On 4/13/2015 2:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 12, 2015 at 5:05:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/12/2015 7:26 PM, jbeattie wrote:

The legislator is a younger lawyer who works downtown. I hope to be working with him soon on another piece of legislation, so I don't want to confront him about this one. It's not going anywhere, and you have to pick your battles. A well-meaning and more senior legislator proposed an all-ages MHL a few sessions ago, and that got crushed. Every so often, bills are proposed to require licensing and registration for the freeloading bicyclists, and those get crushed, too. The BTA has a lot of clout and generally puts a stopper in most of the retaliatory anti-bike legislation.


Speaking of such things, here's the latest out of California:
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/04/10/...for-bicyclists

Gads, why did the California Bicycle Coalition have to make this statement:

"We're not against helmets. They are mandated in many competitive races, and amateur racers should follow that example. But there are proven ways to make our streets safer while encouraging bicycling -- reducing speed limits on key streets, building protected bike lanes and bike paths, and educating motorists and bicyclists on how to drive or ride safely, to name a few. A mandatory helmet law is not one of them."

Building protected bike lanes and paths? Groan. More money, and just what we need -- bike chutes. That's where you really do need a helmet. MUPs with mutts.

I agree. And it's further proof that much of what's said about
bicycling is based on the fairy tale meme of the week.


--
- Frank Krygowski