Is This A Victory For Social Justice—Or A Defeat For Public Safety?

 Last year, I wrote about the debate over the helmet law in King County, which includes Seattle.   The arguments, as I recounted, have been presented as either public-safety or social-justice issues.

On one side, those who wanted to keep the regulation posited the same reasons proponents of similar mandates in other jurisdictions assert: Helmets prevent, or greatly reduce the chances of life-altering or -ending head injuries. This argument is made even more forcefully to require helmets for children, as many locales do. King County has been one of the few jurisdictions to require them for cyclists of all ages.

While opponents don’t deny the value in promoting safety for all, they point to the uneven enforcement of the law. While proponents—who include medical experts as well as some policy-makers and cyclists—cite statistics indicating that “helmets save lives, full stop,” in the words of one researcher, opponents point to equally-persuasive statistics showing that Native Americans (of whom the Seattle area has one of the largest communities in the U.S.), African-Americans and immigrants are disproportionately stopped, ticketed and even arrested because they weren’t wearing helmets.

Notice how I worded the last part of the previous sentence. Too often, critics charge, the helmet law is used as a pretext for stopping non-white, poor, homeless and visibly non-gender-conforming cyclists. Such cyclists are, as often as not, using their bikes as their primary or sole means of transportation.  Or they may be using them to make deliveries or to, in other ways, work. Such riders often ride bikes that were given to them, salvaged or acquired through barter or for little money. This, they may simply not have the funds to purchase a helmet.

Well, opponents seem to have taken the day.  Yesterday, the King County Board of Health voted to repeal the law, which had been on the books since 1993.  This repeal will take effect 30 days after the vote.

While I wear a helmet and encourage others to do the same, I am ambivalent about mandates. One reason is unequal enforcement I’ve described.  Also, as some have noted, attitudes and social norms about helmet-wearing have changed during the past three decades. Thus, some say, all-age helmet requirements probably don’t encourage helmet use: The cycling haven of Portland, Oregon, which has never had an all-ages requirement, has a level of helmet-wearing similar to that of King County.

The repeal, however, does not mean that all cyclists in King County can ride bareheaded:  Seventeen municipalities (which do not include Seattle) have their own helmet codes, which won’t be affected by the repeal.  So, I suspect, the fight is not over.

Will Seattle Repeal Its Helmet Law?

In March, I wrote about how debates over Seattle's bike-helmet law came to include arguments about racial and economic justice.  As with so many laws, it has been unequally enforced:  African-Americans and Native Americans (the latter of whom the Emerald City has one of the largest communities) are more likely to be cited, fined and even arrested for cycling bareheaded.  If Black and Native cyclists ride bareheaded, it's not because they value their brains less or feel more impervious than, say, White or Asian cyclists.  Rather, helmets--which, I believe, should be bought unused--sometimes cost more than the bicycles people ride, which may have been bought cheaply, donated or gifted to their riders, or rescued from a dumpster.

Now another facet of that racial/economic justice has surfaced as the King County Board of Health considers a vote to repeal the law, which has been on the books since 2003.  Most bike lanes in US cities didn't exist when law was passed.  Neither did three kinds of vehicles that, today, often outnumber traditional bicycles on those lanes:  electric bikes, motorized bikes and scooters.  While scooters, especially those with electric or motorized assists, are ridden (at least here in NYC) mainly by the young and relatively affluent, riders of e-bikes and motorized bikes are older or, most often, delivery workers who are (again, at least here in NYC) most likely to be poor immigrants who may speak little, if any, English and thus have few other options for earning income.

Ever since I started wearing a helmet, I've encouraged others to do likewise.  My endorsement of them has grown more emphatic over the past year because the surgeon who examined me said, in essence, that I came out of a crash I suffered last year because I was wearing one.  And, while I was once sympathetic to the libertarian arguments against helmet laws, I feel that there should be incentives for wearing them.

Most important, though, I think that if any jurisdiction wants to mandate helmets, it has to enforce the policy consistently and fairly.  That has been the main argument for repealing King County's law:  It has never been enforced equitably, let alone fairly, and doing so has become even more difficult.  So, the argument goes, why should a law exist if it can't or won't be enforced.

Photo by Sylvia Jarrus, for the Seattle Times

That logic makes sense for some laws, such as the ones against using, possessing or selling marijuana.  As with the 1920s prohibition against alcohol or the cabaret laws that ostensibly led to the 1969 Stonewall Inn raid, it was used mainly as a weapon against certain groups of people.  I agree that a law shouldn't be enforced disproportionately against some people, but I also think that not all laws are equally valuable, or even necessary.  To wit:  I think there's no reason to prohibit marijuana, alcohol or some other substances.  The only laws regarding them, I believe, should impose an age limit on who can purchase or use them and the contents of those substances.  And there's no reason to limit what goes on in a bar or cafe as long as it doesn't harm employees, patrons or the general public.  On the other hand, the burden of obeying a law shouldn't fall on some people more than others.  People who pedal traditional bicycles are far more likely than those who ride motorized or electric bikes, or scooters.  (I almost never see a scooter-rider with a helmet.)  

So, if the folks in King County want to repeal their helmet law, I hope they do so for the right, or at least good, reasons.  An unwillingness to enforce it--equitably, or at all--is not one of them.