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.
