To Helmet or not to Helmet

The year was 2011. Jerry Brown had just vetoed a bill on his desk from San Francisco's (now former) Senator Leland Yee. "I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state," he said. "Not every human problem deserves a law." 
His goal, he explained, was to ensure that California laws weren't perceived as creating a "nanny government." He was referring to a bill that would require those 17 and younger to wear a helmet while skiing.

Ah, how history repeats itself. It's 2015 and we're again tackling the age-old question: "Where do we draw the line between government regulation and individual freedom?" The issue at hand now is whether adult bike riders should be required to wear helmets at all times and reflective gear after dark.

The bill's author is Senator Carol Liu, (D-L.A. County). Her reasoning comes from a National Conference of State Legislatures report saying that 91 percent of bicyclists killed in 2009 reportedly were not wearing helmets. It also seems to me that they're taking a page out of the state of Wyoming's book, where a similar bill would require reflective gear and ID.

I understand that there is inherent danger in riding at night without a helmet, and I do know the extent to which helmets reduce head injury, and thus ER visits. I personally would never ride without one here in the Bay Area, simply because it isn't safe for me right now.

Here's the problem I have with this bill though. Actually, I have 3 issues with this bill:

1. It places the blame on the victim. It's the bicycle equivalent of the "she didn't cover herself up and that's why she was assaulted" argument. When we live in a society where bikes and cars are on equal footing, then maybe we can revisit this discussion. I've spoken to a number of individuals in government and advocacy organizations about increasing the number of bikes on the road. Surprisingly, I have received the "bicyclists are all overly aggressive law-breaking hooligans" response more times than I wish to admit. Similarly, the next comment I hear is "but s/he wasn't wearing a helmet" argument. Again, this has nothing to do with biking. It's like saying a person who doesn't wear a seat belt is an aggressive driver--is there really a causal relationship? This bike-shaming pervasiveness, I believe, stems from fears that we as a society have about challenges to the status quo.
2. This bill may affect ridership and place a burden on certain communities. The CA Bike Coalition claims that this bill may discourage ridership. The same study that Liu references even acknowledges the lack of research surrounding these claims. It's certainly an area that warrants further study, especially as the state tries to meet their ambitious emissions reduction goals (ahem, state legislature---bikes are zero emission). Additionally, bicycles, as a cost-effective mode of transportation, are an attractive option for low income communities and communities of color. What implications does this have for policing in these communities? I doubt low-income residents are looking for another rule they need to follow to avoid interactions with law enforcement.
3. We see fewer accidents in countries that have fewer people who wear helmets. That said, the causal link between these variables is that these countries also have better biking infrastructure and more people biking on the streets (meaning reduced speed), thus creating a safer environment. A good question legislators can ask themselves is "what are we doing to make bikers feel safer and encourage ridership?". You may protect someone's head with a helmet requirement, but does it matter if they're still getting sideswiped on an overcrowded street with a skinny bike lane and traffic traveling at 40 mph? We know that we are more likely to attract female and young bikers when we provide infrastructure too (i.e. dedicated and separated lanes, trails, traffic calming).

What is California doing to promote bicycling alongside this regulation? I'd be so happy to see an appropriations section in their next budget designating hundreds of millions towards bike paths, bike racks, and proper signage. But this isn't the case. As it turns out, the US and state budgets decreased their active transportation allocations for the FY15/16. To me, Liu's bill suggests an apathetic approach from the legislature and poor understanding of the issue at hand--either that or it's a prevarication.

As J.S. Mill said in On Liberty, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."

Election Day Roundup: Big Bay Area Wins for Transportation

On Tuesday, Bay Area voters overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to public and active transportation.

• In Alameda County, voters passed Measure BB, a 0.5% sales tax increase (to 1%) through 2045, generating $7.8 billion for transit. It will fund a multitude of services for the county's 1.6 million (and growing) population, including:
• Experimenting with free bus passes in some areas, similar to MTA's program to provide passes for low-income SF youth
• Expanding mass transit (including a BART extension to Livermore)
• Infrastructure for highways and roads
• Bicycle and pedestrian safety
• In San Francisco, voters approved a transportation bond - Prop A, adding $500 million, and here's the breakdown:
• Transit-riders get: dedicated transit lanes, Bus Rapid Transit improvements, station improvements for Muni/BART
• Bikers get: more parking, separated bikeways
• Pedestrians get: better traffic signals and sidewalks/islands
• In SF, voters also rejected Prop L, an auto-friendly measure, and approved Prop B, which scales the amount of MTA's funding proportionally as the city's population increases. Two more big wins for transportation.

In addition to the transportation measures, a few cities passed or rejected major growth-related initiatives:

• Berkeley voters' rejection of Measure R, which would have made their downtown transit-oriented development (TOD) more difficult and parking construction easier
• San Bruno's Measure N passed, which allows the city to fully implement the 2013 approved Transit Corridors Plan by raising the building height limit restrictions. This would revitalize the downtown, allowing for mixed-use TOD and economic development
• Menlo Park voters turning down Measure M, which would have undone years of work on the city's downtown development

I'm convinced that some of the theory coming out of today's planning schools is the best we've ever seen. Planners are working hard to implement bold new ideas from planning schools--new urbanism, public transportation, and active transportation feature prominently, as well as mixed-use development. Measures like Berkeley's R, Menlo Park's M, and yes, even SF's Prop B (waterfront development limitations) show a lack of trust in individuals to do the jobs they are paid to do. The planning process hasn't been known for its stealth, requiring permits, EIRs, public hearings, and a multitude of other steps before projects get off the ground. Ballot measures that seek to slow progress or unnecessarily insert the public further into the process displays an unwarranted lack of trust in these individuals to do their jobs effectively.

