She belongs in the same category as the douchebag I saw driving her two kids on her bike - only they weren't sitting in a bucket, they (2 of em) were standing on the back trick stands (like on bmx bikes) riding alongside and behind her. None of them were wearing helmets.

Who Has to Wear Helmets on Bicycles?

Oregon law requires that bicyclists 16 years of age or younger wear helmets at all times. Accident statistics show that helmets are a necessary part of riding gear and lessen the likelihood of head injury in the event of a spill. Parents need to wear helmets if they expect their children to do the same.

Posted by kiri at April 29, 2007 1:37 PM

WOW! you really feel strongly about this...
Why is this your concern? I suspect it is not, but hey, you need something to write about.
This sort of PC police work is exactly why we in the rest of the world are tired of Americans. So ready to point out fault with others.
Concern yourself with yourself.
FYI, the woman you so deftly refer to as a "douchebag" is from the Netherlands, where this 'type of cargo bike' known as a bakfiets is fairly common for carrying children, and has been riding bikes probably longer than you have been walking.
have a nicer day...

Posted by Meeno at April 30, 2007 3:08 PM

I doubt the woman's been riding bikes longer than I've been walking. I'm 32, and she doesn't look too much older than I am.

I have no doubt that she knows how to ride that type of bike fine. My point regarding her not riding safely has less to do with her ability to ride the bike in general and more to do with her ability to handle an unforeseen emergency. This neighborhood is relatively quiet, but I regularly watch cars speed around corners, and the stop sign at the corner where I live seems to be regarded as optional by most drivers.

The type of bike she rides was not something I criticized specifically. If I saw someone riding a traditional (American) bicycle with a carefully-designed child seat on the back of it I would feel just as much animosity toward them if their child did not wear a helmet.

I could care less if this woman wears a helmet or rides with shoes that would make a last minute quick stop more or less easily executed if she is riding alone. What pisses me off is that the boy is in danger. It's not because I fear she'll ride so poorly that she'll drive her bike into a wall or some other nonsense, but because I fear some typical American in a gigantic SUV will turn a corner going 40 miles per hour without looking and cause an accident which even the best rider wouldn't be able to avoid. If something like that happened, the child's chance of being injured severely is increased substantially by his not wearing a helmet.

How is this PC? (I assume you mean that to stand for "Politically Correct?") I don't think it's PC to imply that others aren't setting a good example for their own children. And how is it "police work?" I did nothing but say I think the woman is a "douchebag" and explain why I feel that way. I'm not arranging for her to be punished or "turning her in." I'm simply calling her out.

I think it's more PC to imply that I'm judging an aspect of Dutch culture by citing that the way she bikes her kid around is unsafe.

In fact, I use the term "douchebag" to describe people who for whatever reason I find annoying, and I apply it partly because it is often humorous for me to be so wound up about something relatively insignificant, and I get that. In this case, I don't feel it's insignificant at all, but yes, it pissed me off, and I said something about it.

I don't have children, and when I do, if I do something equally unsafe and jeopardize the health or life of my own child, I think anybody who witnesses it ought to tell anyone who will listen "I saw a complete douchebag today" and tell them what I did.

For the record, if I performed some similar act of douchebaggery and was called out on it and recognized that I had myself been a douchebag in the way I apply the term, it's likely I'd write an entry here describing how I had pulled a douchebag move before realizing what I'd done. Does that qualify as "concerning myself with myself" enough? I don't know, but I suspect it does. I also don't think it matters, as your directive instructing me to do just that comes right after the paragraphs in which you cite me as indicative of why Americans are disliked by "the rest of the world" and show concern yourself for something I have done.

I need something to write about. You need something to comment about, etc. I'd much rather have people disagree with me when they think I'm in the wrong than have them sit back and not comment because it's not their concern. If nobody pointed out when they thought others were acting like douchebags, then very few people would have reason to stop being douchebags, no?

Posted by martin at April 30, 2007 3:45 PM

Funny. Right after I wrote that comment I went outside on my way to the basement to put in another load of laundry.

While I was outside I saw a man without a helmet ride by on a bicycle and almost get hit by an SUV driven by a douchebag on a cell phone who barely slowed down for the stop sign at the intersection.

It's a two-way stop at a four-way intersection, and the fellow on the bike had the right of way.

Posted by martin at April 30, 2007 4:07 PM

"Post a comment" - why bother wasting time reading this blo....

Posted by Tod at April 30, 2007 7:51 PM

Wow. More drivers concerned about the lack of body armor of other people in public space. What's next, gun owners concerned about people without bullet-proof vests? Your concern is misplaced. Where's your condemnation of the speeding "typical American in a gigantic SUV" who you say is the real problem?

Her bike is specifically designed for the carriage of children; it's not a bucket or a wheelbarrow. Learn: http://bakfietscargo.blogspot.com/. She has indeed been biking far longer than you've walked; her biking supports health that belies her age, and she's passing this wisdom on to her child.

