January 12, 2011

So from a clueless lawman's mouth, the outlaw family cyclists were born.

An Oregon State representative has proposed amending current statute as follows (part b is new):

SECTION 1. ORS 814.460 is amended to read: 814.460. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful passengers on a bicycle if the person operates a bicycle and carries { + : (a) + } More persons on the bicycle than the number for which it is designed or safely equipped { + ; or (b) A child under six years of age on the bicycle or in a bicycle trailer + }. (2) The offense described in this section, unlawful passengers on a bicycle, is a Class D traffic violation.

Catch that? Illegal to carry a child under 6 years old (not months), on a bicycle or bike trailer. $90 infraction.

Yes, this entire website would be illegal in the state of Oregon.

You would be forgiven for assuming this was the work of a bike-baiting, rural, truck-and-gun-rack conservative.

But you would be wrong. This is the work in progress of one Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland. D as is democratic, Portland as in Bikeytown USA. Oregon as in where Burley trailers were invented.

His rationale, if you can call it such, is that a recent OHSU study of adult bicycle commuters found that in 1 year, 20% sustained a minor injury (including bruises or scrapes), and 5% had an injury requiring medical attention ... so ... THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

In his words (this and other quotes from BikePortland):

When that's going on out there, what happens when you have a four year old on the back of a bike? From a precautionary principle, I felt it was important to discuss the issue and start a debate.

Um, there were no children in this study. Let alone passengers on adult bicycle. My solo commute route and riding style is very different from how I ride with children on board. Perhaps he is aware of more pertinent public health research on riding with children on board?

No.

But he's looking for some. Hasn't found it yet. Hasn't stopped him from proposing legislation to make it illegal.

But hey, "Everybody should just stay calm, this is part of a deliberative process." I may not be a state representative, but it would seem that the review of the evidence might want to come before the proposing to make it illegal part. Or even proposing to have a discussion about it.

In fact, he won't find solid evidence to support such legislation. What's available is hardly the sort of data to base legislation upon - almost entirely without "denominator" information (it's not enough to know how many injuries - you need to know over how many trips). Much of it from ERs: descriptions of "what came through the door," looking at patterns of injuries in child seats, trailers, etc. Not sturdy stuff, as far as public health research goes.

But go ahead, have a look. Better yet, conduct better research. A prospective study of cycling families, for starters? No shortage of those in Portlandia.

But based on his comments, I have genuine concern for his ability to interpret the research, and his judgment in deciding whether to inform parents or legislate their choices for them. Quoth Greenlick:

"If it's true that it's unsafe, we have an obligation to protect people. If I thought a law would save one child's life, I would step in and do it. Wouldn't you?"

NO! And I'm a freaking pediatrician. It's my job to care about such things.

From a public health perspective, an intervention that attempts to make one aspect of life safer, if it even works, may just shift risk elsewhere, either in the near or long-term. As in, fewer young families biking -> more families driving -> more dangerous streets for the over 6yo's still walking and biking to school.

Assuming that's still legal in Greenlick's nannytopia.

Or fewer young children weaned on the bike + more fearful parents -> less interest in active transportation -> obesity epidemic unchecked -> the first generation to have shorter lifespans than their parents.

And yes, of course, the number one cause of death from age 1 to 34? Motor vehicle crashes. But to be rigorous about it, that statistic doesn't take in account how often we drive (exposure to said risk). It may well be that driving is safer than riding a bike, on a per mile or per trip basis. In the short-term. There is a valid argument for a long-term overall health benefit.

Even if we had convincing data that kids under 6 were at some higher risk on or behind a bike, at what point does it stop being our decision? After all, taking a car is 10 times more hazardous than taking the bus, for adults at least. But I don't see driving being made illegal anytime soon.

Life is dangerous. Life has risk. "Injury-free childhood" does not exist. I wouldn't want one for my kids if it did. Most things worth doing have some risk of injury. Not doing such things has risk too.

Which isn't to say that investigating the safety of transporting kids by bike isn't very worthwhile. It would inform parents' choices, and lead to guidance on ways to lower risk. Here is my attempt to do so.

You'd think a professor emeritus and past chair of the Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine in the Medical School of OHSU would understand this stuff. But he doesn't seem to, based on his absurd "if it could save one child's life" standard. And even if he's ducking behind a "this is how the process works" disclaimer, it's outrageous to introduce a bill with only a barely relevant commuter study and a hunch to back it up.

But if it's a debate he wants, a debate he has started. Too bad he seems to be ending his public health and political careers on such a false note. If he truly cared about the safety of kids on bikes, he could have proposed lowering speed limits, stiffer penalties for distracted driving, or even funded a study to explore the question he's so clumsily, offensively asking.

And in the meantime, I'm taking the kids to Portland tomorrow, on bikes and Amtrak. While it's still legal.