StudEbiker
100 kW
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_bicycle_enthusiasts_in.html
Portland's avid biking community spun into an uproar today over a proposed ban geared towards young children on bikes.
House Bill 2228 introduced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), would amend an Oregon statute that bans unlawful passengers on a bike by making it illegal to carry a child younger than 6 either on the bike or in a trailer. The bill includes a fine of $90.
That provision -- the proposal -- has touched a nerve among bike enthusiasts, including many who've ditched their cars.
"The bill itself is just ridiculous," said Jonathan Maus, editor of the popular blog, bikeportland.org.
Other avid bikers got more personal, calling Greenlick "an idiot" in angry emails.
"I've got about 100 emails this morning," Greenlick said.
A former director of public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Greenlick said the bill was prompted by an OHSU study on injuries among bike commuters in the Portland area.
The study indicated that about 20 percent of them had a traumatic injury in a year and about 5 percent had one serious enough to get medical attention. "It really got me thinking about what happens if there's a 4-year-old on the back of that bike when a biker goes down," Greenlick said.
He knows of no studies about the risks of carrying children in cargo trailers or on the back of a bike. But he said he wants to fire up a conversation in the Legislature.
"This is how the process starts," he said. "We have hearings. People start testifying. You start getting the information to find out whether there is a problem or not."
But Maus said the bill is misguided.
"We have massive transportation safety problems," Maus said. "Transporting a child on a bicycle is no where near the top of anyone's priority.
"I think it is a terrible miscalculation to start a debate with something so one-sided that prohibits the use of a transportation option by a large segment of the population," Maus said.
He and his wife have raised their two daughters -- now 8 and 5 years old -- on bikes, carting them around the city in baby slings when they were tiny and then putting them in a cargo trailer at 3 months.
"We never had a problem," Maus said.
In fact, he says drivers take more care when they see a kid on a bike or trailer, giving the bicyclist extra room.
"Everybody's really careful," Maus said.
He worries that the bill could curtail family biking -- a popular activity in Portland and elsewhere -- and hurt businesses in the state.
Bike shops sell an array of gear for children and at least one business, Clever Cycles in Southeast Portland, caters specifically to families. The store, open since 2007, sells everything from a tandem bike with a kid's seat to trikes that carry four kids to Xtra Cycles with space on the back for two passengers.
Co-owner Todd Fahrner called the bill "absurd," saying it would destroy his business.
"We'd have to find a new line of work," he said. The bill would also pinch Burley Design in Eugene, which has sold child trailers since 1978.
The company, with 18 employees, sells thousands of trailers worldwide every year, costing $249 to $579 each.
All of them meet safety standards established by ASTM, the American Society for Testing and Materials, including having five-point seat belt system and ensuring that the frame passes a crash test.
Needless to say, the bill has caught the company's attention.
"This is big," said Garrett Barnum, spokesman for Burley Design. "Child safety is a concern on bikes. There are a lot of products that aren't as safe as trailers."
He's like to see the ASTM standards become law rather than banning young children on bikes.
"He says he wants to start a discussion," Fahrner said about Greenlick. "It seems patently ridiculous to start a discussion by trying to criminalize something. Apply for a grant if you want to study something."
The bill has done more than start a discussion: It's fired an uproar.
Greenlick urged the bike community to calm down, issuing a statement saying that this issue is similar to the 1950s when seat belts weren't required for children.
"These are early days," he said, "Don't get hysterical."
-- Lynne Terry
Portland's avid biking community spun into an uproar today over a proposed ban geared towards young children on bikes.
House Bill 2228 introduced by Rep. Mitch Greenlick (D-Portland), would amend an Oregon statute that bans unlawful passengers on a bike by making it illegal to carry a child younger than 6 either on the bike or in a trailer. The bill includes a fine of $90.
That provision -- the proposal -- has touched a nerve among bike enthusiasts, including many who've ditched their cars.
"The bill itself is just ridiculous," said Jonathan Maus, editor of the popular blog, bikeportland.org.
Other avid bikers got more personal, calling Greenlick "an idiot" in angry emails.
"I've got about 100 emails this morning," Greenlick said.
A former director of public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Greenlick said the bill was prompted by an OHSU study on injuries among bike commuters in the Portland area.
The study indicated that about 20 percent of them had a traumatic injury in a year and about 5 percent had one serious enough to get medical attention. "It really got me thinking about what happens if there's a 4-year-old on the back of that bike when a biker goes down," Greenlick said.
He knows of no studies about the risks of carrying children in cargo trailers or on the back of a bike. But he said he wants to fire up a conversation in the Legislature.
"This is how the process starts," he said. "We have hearings. People start testifying. You start getting the information to find out whether there is a problem or not."
But Maus said the bill is misguided.
"We have massive transportation safety problems," Maus said. "Transporting a child on a bicycle is no where near the top of anyone's priority.
"I think it is a terrible miscalculation to start a debate with something so one-sided that prohibits the use of a transportation option by a large segment of the population," Maus said.
He and his wife have raised their two daughters -- now 8 and 5 years old -- on bikes, carting them around the city in baby slings when they were tiny and then putting them in a cargo trailer at 3 months.
"We never had a problem," Maus said.
In fact, he says drivers take more care when they see a kid on a bike or trailer, giving the bicyclist extra room.
"Everybody's really careful," Maus said.
He worries that the bill could curtail family biking -- a popular activity in Portland and elsewhere -- and hurt businesses in the state.
Bike shops sell an array of gear for children and at least one business, Clever Cycles in Southeast Portland, caters specifically to families. The store, open since 2007, sells everything from a tandem bike with a kid's seat to trikes that carry four kids to Xtra Cycles with space on the back for two passengers.
Co-owner Todd Fahrner called the bill "absurd," saying it would destroy his business.
"We'd have to find a new line of work," he said. The bill would also pinch Burley Design in Eugene, which has sold child trailers since 1978.
The company, with 18 employees, sells thousands of trailers worldwide every year, costing $249 to $579 each.
All of them meet safety standards established by ASTM, the American Society for Testing and Materials, including having five-point seat belt system and ensuring that the frame passes a crash test.
Needless to say, the bill has caught the company's attention.
"This is big," said Garrett Barnum, spokesman for Burley Design. "Child safety is a concern on bikes. There are a lot of products that aren't as safe as trailers."
He's like to see the ASTM standards become law rather than banning young children on bikes.
"He says he wants to start a discussion," Fahrner said about Greenlick. "It seems patently ridiculous to start a discussion by trying to criminalize something. Apply for a grant if you want to study something."
The bill has done more than start a discussion: It's fired an uproar.
Greenlick urged the bike community to calm down, issuing a statement saying that this issue is similar to the 1950s when seat belts weren't required for children.
"These are early days," he said, "Don't get hysterical."
-- Lynne Terry
