Seattle Press on Line - Biker’s choice: helmet or $42 fine

Biker’s choice: helmet or $42 fine

Jun 11, 2003 --

SEATTLE—The Seattle City Council Monday unanimously passed a resolution supporting the extension of King County’s mandatory bicycle helmet law into City limits.

The King County Board of Health takes up the issue next month as part of its ongoing effort to reconcile Seattle and King County health codes.

If passed by the board, anyone riding a bicycle on a public roadway, bicycle path or any public right-of-way in Seattle must wear a protective helmet or face a $42 fine. Parents and guardians of children caught riding a bike without a helmet are also subject to the fine.

“This law makes sense from a public safety perspective and it’s good policy because it gives extra leverage to parents to tell their children to wear a helmet,” Councilmember Richard Conlin, who sponsored the resolution, said.

Between 1989 and 1998, King County recorded 35 deaths and more than 2,000 hospitalizations due to bicycle falls and accidents. Studies by Group Health Cooperative and the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center indicated that 69 to 85 percent of bicycle-related head injures could be avoided by use of helmets.

Experts estimate that $10 million could be saved in the county each year if every bicyclist wore a helmet.

“I know firsthand the repercussions of bicycle accidents,” Council President Peter Steinbrueck, who was hospitalized after being struck by a car while riding a bike as a child, said. “A helmet is no inconvenience to wear, yet its benefit is incalculable.”

The Board of Health is comprised of members of both the Seattle City and King County Councils, as well as suburban city, health professional and health department representatives. Since Seattle and King County’s health functions merged six years ago, the board has worked to reconcile the two health codes.

King County had instituted a mandatory helmet regulation, while Seattle had not.

According to the board’s bylaws, a majority of Seattle’s representatives on the health board must approve the change for it to take effect, regardless of the vote of the entire board. Seattle’s representatives on the board are Councilmembers Conlin, Jan Drago and Margaret Pageler.

The King County Health Board is scheduled to consider the helmet regulation at its July 18 meeting.

Seattle City Council release, June 9

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

John Jun 28, 2003 Wa.
   Although the county and the city think it is a good idea to wear a helmet, and so do bikers, I think it's a better idea for them to mind their own business. What are they, communists? People have the freedom to choose whether they want to wear a helmet. Do pedestrians need helmets too? because if they got hit by a car they could be spared injury with a helmet on. It's just another way for them to collect money and be communists and I hail for their unsuccess and hope others do too.

Steve Jul 05, 2003 Seattle
   Can anybody tell me who to vote out of office over this issue? Next thing you know, they will be forcing us to wear helmuts in our cars.

David Johnson Jul 14, 2003 Seattle Biologist
   I don't want any government telling me to do something (in this case wear a bike helmet) if the only person that will suffer the consequences is myself. Not wearing a bike helmet does not put anyone in danger but myself. Therefore, it should be up to me whether or not I should take that risk.

Ted Jul 18, 2003 Redmond Technologist
   I'm usually moderate and am open to government regulation where it makes sense, but this does not. However good intentioned such laws are, it violates one's freedom of self-determination and for rather trivial reasons at that. Surely this will not be the end of democracy as we know it. But string together a series of such rules where it's assumed that the government knows what's best for all and you'll have scenarios where, say, cities and states force all its citizens to take free public vitamins, and it becomes more than annoying but a dangerous civil liberties issue. From such logic, public officials could brainstorm more original ideas for the masses and legislate vitamins for all or to ban smoking in public places, as it no doubt would save great many more lives and money (certainly orders of magnitude more than $10 million over 10 years for those who crack their skulls from not wearing helmets).

susan Jul 22, 2003 snohomish
   Do the people who are against helmets while riding bikes also refuse to wear shoes to protect their feet, sunglasses to protect their eyes and sunscreen to protect themselves from cancer or how about seatbelts to protect everything? Self distruction, I guess, is a personal right. But as they say if you refuse to wear a helmet there probably isn't too much up there to protect anyway! Let's hear it for natural selection of our race !!!!

Drew Dresman Aug 18, 2003 Seattle arts administration
   I am glad to see the nmajority of responses here are against this absurd and dangerous law. We all know it is a good idea to wear a helmet to protect against a minor fall but there is very little evidence that they help in the most serious type of accidents (there is a reason why you can't wear a bike helmet on a motorcycle). More importantly, when a mandatory helmet law was passed in Australia cycling dropped by forty percent and for the remaining cyclists head injuries did not go down as much as they did for other road users. Possibly because with fewer cyclists on the roads cars pay less attention and/or the cyclists wearing helmets were subject to greater risk compensation (i.e. they thought the helmet would save them if they got hit by a car). I sincerely hope the many locales around this strange state of ours who have adopted this type of law review the consequences earnestly and stop spreading the false rumor that bicycles are particularly dangerous.

Paul Nov 18, 2003 U.s. Aviation
   A woman can yell "Freedom of Choice" and legally have an unborn baby killed, because after all its her body right? The same logic should go for my head. Its not a public safety issue at all. Like others have written who else will this harm but me. If my actions could harm another then that would be a different story. But my not wearing a seat belt, motorcycle helmet, or bicycle helmet hurts no one else but me. Then what concern is it to any legislative body what I do with my body. Its not suicide to ride a bike without a helmet. I grew up riding bikes and delivering newspapers while riding...never even owned a helmet. And you know what ? Every time I ever fell off a bike I never once even hit my head. Of all the public health problems to be concerned about biking shouldn't be on the front page. Here is one that people are dying over....oh never mind a fetus is too young to ride a bike.

bob Feb 02, 2004 texas
   bike crashes may be common but how many times dop u have head injuries. probably very few. i never have had a head injury while riding a bike. this law is ridiculously stupid.

Ryan Apr 03, 2004 Seattle, WA Insurance
   Are these the same people that took away tire swings from parks?

Ryan Segraves May 03, 2004 Montgomery pa
   It is the riders choice wether he or she want to wear a helmit or not. The government should have no control wether we(riders) have to wear helmets or not. If anything helmets are a bad thing. They keep you from hearing things that you might need to hear, like blowing horns to let you know somthing is coming. Helmet laws should commense immeaiatly

Lidia Jul 10, 2004 Canada doctor
   i think it is a good thing to do.it is all for our own the common good

tsigereda Jul 10, 2004 Canada computer science
    it is a good adea.i reaiiy like it

Stanley Su Aug 03, 2004 WA
   Taking Tour de France for example, those professional riders are required to wear helmets as well. There's an exception though, if the stage ends with a final climb of more than 5 kms the riders can throw the helmet away after the beginning of the final climb. It is because helmets do help a lot especialy at high speed, although at low speed it is less likely to have a head injury. Not wearing a seatbelt only hurts yourself, but government or legislators have the responsibility to protect you by requiring you to buckle up. Ditto for bicycle helmets. In a society, you always have to sacrifice a small part of your freedom. You do have your freedom to speak up and vote against it though (or vote for another council member next time). I personally don't like wearing helmet either, but I can understand why we would need this law.

You may discuss this article in the forums!