will not cover the injury to the head no matter what the circumstances or where the blame lies in the collision.
Head injuries can cost a lot to treat and despite the makers of helmets stating clearly and legally (read the disclaimers in the box and on the stickers in the helmet) that a bicycle helmet is not made to withstand these types of impacts, insurance will not compensate the cyclist.
It's all about money.
littlewaywelt
that's a significant point.
Here, in BC where it is law to wear a helmet, if you are not wearing one and are involved in a collision and receive a head injury, insurance will not cover the injury to the head no matter what the circumstances or where the blame lies in the collision.
Head injuries can cost a lot to treat and despite the makers of helmets stating clearly and legally (read the disclaimers in the box and on the stickers in the helmet) that a bicycle helmet is not made to withstand these types of impacts, insurance will not compensate the cyclist.
It's all about money.
In the US the insurance companies would still have to pay just like they do for people who aren't wearing seatbelts, or who have some part in contributory negligence.
closetbiker
did I also mention that a cyclist not only faces a fine for going helmetless, the police can seize the bicycle too (to protect the cyclist from himself).
Break other laws (wrong side of the road, no lights, going through a red light, etc, etc,) and they can't. But they can without a lid. The local cycling advocacy reviewed the legislation and decided to keep that part in. Some "advocates", eh?
closetbiker
I posted a thread on Saskatoon's (the last city in Canada to) attempt to pass a mandatory helmet by-law last year
it includes newspaper reports and editorials as well as radio commentary.
In it I mention St. John's has the only city helmet by-law in the country, but there is also a single suburb of Montreal that has one too, so that makes, 2.
closetbiker
it may be a good strategy for lobbiests to avoid publicity when trying to get a law passed. It seems when people know that such a law is being considered, the proposal gets defeated
randya
...if you wish to comment on the pending adoption of a youth/ all ages helmet law in Vancouver (and soon to be Clark County) please send your email by next Monday (Feb 4, 2008) to:
CITY COUNCIL
Royce.pollard@ci.vancouver.wa.us (Mayor)
Pat.Jollota@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Jeanne.Harris@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Jeanne.Stewart@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Tim.Leavitt@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Larry.Smith@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Pat.Campbell@ci.vancouver.wa.us
CITY MANAGER
vancmo@ci.vancouver.wa.us
PRESS
letters@columbian.com
gritface
Every TV news story involving a cyclist fatality I've seen always seems to state if the victim was wearing a helmet or not, even if the cyclist was run completely over by a cement truck. Perhaps that subconciously reinforces right and wrong for the general public audience.
Wordbiker
Every TV news story involving a cyclist fatality I've seen always seems to state if the victim was wearing a helmet or not, even if the cyclist was run completely over by a cement truck. Perhaps that subconciously reinforces right and wrong for the general public audience.
I think it goes like this:
Bicycle traffic makes motorist uncomfortable > bikes don't belong in the street > it's a dangerous activity > it must require a helmet > you're an idiot if you don't wear one > if you bite it while not wearing one you were asking for it.
closetbiker
and what people are often mistaken about is the helmets ability to protect a cyclist in a collision with a motor vehicle. I think people up here are starting to get that picture because of our high usage rate and the continuing deaths to cyclists who are now wearing helmets.
I don't think a government would want to legislate potential protection for every little bump and bruise but instead have a admirable intention of preventing deaths and that's where these laws fall short. The higher the rate of helmet use, the higher the rate of cyclists who die with helmets on, because it's not the lack of helmets that cause the deaths of cyclists, it's the mistakes that people make that lead to collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists that is the problem.
Helmet laws ignore the causes of cyclist deaths and only end up discouraging cyclists from riding making one of the causes of cyclist deaths (lack of cyclists on the road) worse.
*just a note. I checked my paper this morning and there was a story about a local person (from Whistler) on a cycle touring vacation in New Zealand (helmet law 90% compliance) and was killed while riding safely by being rear ended. Investigation is continuing* http://www.stuff.co.nz/4382502a11.html *
rando
I think it goes like this:
Bicycle traffic makes motorist uncomfortable > bikes don't belong in the street > it's a dangerous activity > it must require a helmet > you're an idiot if you don't wear one > if you bite it while not wearing one you were asking for it.
yep. pretty much.
closetbiker
...if you wish to comment on the pending adoption of a youth/ all ages helmet law in Vancouver (and soon to be Clark County) please send your email by next Monday (Feb 4, 2008) to:
CITY COUNCIL
Royce.pollard@ci.vancouver.wa.us (Mayor)
Pat.Jollota@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Jeanne.Harris@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Jeanne.Stewart@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Tim.Leavitt@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Larry.Smith@ci.vancouver.wa.us
Pat.Campbell@ci.vancouver.wa.us
CITY MANAGER
vancmo@ci.vancouver.wa.us
PRESS
letters@columbian.com
I hope everyone wrote in. I didn't (I had a wedding this week-end and was very busy)
StrangeWill
Yay for wasting time and money, there isn't a large enough medical demand for injuries to justify the cost to create and enforce this.
bizzz111
hmmm, for some reason I thought the whole state of WA already had a mandatory helmet law. Must just be King County.