I've included a few pictures from my adventures in Malmö, Sweden to show examples of what Complete Streets looks like, and hopefully a sign of what is to come in the Bay Area. 

This picture shows what transit-only lanes would look like. The cyclist isn't wearing a helmet, but this is actually quite common in Europe. The excellent bike infrastructure through separated bikeways and a separate traffic light system decreases the chance of bike/car crashes. SF's measure allows funding for both of these elements.

An example of Transit-oriented development (TOD). You can see the multi-story units in the background and Sweden's biofuel-powered bus in the midground. Just outside of the picture to the right is a split bicycle/pedestrian pathway. The Grand Boulevard Initiative, focusing on El Camino on the peninsula, hopes to incorporate many of these elements.

With the right momentum, the Bay Area can follow in the footsteps of European planners and be a trendsetter for the rest of the country. All this excellent local news comes in the wake of the Governor's Highway Safety Association's recent report which used flawed statistics to mislead people about the dangers of urban biking. Rick Bernardi of Bicycle Law wrote a great article on the factual inaccuracies, as did Bike Portland. The sad news is that the GHSA report's findings were repeated by the Chronicle, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and Seattle Weekly, and Washington Post, reaching millions of potential bikers. The day after, I saw some more critical press coverage, but the initial rush to spread misinformation had me concerned. It also sends a message that we have a lot of work to do to convince the naysayers across the country that these investments will payoff in the long run.

(For more info on these measures and others, visit Ballotpedia, Greenbelt Alliance, and TransForm)

 .

Bikes 'n Bridges: When Government Loses Its Focus

Let's play a game. It's called "Which one of these examples is not like the others?" Here are your three options:

1. San Francisco and Berkeley are both vying to become the first cities in the United States to pass a soda tax; the resulting revenue will go towards nutrition and physical education programs.
2. Healdsburg's City Council passes a law changing the legal age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21, citing studies that say 9 out of 10 smokers pick up their habit before age 18.
3. Golden Gate Transit District's Board of Directors considers implementing a toll from every bicycle and pedestrian that crosses the Golden Gate Bridge to help balance their budget.

Full disclosure: I believe that government can improve people's lives if programs and fees are implemented in a tactful manner, supported by appropriate studies. When I look at the above three examples, I can clearly see how the first two examples have the potential to produce tangible, health-oriented outcomes. I cannot see such an outcome with the third. And the worst part is, it could even discourage healthy behavior.

Let's review our Econ 101 for a moment (GGTD Board, I hope you're paying attention to this). When government wants to influence the market by reducing the demand for a product, they can affect its price by imposing taxes or restrictions, thus reducing demand for the product.

• In example 1, the government wants to reduce soda (sugar) consumption and increase healthy behavior among citizens. 
• In example 2, the government wants to impose a restriction based on age, thus reducing consumption, and potentially reducing health care costs in the long run. 
• In example 3, the government wants to impose a fee that would reduce bicycling and walking across the bridge, and would close the $ gap between auto tolls and bike/ped tolls. This may encourage bridge users to use another form of transportation.

Background on Golden Gate Bridge and their governing body

The Golden Gate Bridge, an iconic landmark of San Francisco and a must-see for tourists, pulls in 10 million visitors a year. Commuters, tourists, and casual users have a chance to cross by car, bus, biking, and walking. The bridge is maintained by an agency called the Golden Gate Transit District (GGTD). For some reason, it is the only bridge in the Bay Area that isn't managed by the Bay Area Toll Authority (am I the only one who thinks this is weird?!). Each year, the GGTD has collected income from drivers, buses, and ferries, while bicyclists and pedestrians have been able to cross the bridge free of charge. Drivers were hit with a $1 increase this past April (total of $6 with Clipper, $7 without), with plans to gradually increase the toll to $7 ($8 without), by July 2018. Public transit fares rise annually by 5%. These fees help cover rising costs, but according to GGTD officials, they aren't enough to close a 5 year, $33 million deficit. In a 45-point plan released this Monday, one of which was the potential for bicycle/pedestrian tolls on the bridge.

Just imagine the effect this would have! Which modes of transportation would people switch to? The car seems like a rational choice for would-be bikers/pedestrians headed towards Marin. The agency has been making excellent progress in recent years at reducing automobile usage while building greater revenue streams. It would be a shame to see them undo that environmentally-friendly work with this new toll. See the chart below (I've appropriately used grey for the cars and green for money).



Data obtained from GGTD's website

And just to emphasize the decreasing car usage, along with a regressed forecast, I'll add this one in too:

In conclusion:

A recent Center for Disease Control and Prevention study (via BikePedInfo) showed that regular moderate intensity exercise along with a healthy diet may reduce risk of Type 2 Diabetes by 40-60%. To me, the choice is simple. There are many ways to fix a projected deficit. Discouraging people from participating in a healthy lifestyle is not one of them. I have a few alternatives:

• Impose a POS fee for all bike purchases in the SF/Marin county bike rental shops. This would target the tourist demographic but would shelter locals from the fee.
• Look at the other 44 topics that you proposed and give those a harder look, including long term solutions to the the issues that you've been having with your transit workers lately.
• Call Jerry Brown. I hear he knows how to balance budgets while keeping the environment in mind.