What the hell do her heels have to do with it? Does your bike make you wear sneakers?

More Dutch bicycle culture for you:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUXzOKaWl5w
- http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/

Posted by todd at April 30, 2007 8:32 PM

Your assumption that I'm a driver is incorrect. I don't own a car, nor do I drive here in Portland.

I do often condemn people who are shitty or otherwise unsafe drivers.

I didn't realize her bike was designed for the carriage if children, but that knowledge doesn't change the fact that I think it's unsafe for a child to ride on ANY KIND OF BIKE without a helmet. It also happens to be against the law here in Portland, Oregon (which is not in the Netherlands), but my concern is not even about that. My pointing out what her bike looks like wasn't to condemn the bike. It was to identify her specifically, because I haven't seen others in this neighborhood riding such a bike.

How is it that you know how old this woman is or that her youthful appearance comes from riding such a bicycle? That doesn't really have anything to do with your argument unless your argument is actually that you're omniscient.

Her heels have to do with my complaint because boots are not as flexible nor as easy to pedal in in my experience. My point was that if she had to stop quickly to avoid a collision or a hole in the pavement, it would be easier for her to do so wearing a shoe like a sneaker. My bike does not make me wear sneakers, but it is harder for me to handle if I attempt to ride it wearing boots.

Even if I concede the argument that my ire at her footwear is misplaced (and I'm happy to do that), my real argument is and has always been that the kid should be wearing a helmet for safety's sake. The wisdom she is passing on to her child is more than "biking is good for your health." She is also teaching him "there is no reason to bother to wear a helmet when you ride in a city." That is, at best, ignorant. At worst, she's a douchebag.

Posted by martin at April 30, 2007 10:02 PM

I looked at that blogspot site as well. Curiously, many of the pictures of people with children in the cargo area of the bike show them all sporting helmets.

The ones who are riding with children who aren't wearing helmets, in my opinion, are douchebags. Douchebags with interesting bikes, but douchebags nonetheless.

Do you all have a problem with my concern for child safety because you think I was dissing the woman's bike by comparing the shape of its cargo area to a wheelbarrow? Or do you really think it's fine for her not to put a helmet on her kid? If you do think it's cool for parents not to make their kids wear helmets when being driven around on a bicycle, no matter how the bike is designed, then I think you are douchebags. I've got nothing against Dutch culture or any type of bicycle, and neither of those are the reason I think the woman is a douchebag. If you read my blog entry and thought that I was making fun of her bike or of the Dutch, then you too are a douchebag. Also, no matter how healthy or aged that woman is, you are a douchebag.

Posted by martin at April 30, 2007 10:12 PM

No omniscience here, though I am well enough traveled in bicycle societies to know that helmets and the fears that drive their use for casual utility biking are irrational, or at best suggestive of the changes necessary to effect in motorists' habits.

I know her, not well, but well enough to object to your attack on her motherly judgment. You are right that she is contravening the law. It's a matter of principle; not of laziness, vanity or ignorance. No such laws exist in her country or in several others, where (a) families on bikes are extremely common, even in urban motor traffic (b) helmets are almost unheard of (c) physical laws and physiology are the same and (d) the bicycle injury rate is vastly lower than here. Helmets are too often an emblem of fear; fear keeps people off bikes; fewer bikers make those who persist less safe because motorists develop a more complete disregard for unmotorized people on public streets.

Posted by todd at April 30, 2007 11:05 PM

I am not a regular bicyclist, and I do not know what kind of argument would show that the use of helmets is based on irrational fears. I would be interested to hear it. And no, I do not mean I want to hear it so I can attack it irrationally or declare the arguer a "douchebag."

That said, in this country, as you have pointed out yourself, the bicycle injury rate is vastly higher. It doesn't matter what cultural or psychological reason you give for this higher injury rate. If it is in fact the case then a rider in this country is making a much more risky decision when they ride without protective gear, no?

As I said, my original comment isn't even about the law, and my criticism of her was not "you're breaking the law." But if her "motherly judgment" includes making a risky decision for her child by knowingly riding with no protective gear in a country where it's not as safe to ride in the first place, then I will still attack her for it. Further, if she's made this decision as a matter of principle, it seems a shame that the kid's the one bearing the actual risk. After all, it's not his principle that's being upheld. It's hers.

I still feel like the Dutch culture aspect of this debate is something of a red herring though. I had no idea the woman was Dutch when I observed her nor would it have changed my reaction and subsequent comments. As I said before as well, any parent bicycling with a child who is not wearing a helmet is a parent of whom I am critical, law or no law and regardless of their nationality, race, religion or whatever.

