Is there a similar law for motorcycles?

I'd like to see statistics comparing infant-toddler mortality rates between bikes and cars.

I bet Greenlick wouldn't like it.

Yep, this is super stupid. Who the hell is my congressperson?

Maybe Oregon should lead the nation by issuing bubbles to all parents and requiring children to be kept in said bubble until 18. Just keep them off of Hawthorne and similarly dangerous streets. Who the hell should care if they're riding on Clinton or along the esplanade.

+1 bubbles for <18yo

The REAL purpose of this law is stopping parents and their children from looking ridiculous and smug.There should be a law banning lame 40-something, mainstreamers from procreating. Couldn't we just outsource baby-making?

Also, bikes.

Good Ideas and Bad Ideas:

BAD IDEA:

HR 2228 is a shitty, wrong-headed and short-sighted idea. There shouldn't be a problem with kids on bikes and in trailers so long as they're secured, helmeted and dressed for the elements and so on. Sure, there are knuckle-heads who aren't always 100% in some of these areas, but knuckle-heads are prevalent in lots of areas of social activity.

To reach your state rep go to the following link and email your dissatisfaction with the proposed HB 2228:

http://www.leg.state.or.us/house/

(To determine your Representative, look at your voter registration card--it's somewhere in your domicile--and it will state, under the head "voting disctricts." The line that reads REP with a number SR## will indicate your Representative.)

GOOD IDEA:

House Bill 2602, filed by Representative Michael Schaufler (D-Happy Valley). This bill would create a new offense for "unsafe operation of a bicycle, "if the person operates a bicycle on a highway while wearing a listening device that is capable of receiving telephonic communication, radio broadcasts or recorded sounds." The offense would come with a maximum fine of $90.
(From bikportland.org)

Part of safe travel on bike is being able to hear cars and other cyclists approaching from behind. Being unaware of these approaching vehicles can have disastrous results.

@MKUltra: Um, aren't all cars pretty much impaired in such a way? Why are bikes in need of so much more attention? I can see why riding a bike while talking on the phone is an issue, but while listening to an iPod? As long as you follow the rules of the road and generally act responsibly, it seems overkill.

Better would be just ticketing people for typically stupid bicycle behaviour, like riding the wrong way up streets, running stop lights, swerving in and out of traffic, and eliminating certain streets as commuter routes, such as Powell, Hawthorne, and 82nd. (Allowing people to only ride on the sidewalks when pedestrians aren't present, but otherwise having to ride on a side street and then come over to such unsafe streets.)

@Extramsg: You'll never see a ban on cycling on those busy roads, because it would take so much costly infrastructure to implement and enforce (e.g. you'd either need a new bridge over I84 at 82nd, or a bike lane which there isn't room for, or make people ride on the always-packed sidewalk by the MAX station, or have a 200-yard exemption from the rule, or... you get the picture). So it'll be left to natural selection.

I'd love to see stricter enforcement of the laws regarding unsafe operation of a vehicle. That includes bikes going the wrong way, cars speeding, anyone swerving unpredictably, etc. If I was stupid enough to think we should clamp down on just bikes or just cars and ignore the other, I'd be on Oregonlive not on Blogtown.

@Extramsg: I understand your point. I have to disagree with your comparison between a car and bike being similarly impaired; cyclists aren't surrounded by sheet-metal, aluminum, fiberglass, etc. for protection.

Were one to get rear-ended in a car, there are safety features present to hopefully protect you from serious injury, unlike a bicycle where most commonly the cyclist wears only a helmet, maybe a pair of cycling gloves. I HAVE seen cyclists sporting full-on moto-cross wear, although not very often.

Even in a car, there are laws about "parading," which is when you play your car stereo too loudly, hindering your ability to hear other car horns, oncoming trains and crash-landing jets.

Not wearing headphone while biking is smart, as it enables you to hear, not just oncoming cars but other cyclists, too. If you riding on a train and a line of cyclists want to get around you, it's customary to call out, "Passing on your left," or some such. Failure to heed or hear such an alert could be injurious not only to the deafened rider but to the other cyclist(s), as well.

@Stu: Regarding the Oregonlive/Blogtown statement: OW! :)

It's legal in Portland to ride without a helmet still, yes?

If so, wow do people have their priorities mixed up.

2602 is a very bad idea. hearing gives only a rough idea of vehicles, and generally, by the time you hear something, it's too late. bikes should depend on vision & headphones do not obstruct sight. i wear earbuds & a helmet, and i can hear traffic just fine - better than a car with their music blaring (legally) loud. i also have a great mirror on my helmet.

Greenlick's bill is unjustifiable on every possible level.

Wearing headphones on a bike in urban traffic? Real, real stupid. I agree with that one.

As for kids on bikes-- what problem are we trying to solve with this? God, fucking local news is gloating about this like they've "won" or something. Sick. I wish the old media a painful death-- but the quicker the better.