Anyways, if King County is any indication, the law will be almost universally ignored, both by the cyclists and the cops who would ticket the cyclists. I see more cyclists NOT wearing helmets than those that do, and I've never once seen anyone get a ticket, or even any cops policing the areas heavily populated by cyclists.
And remember, whenever there's an accident with a cyclist, what's the first thing that's reported? "The cyclist was not wearing a helmet, or the cyclist's helmet was improperly buckled, etc. etc.". Obviously, according to the media, a helmet (when worn properly) has almost a magical ability to keep a cyclist out of harm's way. Any cyclist that does not wear a helmet deserves anything that might happen to them since they are obviously irresponsible and were probably annoying the driver that hit them anyways.
maximushq2
wow, this is incredible, something most of us can agree on!
;)
That video was a great watch, thanks. I can't believe all the bike club members who said that everyone of all ages should be made to wear one. I thought once they went up there they would oppose. I particularly like the part about the one dude saying that after 1000's of hours on his bike he finally had a crash, and if he didn't have that helmet on he would be an invalid or dead lol. How can he claim that? I know we all have crashed at one time or another and yet here we are. We didn't have helmets when I was growing up and no one would have worn the thing anyway if we did. I crashed my bike more times than I can ever remember doing crazy stuff when I was younger, yet still I live. How can this be? I surely should be dead or an invalid by now. Whether I wear a helmet or not is not important. What is important is that I should be able to chose.
closetbiker
The video was great to watch, but it was a little bit frustrating too. I wish I could have been there to give some input.
I don't have a problem if people see things in different ways, but the nature in which each made their case was horrible. All kinds of anecdotal and emotional stories, equating bicycle helmets to seat belts and that great part where the bike club member guy saying helmets wear out after 5 years. Even with lots of examples where helmet laws have been enacted, no one shows what the end results of those laws had been.
No one seems to understand that it's motor vehicles that end cyclists lives and that helmeted cyclists meet similar fates in those collisions. No one seems to get the context of brain injury and the scope of acquiring it through trauma or lack of exercise. No one seems to get that passing these laws usually only succeed in lowering the amount of cyclists and increasing the incidence of brain injury.
If council was serious about the protection of cyclists, they'd enforce traffic law and provide education to show those who don't understand the rules of the road and how to interact with road users to stay safe.
Tude
Ugh.
While I'm on the PRO CHOICE side of wearing a helmet, but enacting and enforcing a law for all ages (pointing at adults mainly) over what is already established is just overkill.
... unless this is directed at the people who ride a bicycle (note I refrain from calling them bicyclists) all over the street and have, many times, bags and bags of recycle cans on them ... not a helmet on them at all.
Hmmm, gives them an ability to be able to pull over people riding a bicycle - and no helmet.
Can't tell you how many bicycles I've ridden by that I KNOW that person could not have purchased - and unfortunately thru the many hands that bicycle passed down thru - it just looked beat, sigh. Sad too. I hate seeing a beat up bike. But now I think I'm getting a little away from the subject ...
iltb-2
Ugh.
... unless this is directed at the people who ride a bicycle (note I refrain from calling them bicyclists) all over the street and have, many times, bags and bags of recycle cans on them ... not a helmet on them at all.
Hmmm, gives them an ability to be able to pull over people riding a bicycle - and no helmet.
Can't tell you how many bicycles I've ridden by that I KNOW that person could not have purchased - and unfortunately thru the many hands that bicycle passed down thru - it just looked beat, sigh. Sad too. I hate seeing a beat up bike. But now I think I'm getting a little away from the subject ...
No, you are right on topic.
Yeah, screw those losers, eh:mad:? Sic the hounds on 'em! Bet there are none of "those kind" in your "bicycling" club, or the Vancouver bicycling club, eh?
maddyfish
Sounds to me like like you guys up there in Vnacouver need to remove your government, by voting if possible, by force if needed.
Governments should fear the people's reprisal.
WaltPoutine
No, you are right on topic.
Yeah, screw those losers, eh:mad:? Sic the hounds on 'em! Bet there are none of "those kind" in your "bicycling" club, or the Vancouver bicycling club, eh?
People recycling cans need to be pulled over by the police. Maybe we can even have the state exterminate them. It's just good, sound bicycling sense. After all they're not people, I mean bicyclists, are they?
KnhoJ
Sounds to me like like you guys up there in Vnacouver need to remove your government, by voting if possible, by force if needed.
Governments should fear the people's reprisal.
