Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA (Page 2)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2015-02-24 10:08 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 3127 Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA I guess the silver lining in all of this is that at least we can still chew tobacco while we ride. http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmaker-seeks-ban-chewing-tobacco-baseball-012029455--mlb.html I'll just tuck my chaw right thar in my new helmit. Edited by SevenZulu 2015-02-24 10:10 PM |
|
2015-03-04 4:35 PM in reply to: SevenZulu |
Pro 4578 Vancouver, BC | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA Originally posted by SevenZulu Yes, it's in the works. I'm hoping this one goes down in flames. If the law somehow goes through (anything is possible in CA), I have to wonder what's next? Mandatory safety harness when taking the stairs? We've had it for quite a while, maybe 20 years. I'm not a fan. Vancouver has been trying to implement a bike sharing program for the last few years and the helmet law is the biggest hurdle. |
2015-03-04 4:46 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Pro 4578 Vancouver, BC | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA I think it's really difficult to study. https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/ohrn-words-the-effect-of-mandatory-helmet-laws/ If less people ride bikes due to helmet laws, then won't the population be less healthy and cost more money? |
2015-03-26 1:26 PM in reply to: SevenZulu |
Official BT Coach 18500 Indianapolis, Indiana | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA Originally posted by SevenZulu Yes, it's in the works. I'm hoping this one goes down in flames. If the law somehow goes through (anything is possible in CA), I have to wonder what's next? Mandatory safety harness when taking the stairs? Hmmm, I am old enough to remember when they passed the motorcycle helmet law in California. Pretty much every comment that has been made in this thread was made back then regarding that law as well as seat belt laws and even speed limits. Sadly, the price of an advanced society is often laws that protect people too stupid to draw oxygen from themselves. |
2015-04-01 10:47 PM in reply to: Justin86 |
Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by SevenZulu Enjoyed a nice ride without my helmet today (rode the mtb in the foothills). That was nice, and fun. And I survived. Just say no to helicopter legislators. She needs to be voted out of office. Bet her stupid butt hasn't been on a bicycle seat ever. Congratulations? While I agree that legislation is overkill, congratulations to you for having no common sense. So you are basing his entire ability to have "no common sense" on this one paragraph,,,,, pot,,,,, kettle,,, |
2015-04-02 1:06 PM in reply to: crusevegas |
Master 3127 Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA Originally posted by crusevegas Originally posted by Justin86 Originally posted by SevenZulu Enjoyed a nice ride without my helmet today (rode the mtb in the foothills). That was nice, and fun. And I survived. Just say no to helicopter legislators. She needs to be voted out of office. Bet her stupid butt hasn't been on a bicycle seat ever. Congratulations? While I agree that legislation is overkill, congratulations to you for having no common sense. So you are basing his entire ability to have "no common sense" on this one paragraph,,,,, pot,,,,, kettle,,, It's amazing that I rode my bike for decades, about thirty years, without ever wearing a helmet. There are lots of ways that you can get hurt that have nothing to do with bicycles. I really don't feel that the state needs to legislate every minute aspect of our lives. Bicycles are not motorcycles. For the record, I almost always wear a helmet on my road bike. Much higher speeds involved, sure I'll take some precautions. But to cruise around my neighborhood on a mtb and go do some easy trail riding, I don't need a helmet for that. I'm more likely to hit my head slipping in the bathtub afterwards than I am on a ride of that sort. The funny thing is when you ride without a helmet, people are generally much friendlier towards you. When you post about it in this forum, not so much. |
|
2015-04-02 5:59 PM in reply to: SevenZulu |
Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA You hit the nail on the head there about the friendly part. Fact of the matter in a large percentage of auto related serious injury and death are the result of head trauma,,,,,,, hmmmmmm I wonder if those who are so judgmental about OTHERS actions wear a helmet in the car? Crazy Sh,,,, stuff I know. |
2015-04-13 3:09 PM in reply to: SevenZulu |
Master 3127 Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA The latest round of amendments to this legislation appears to have changed the proposed bill from one mandating helmets for adult bicyclists to one requiring study of helmet use and effect. Hmmm. Seems like dotting I's and crossing T's before introducing the helmet requirement bill in a future legislative session.
