Two weeks ago, I wrote "Are Helmets An Issue of Racial and Economic Justice?" In it, I described a perhaps-unintentional consequence of laws mandating helmets: Black, Hispanic and Native American cyclists are far more likely to be ticketed for infractions than White or Asian cyclists. That begs the question of whether non-white or -Asian cyclists are less likely to wear helmets and of why some don't wear them.
One answer to the latter question is economics: Nonwhite cyclists are more likely to be poor, or even homeless, and riding bikes they bought for very little, inherited or rescued from a dumpster. People don't buy a helmet if they can't, or can just barely, afford a bike.
 |
| Cyclist pedals by the Suzzallo Library (Photo by Nicole Pasia) |
But the question of whether some groups of people are less compliant than others is still open. Ethan C. Campbell might have an answer--or, at least a reason for a non-answer.
He is a doctoral student at the University of Washington and a member of advocacy group Central Seattle Greenways. As part of his research, he has been working on an infractions analysis of tickets issued to Seattle cyclists from 2003 to 2020. So far, he's learned that Black cyclists were cited for helmet-related infractions at 3.8 times the rate of White cyclists. For Native American and Alaska Native cyclists, that rate is 2.2 times. On the other hand, Asian and Pacific Islander cyclists were cited at only 10 percent of White cyclists.
(I could find no mention of Hispanic cyclists. Perhaps they are not as statistically significant as they are in cities like New York. From what I've heard and read, Native Americans and Alaska Natives are a larger percentage of the population than they are in other US cities.)
To be fair, the disparities are more egregious in other cities: In Washington, DC, for example, Black cyclists were almost ten times as likely to be stopped as White cyclists, while that ratio in Oakland, CA is five times.
While Campbell's findings are important, he admits there are two significant problems in compiling and analyzing them. First of all, it's difficult, without someone sitting on a corner with a counter, to gauge each demographic group's share of bike trips in Seattle. (And, I might add, some people's racial and ethnic heritage is not easily idenitifiable.) For another, says Campbell, "we don't know the demographic of who wears a helmet." In other words, does the fact that certain groups of people are cited for violating a law actually mean that they are more likely to violate said law.
(Memories of my youth--which, I admit might be a bit hazy (ha, ha) give me an answer of "NO!": While the white students I knew in college were more likely to smoke weed, black "townies" were more likely to be busted for it!)
Even with those questions, Campbell's research confirms that if you're Black or Native American or Alaska Native in the Seattle area, you're more likely to get a ticket for not wearing a helmet. That reflects realities in other parts of the US, some of which I've witnessed: Almost everyone who's cited for riding on a sidewalk in New York City is non-White or -Asian.
And, of course, Black, Hispanic, Native American and Alaska Natives are less able to pay for the tickets they receive--which leads to all sorts of other inequalities.