We'd love to, if anyone else wanted the job. Royce Pollard has run basically unopposed for a long time. He's an outspoken "advocate" of transit and cycling. He's also 86'd every light rail proposal to cross his path with ugly duckling options ("let's dig up the 80 year old streetcar tracks buried several feet below the surface of arterial roads and use them instead" was the latest), appointed three of the area's most vocal transit opponents to the local transit planning board, evicted our local transit system from all downtown properties (offices and the transit center), evicted the one Portland transit route that set foot in Vancouver, supported banning cyclists and pedestrians from certain surface roadways, on and on it goes.
randya
not to mention support for the proposed new multibillion dollar I-5 Bridge, you know, the one without adequate provisions for transit, bicyclists and peds.
everyone commuting from Vancouver into Portland should be required to leave their car at the border, the worst drivers in Portland all have Washington plates on their vehicles.
maddyfish
We'd love to, if anyone else wanted the job. Royce Pollard has run basically unopposed for a long time. He's an outspoken "advocate" of transit and cycling. He's also 86'd every light rail proposal to cross his path with ugly duckling options ("let's dig up the 80 year old streetcar tracks buried several feet below the surface of arterial roads and use them instead" was the latest), appointed three of the area's most vocal transit opponents to the local transit planning board, evicted our local transit system from all downtown properties (offices and the transit center), evicted the one Portland transit route that set foot in Vancouver, supported banning cyclists and pedestrians from certain surface roadways, on and on it goes.
Then you know what must be done. You should run for office.
KnhoJ
No, you are right on topic.
Yeah, screw those losers, eh:mad:? Sic the hounds on 'em!
For a guy who's not remotely familiar with Vancouver (not BC), Washington (not DC) you've absolutely nailed the situation! Really, hit us square on the head.
The Esther Short Neighborhood Association has been a key supporter of this legislation, following their recent victory in efforts to assist the Mayor in evicting our local transit provider from transit-owned downtown properties. They literally threw a party when this went through, and really did publish statements referring to "those people", being "unsightly", "lowering property values", "loitering" while they waited for a bus, and how awesome it is now that "those people" are gone, thanks to their efforts! A "major victory". Read it for yourself. (http://www.cityofvancouver.us/nhoods.asp?menuid=10461&submenuid=10467&nhoodid=11313) Much of their planning and process is publicly documented.
They've also been griping in neighborhood meetings about "those people" riding bicycles around; they must be drunks who can't afford a car and will probably steal stuff or at least lower property values by being visible, thereby stealing this property value by proxy. They really, really talk and think this way, and are committed to act in ways they think will result in the eradication of unsightly people from public sight within their neighborhood. And they really do believe that the "homeless, drunk bicycle people" never wear helmets and will receive the blunt end of the law until they go away now that this has passed.
Bet there are none of "those kind" in your "bicycling" club, or the Vancouver bicycling club, eh?
Absolutely right once again. I assume you've seen the club's website? (http://www.vancouverbicycleclub.com) They have a reputation as a group consisting partly of hammerheads, and partly of guys who can afford to try to buy performance they can't be bothered to exercise for. There are a few normal people in there, and it might have been nice if they had been given the opportunity to offer input about their sponsorship of this legislation. Unfortunately, the disposition of the members isn't consequential. If you go look through the club's website, you'll find that this sponsorship by the group was offered without consulting the group.
KnhoJ
Then you know what must be done. You should run for office.
I'm not even close to being qualified for that job! But I don't think it would be tough, even the rednecks don't like him after he spent millions "revitalizing" downtown. It's a beautiful place, but nobody wants to invest in destinations there. People do go there for the farmers market, and there's a movie theater as well. The only other major attractions are the 15 or 20 bars, pubs, and lounges, several pawn shops, the jail, the courthouse, the railyard, and a gorgeous park where the people who use these facilities can spend the night.
randya
At least they've figured out how to recycle yoghurt and margarine tubs.
does anyone know if the ordinance regarding helmet use has actually been voted on yet?
iltb-2
For a guy who's not remotely familiar with Vancouver (not BC), Washington (not DC) you've absolutely nailed the situation! Really, hit us square on the head.
I may not know Vancouver, WA but I am familiar with the obvious class biases of some of the gentry that "gentrifies" a neighborhood; and the elitism and class snobbishness of many bicycling club members may be a stereotype, but this thread among others demonstrates that it is not an urban legend.
RobertHurst
We'd love to, if anyone else wanted the job. Royce Pollard has run basically unopposed for a long time. He's an outspoken "advocate" of transit and cycling. He's also 86'd every light rail proposal to cross his path with ugly duckling options ("let's dig up the 80 year old streetcar tracks buried several feet below the surface of arterial roads and use them instead" was the latest), appointed three of the area's most vocal transit opponents to the local transit planning board, evicted our local transit system from all downtown properties (offices and the transit center), evicted the one Portland transit route that set foot in Vancouver, supported banning cyclists and pedestrians from certain surface roadways, on and on it goes.
All of that is par for the course for American municipal politics. What's really shameful and odorous here is the 'club cyclists'' throwing their weight behind this anti-bicycling measure, just like the Cascade Cycling Club did for the King County MHL. If I were a member of either of those clubs I would send a short but colorfully worded cancellation notice.
Robert
The Industrialized Cyclist (http://www.industrializedcyclist.com)