Amended IN Senate April 09, 2015 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2015–2016 REGULAR SESSION
An act to amend Section 21212 of add and repeal Section 21213 of the Vehicle Code, relating to bicycles. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 192, as amended, Liu. Bicycles: helmets. Existing law prohibits a person under 18 years of age from operating a bicycle, riding on a bicycle as a passenger, or riding in a trailer towed by a bicycle unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet meeting specified standards. A violation of those provisions is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $25. This bill would require every person, regardless of age, to wear a bicycle helmet when operating a bicycle, riding on a bicycle as a passenger, or riding in a trailer towed by a bicycle. The bill would also require a person engaged in these activities in the darkness to wear retroreflective high-visibility safety apparel, as specified. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. require the Office of Traffic Study, in coordination with the Department of the California Highway Patrol, to conduct a comprehensive study of bicycle helmet use, including specified information, and to report the study’s findings to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Assembly Committee on Transportation by January 1, 2017. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Digest KeyVote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YESNO Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:SECTION 1.Section 21213 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:21213.(a) The Office of Traffic Study, in coordination with the department, shall conduct a comprehensive study of bicycle helmet use, including, but not limited to, determining the percentage of California bicyclists who do not wear helmets, and the fatalities or serious injuries that could have been avoided if helmets had been worn. A report of the study’s findings shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing and the Assembly Committee on Transportation by January 1, 2017.(b) Pursuant to Section 10231.5 of the Government Code, this section is repealed on January, 1, 2021. (a)(1)A person shall not operate a bicycle, or ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those entities. This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle. (2)A person shall not engage in the activities described in paragraph (1) in the darkness, as defined in Section 280, unless that person is wearing high-visibility safety apparel, which may include a vest, jacket, or shirt, that is retroreflective and meets the requirements of the American National Standard for High-Visibility Safety Apparel and Headwear, published by the American National Standards Institute/International Safety Equipment Association or standards subsequently established by those entities. (b)A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a nonmotorized scooter or a skateboard, nor wear in-line or roller skates, nor ride upon a nonmotorized scooter or a skateboard as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the safety standards described in subdivision (a). (c)Any helmet sold or offered for sale for use by operators and passengers of bicycles, nonmotorized scooters, skateboards, or in-line or roller skates shall be conspicuously labeled in accordance with the standard described in subdivision (a) which shall constitute the manufacturer’s certification that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards. (d)No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for use by an operator or passenger of a bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, skateboard, or in-line or roller skates any safety helmet is not of a type meeting requirements established by this section. (e)Any charge under this subdivision shall be dismissed when the person charged alleges in court, under oath, that the charge against the person is the first charge against that person under this subdivision, unless it is otherwise established in court that the charge is not the first charge against the person. (f)(1)Except as provided in subdivision (e), a violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty-five dollars ($25). (2)The parent or legal guardian having control or custody of an unemancipated minor whose conduct violates this section shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for the amount of the fine imposed pursuant to this subdivision. (g)Notwithstanding Section 1463 of the Penal Code or any other provision of law, the fines collected for a violation of this section shall be allocated as follows: (1)Seventy-two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in a special account of the county health department, to be used for bicycle, nonmotorized scooter, skateboard, and in-line and roller skate safety education and for assisting low-income families in obtaining approved bicycle helmets for children under 18 years of age, either on a loan or purchase basis. The county may contract for the implementation of this program, which, to the extent practicable, shall be operated in conjunction with the child passenger restraint program pursuant to Section 27360. (2)Two and one-half percent of the amount collected shall be deposited in the county treasury to be used by the county to administer the program described in paragraph (1). (3)If the violation occurred within a city, 25 percent of the amount collected shall be transferred to and deposited in the treasury of that city. If the violation occurred in an unincorporated area, this 25 percent shall be deposited and used pursuant to paragraph (1). SEC. 2.No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. |
2015-04-13 3:47 PM in reply to: SevenZulu |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA I'd favor a law that required parents who were riding with kids to wear helmets. I get miffed every time I see the kiddos with their helmet on but mom and dad without. Way to set an example. |
2015-04-13 3:56 PM in reply to: mrbbrad |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Mandatory Bicycle (Adult) Helmet Law in CA We have a bike rental place here in Memphis that rents bike along the greenline. I love it when I see families out riding on these bikes, but I always wondered why the rental place never makes them rent helmets. |
|
| ||||
|
|