That I picked this woman to call out specifically stems only from the fact that I see her frequently in my neighborhood. So, among parents who have made this decision with which I do not agree, she is, in a manner of speaking, a repeat offender. I have seen plenty of other parents making the same decision with their children, but none of them stood out as much as she did (mostly because her bike is unusual). Perhaps I should have made a blanket statement about all parents not making their children wear helmets, but I thought my commentary would be more effective if it weren't simply generic. If any of the folks who showed up to defend her today had read anything else on my site other than this one entry and my "about" page, they might have noticed that I have done similar things before.

(Yes, I was curious about how you folks had found my site, and I looked in my log files to see if you'd found me in some search or where I was linked. As a result, I also saw where else, if anywhere, y'all went within my site.)

For what it's worth, I'd like to thank you for replying and for doing so without making this into some kind of mudsling event.

I admit that I did attack you in a fairly unfriendly manner in my previous comment partly because I'm not a driver and never claimed to be one and partly because your implication that I was criticizing her bicycle itself was phrased so I felt it read aggressively. i.e. I never called her bike a "wheelbarrow." I said the container attached to the front of the bike was "wheelbarrow-like." It is similarly shaped, and I think that's a completely valid observation.

Posted by martin at May 1, 2007 12:10 AM

It is safer to ride in countries where helmets are not used[1], but bicycling is still a relatively safe activity, as safe or safer than other common activities for which protective gear is not worn.[2] I don't challenge the fact that helmets can mitigate the consequences of some crashes, just as they do in car racing, but I think that fear of bicycling in general is a much greater threat to public health than the demonstrable risks of head injury in (skillful, non-sporting) riding without a helmet.[3]

I'm sure you can determine, through careful statistical analysis, whether it is safer to pee sitting down or standing up; there'd be a fascinating balance of the risks of slipping and banging one's head against those of picking up diseases. It does not follow that the less-safe urinators are douchebags, even if they teach their kids to pee in the same manner. Imagine all the herniated bladders and kidney trouble that would result from a successful social pressure campaign to defame the less safe urinators. Unfavorable net results. Same thing with helmets to the extent that helmet advocacy reinforces fear of cycling.

I'm not anti-helmet (I wear one sometimes, and my kid always does), but I am opposed to zealous helmet advocacy, driven as it tends to be by fear and ignorance, at the usual expense of emphasis on the importance of learning to ride skillfully, having proper lighting, and directing public policy toward more responsible use of dangerous motor vehicles (i.e., less).

It's obnoxious in general, I think, to trash strangers' parenting and biking judgment as a non-parent and irregular cyclist, without presenting more than hearsay/anecdotal evidence of the harm done.

[1] http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1079
[2] http://brenthugh.com/piano/bikesafetyfactsheet.html
[3] http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

related:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#The_helmet_debate
- http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582

here she is:
- http://bikeportland.org/2006/08/18/bakfiets-on-broadway/

Posted by todd at May 1, 2007 10:25 AM

1.) It's obnoxious for me to call someone a douchebag. Even when I'm serious on this site, I am often being slightly over the top because that kind of obnoxiousness is funny to me. If it's not funny to someone else then it's likely they aren't in what might laughingly be called my demographic.

2.) I apparently stumbled into some age-old debate I didn't even realize was going on with cyclists. All I did was criticize someone for something I observed. I'm not a zealous advocate. I just think it's common sense: You put a helmet on your kid.

2a.) I don't know how I ended up appearing on the radar at bikeportland. I'm curious, but ultimately I don't care.

3.) I never trashed her biking judgment. I said I might have thought her "odd or not too smart" for riding in a manner which didn't appear safe to me.

4.) I trashed one parenting decision she made, and that was to ride with her child while he was not wearing a helmet. I'll continue to trash it, because I think it's not a smart decision. I don't have to be a parent to have an opinion about what I think is or isn't smart.

4a.) I've made no attempt to pretend to be a parent, and if you think parenting commentary from the mouths of non-parents is bunk, you are more than welcome to ignore me. Hell, you could even write a blog entry about me on your own blog and call me a douchebag. I really don't care.

5.) Someone who doesn't emphasize other safe bicycling practices with their children is also not being the best parent in my opinion, but I'm not going to call anyone out for that because, unlike the case with wearing a helmet, there's no way to see it just by looking at a person passing by on the street with their child.

6.) I would like to thank you for pointing out some things of which I was not aware, but I'm done debating. If you want to interpret this as me admitting defeat, feel free. It isn't, but again I don't care.

6a.) I am very glad to know now that expressing an opinion about whether or not it's wise to wear a helmet when riding a bike is as potentially flammable as expressing an opinion on something like abortion or, apparently, urinating while standing.

Posted by martin at May 1, 2007 12:20 PM

The bike culture and infrastructure built around it (not to mention the car or lack of car culture) are completely different in the Netherlands, so to compare bike safety, and helmet wearing or not wearing between there and here is just asinine.

Posted by kiri at May 1, 2007 1:29 PM

Post a comment

(Highlighted fields are required.)