No headphones while biking or I have to pay a fine? Does that mean deaf cyclists will be fined, too? It's possible to manuever a bike while wearing headphones. I abide by all traffic laws, have been riding in Portland for seven years, and I've never been in an accident. What's next? Banning riding with a friend and talking to them while cycling? Banning headphones on joggers?

That law is ridiculous.

I have a feeling MKultra is Mike Schaufler in disguise!

That bill is ludicrous. We still have an unenforceable cell phone law, a ridiculous exemption in which anyone can say they're driving for "work," an exemption for "hands-free" sets which often mimic headphones and I just plain see drivers wearing headphones all the time.

Add that to the feeling of security that causes most drivers to not pay attention because they're surrounded by metal, and I'm far less dangerous if my earbuds were on maximum volume while riding my bike. The reason? I take a number of inherent risks when I get on my bike and because of that, along with all thoses issues above, I am extremely aware of my surroundings and pay very close attention.

To address your points, my earbuds always allow me to hear other cyclists, and because I'm paying attention, I'm consistently aware of who or what is behind me.

So even if you disagree with me on all of this, why not include car drivers in the bill? Again, I see drivers wearing headphones regularly and our cell phone law includes an exemption for iPhone earbuds and so on.

Just curious how close behind you do these electric cars have to be before you can hear them. I read somewhere that mfrs were thinking about putting noisemakers on them because they are so quiet.

Not to bring up.. errr.. science, but there's no study anywhere to support the claim that headphones on bike riders is somehow more dangerous than stereos in cars. As someone who unapologetically does this, I can assure you, I can hear every asshole's horn on the road & the small buffer is what KEEPS me from getting distracted.

It doesn't matter if headphones make someone *look* distracted. A driver might *look* like an alcoholic but he'll only be pulled over if he *drives* like a drunk. Pull over a bicyclist who actually makes a dangerous moving violation.

And spare me your anecdotes. I'm looking for science.

Hearing cars does not protect you from cars. Biking deliberately without unpredictable movements makes hearing cyclists behind you unecessary. Targeting earphones is an inappropriate surrogate for safe riding habits.
Here are some more:
All cyclists should wear reflective yellow leather onsies with hip pads.
When approaching another cyclist you should yell Hoot Hoot
All cyclists should undergo required training in jumping vertically off there bikes when they are hit by cars and landing with a summersault.
All cyclists should take self defense classes.
Only cyclists who agree to an endless stream of nonsensical legislation that starts with "I was driving down the street and ...." shall be allowed to ride o public streets.

@Reymont -- there is a similar law proposed for motorcycles! HB 2232 "Prohibits person under seven years of age from riding motorcycle." It's also one of Greenlick's bills.

You don't seem to be a representative of the people of Oregon there mitch. its not shown in those studies that your basing this massively restricting law that bike trailers or even children are involved....so what now, you want my little girl (3yo) to ride her own bike all squirlly in the road and get hit by a car? i believe i'm way better to control my bike with her on it than her on her own...YOU ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE OREGON WAY!!! OR THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE. how many letters have you got so far mike? shouldn't that be a clue that what you propose is not what the people of Oregon want.?!? Now instead of me and my child riding bikes down the 2 mile trail to the store for some milk and eggs... i am stuck having to drive 5 miles in my car. WAY TO GO! you really have no idea what kind of impact you are going to cause with this do you? they are not unsafe....if used correctly and safe biking is practiced. who does this benefit... you are starting to seem like a communist forcing you wild beliefs on the people of Oregon! there is no more .... in fact there is less danger than driving your car to the store if safe biking is practiced...instead of making this illegal think about everyones lives and make it so you have to take an 8 hour class and pas a test to ride on the street with your child....stopping this state from being the most Eco friendly one is slowing the process of a truly fossil fuel free state. I didn't vote for you...were you appointed...and if you were voted in do you think you would have still won if everyone knew you were going to try to make this a law...STOP NOW>>>WE WILL PROTEST...WE WILL NOT STOP OUR GOAL..AND WE DESERVE AN ANSWER Mitch the itch





esults:Nine hundred sixty-two adult bicyclists (52% men and 48% women) with a mean age of 36.7 0.4 years ////(range, 22–70 years) commuted an average of 135 miles ////(range, 7–617) per month. There were 225 (23%) beginner, 256 (27%) intermediate, and 481 (50%) advanced riders. ////Four hundred twenty (44%) had a prior traumatic event////. Over the 1-year period, 164 (18%) riders reported 192 traumatic events and 49 (5%) reported 50 serious traumatic events. The incidence rates of traumatic events and serious traumatic events were 15.0 (95% CI, 13.2–17.5) and 3.9 (95% CI, 2.9–5.1)/// per 100,000 miles commuted. ////There were no differences in age, gender, safety practices, and experience levels between commuters who experienced a traumatic event and those who did not