Hearing the pro's and cons of eliminating the Seattle, Washington bicycle helmet law is something a fan at a tennis match would appreciate.
On first glance many might say it is ridiculous to not enforce a bicycle helmet law that apparently has cut bicycle head injuries in half, and to then blame the removal of the Bicycle Helmet Law on racism seems even more appalling. However, Police apparently pull over and cite minorities at a significantly higher rate than White Bicyclists.
Before going back and forth on this issue, let's go to the end game, the kids. Kids ride bikes. When kids see many adults not wearing helmets when the Adults are riding their bikes, the kids may wonder why they have to wear a helmet. This to me is the number one issue. A head injury to a child may be more lethal than to an adult because a kids skull is still maturing and thickening up. The neck muscles of a kid are not as strong as an adult, so when a kid falls off of a bicycle, the damage and medical cost may be extraordinary. Think of the kids as the cons of the Helmet law are discussed below.
Homeless and Minority bicyclists are cited by the Police at a much higher rate than White Bicyclists for not wearing a helmet. What if a bicycle helmet citation had no financial penalty, but was more of a pep talk to encourage the cyclist to wear a helmet and "by the way, if you can't afford a helmet, here is this nifty coupon you can redeem at the bike store for a free helmet"? Would that be so terrible? Some would still yes because it would still give the Police an opportunity to "snoop", "harass", or monitor the comings and goings of minorities who ride without wearing a bicycle helmet.
So Law Enforcement actually positively acting to help ensure the safety of minorities would still be considered a bad thing? Perhaps some Racial Justice Advocates may believe that if the same un helmeted minority is repeatedly cited for not wearing a helmet, even if there is no actual fine imposed, it still be a way to track the helmet less cyclist's movements and could be used to profile the helmet less cyclist as evidence of a lifestyle that is short on safety and long on carelessness?
Or perhaps the helmet less homeless cyclist might keep selling their free helmet for food, clothing, bike repair, or drugs?
Strangely, this situation reminds me of Voter ID laws. For some reason requiring everyone to have a Photo ID who wants to vote is considered racist, even if the Photo ID were given out for free and even though ironically a Photo ID is required to apply for any Government related entitlement or program.
Ultimately, this may be less about race and more about the right to live among those who comply with bicycle helmet laws while not complying with those same laws. It appears that the goal is to be less traceable in public, and I believe that is proverbial elephant in the room that hides under the cover of racial profiling where none was intended.
When Racial Justice Advocates lobby for the rescinding of laws and ordinances that actually do reduce accidents and serious head injuries, I think mostly of the kids and how they will be influenced to be less careful because the rights of less responsible adults have to be respected.
However, not requiring a bicycle helmet DOES become a teachable moment for responsible Parents regarding a discussion they should have with their kids..."Whenever you see someone riding a bicycle without a helmet, either they are too poor to have one, or they don't want to do their part to avoid tragic head injuries. Either way, you wearing your helmet helps the Hospitals to afford taking care of those who don't wear a helmet and get injured."
I am not sure reducing Head injuries by wearing a helmet allows resources to be spent on the more careless, but at least it's an explanation in a world where adults just don't care how their actions negatively influence kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment