People should be allowed to take whatever risks they like with their own lives (including helmets, seat belts, drugs, and any other personal risk). Helmet rental would be a nice convenience, but the lack of helmets is no reason to stop the program. I'm glad Commissioner Fritz lost this fight.

And this is a reason why I did not vote for Amanda Fritz. "it seems to me that providing helmets might encourage some to try cycling" runs counter to pretty much every study out there on helmet use.

I'm not against helmet use, I just would rather our city council actually familiarize themselves with the issue and the research before voting. If you want to argue safety, fine - but saying that helmet use might *encourage* some to cycle runs counter to the evidence.

It seems like this article could have been much more informative with some research into the safety and ridership outcomes in some of the north American cities that have had bike-share programs for several years... It's not at all clear to me that any of those cities have experienced a significant rise in bike-related injuries as a result of bike-share, but I suspect they've all seen significant increases in bike ridership. This is based on my anecdotal observation in DC; good investigative reporting would be even better...

Credit cards? Aw, how classist.

Theonly"sane"personintheworld,

Using credit cards is not classist, it's practical. If you put a rack of bikes on the street, and tell people that they can take them for $3 an hour, how many of them do you expect to get back? My guess is somewhere close to zero. Any idea what you might do to make sure that they get returned? I guess you could require a cash deposit. Then again, asking someone to put $200 into a machine is pretty classist, so maybe not. You could ask people real nicely, "please don't steal the bikes, that's not good for the community." But I suspect that some people will steal them anyway. So, what would you recommend? I'm guessing that requiring a credit card is the only practical way that this system works. But, I know you've got a better idea.

Torgo- "People should be allowed to take whatever risks they like with their own lives"- sure. But you know it's not that simple. Behavior that contributes to population disease and mortality should be taxed (like cigarrettes) or discouraged (like 44 oz Cherry Coke in NYC). Bicycle helmets probably reduce serious brain injury risk on a population level, especially in children, but also in adults. How do we incentivize their use?

And Sarah three questions: First when you say helmets "certainly, keep riders safe from certain types of head injuries, but often deter people from riding at all." How often is "often" in a US population sample, or is that known? (vs europe or australia, where most of this data seems to arise)

If one argues to accept a higher brain injury rate for increased ridership, should one consider costs and stresses of lifelong disability, work lost, medical bills, and accident-related litigation? Has the local debate taken into account the prevalence of health care un- or underinsurance in Portland?

I'm all about a kindler, gentler nation but saying helmets are scary, or make biking seem scary, and should not be incentivized as a matter of public health-- don't get it. I guess the good thing about credit card requirement is that people can use the same card to pay their ER bill. Even if 18% APR later, you will be adding insult to injury.

actually i want to take that last comment back. bike sharing programs around the US have good safety records. much more important to get it up and running than worry about uncommon accidents and their prevention. brain injuries are statistically uncommon and i don't know how much they belong in the present dialogue. merc please delete that one! i'm too late.

Only"sane"dumbshit - anyone can get a credit card. It's way TOO easy for poor people to get them. Time to start thinking some of your blanket statements through.