Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 24, 1993)
EDITORIAL Bicycle helmet bill wrong for Oregon Senate Bill 1088 would require all bicyclists in Oregon to wear a helmet at all times. Failure to do so could result in a $25 fine. Although helmets are certainly « wise idea, and smart cyclists do use them, enacting a helmet law is a misguided attempt at increasing public safety. Why? Because it ignores one of the basic tenets of bicycling — to relax under a sunny sky on a quiet bike path. Helmuts do save lives. No one disputes this. Increased helmet uso loads to fewer head injuries, cheaper medical bills and additional taxpayer savings. But many cycling accidents occur on busy streets or intersections, not side streets and bike paths. Many peo ple don’t use their bikes so much for commuting to work or school — when a helmet probably should lx! used — but instead just want to take advantage of blue skies and nice weather. To wear a hejmot when a cool breeze is blowing and the sun is raining down is akin to using a condom when both partners ant HIV negative and have no risk of children. In both cases, the conditions an* perfect. Why The bill ignores one of the basic tenets of bicycling — to relax under a sunny sky on a quiet bike path. spoil the moment with cluttory. uncomfortable gear' One of the most attractive arguments for the helmet law is that it would lower insurance rates by cutting medical costs However. Americans make personal choices every day that potentially affect insurance rates Every time someone takes a bite out of a Big Mac, he or she is one step closer to a heart attack. Yet cholesterol is still legal. Singling out cyclists because they make a hedonistic and dangerous decision is unfair. People make bad choices every day. Some people also say the bicycle helmet law is gov erned by the same principle as Oregon's seat belt law. its motorcycle helmet law. and its mandate of safety restraints for children riding in cars, all of which wisely protect cit izens from serious injury. Thu difference, however, is that cars and motorcycles go significantly faster than bikes. Only experienced cyclists frequently go faster than 30 mph, and they wear helmets because they know bet ter than to ride that fast without protection. If someone makes a stupid mistake, that's their prerogative. Only 10 people were killed in Oregon last year from bike acci dents. and it's a safe bet that most of the state's 2.8 mil lion residents own a bike. And unlike seat !>elts, bike helmets cost money — any where from $35 to SI 20. College students who can bare ly afford food may be forced to ride on the lam for quito some time. While there is little doubt that people riding on busy streets and highways should wear helmets for their own sake, everyone olse should not be so restricted. Riding unhindered on a bike path is not dangerous, and cyclists should not be forced to wear clunky headgear like hel mets. Oregon Daily Emerald 1 ne C>agon 0*)y I ,i pot».»h«l dfcty Monday trvrougn f "day Own} IN. Klww yaat and Kieaday ana Thuitday donng lh« 6. ina Oagon Daily Em*i«K) PubfcsNng Co Inc al m« U<vva«tity ol Oogon fugana. Oagon The Emaiaid opeialae .ndependenBy & tha Umyawtf man orffcoee m Su*e 300 of the Erb Memcwua llnon and .» a m«i«« o' the Attociated Piets The E mmans it pi.vai* pioporty The uNawlul i*w* c» ute o< pape<t J P<oeecul«toie by *«• Editor: Pal Malaeh Naws Editor Editorial Editor Graphics Editor Entartatomant Editor Jafca twg Martin f >sha Jafl Pa*i*> Ff«y*Horn FrMUnc* tailor Mivxn aaucum Editorial Editor R)v*» Jwismo Sports Editor Dim Owtwnnosu Supplsmsnts Editor Css** AnOmtan Nrghl EdHor: Jaka Borg Aesoctats Editor*: Tammy Baley Slvdont Govommont AcfivTes. Daraiyn Trapp# Crynmumry. Co«*an Pohkg. Ikgher f du-ahoo Klmmit'mxy Nm SUM Chatter Anon Man Bender Ju«im Brown Ser*h Clark. Mag Dadolph. Amy Oevanport. Jen KMon. Amanda Ferno, Anthony Forney. Bam Ftage. Tore** Fkmisaigar Rebecca Mart*. Slava lufcm*. Katy Moefter Trffcni MjWxr Tnsia Noai tHr Shaw. Erick Studenrcka. M*ron Soaor. Handy Ttueoan Mcheie Thompson Aguiar. Amy Van Toyl. Todd William*. C-laylon Vaa Qanarat Man agar: Judy Red Production Manager: Afcchaie Hoaa Advertising Tom l each Saar Manager Shawn Banran Omce Malaga- Jan* irota. Tara*a l*ab«*ie. Prw<i Johnson N. On* Kanofl Jeramy Mason Van V OBrya/' It. Gaiian Oh Rachael True Anga Wmtpiaem CUaslttad. (tacky Merchant Managar Bany Logan Sharon Sauva Distribution Brandon Andarton. k*ck Man"rung Graham Srmpeon Buainaas: hathy Carbon# Supennaor Ajdy Connoky Production: Ingrid Whaa Production Coonknakv Krishna Granger Oaa McCodb. Slacy Mtchee Jennifer Hoiand. Jennifer Smith Nmroom M6-54I1 Bu«n*M 0**ic« J4*-S512 Dtaplay Advaruaing - J4A-J7I2 CIami'M AdvartIMng MMM3 7*e MAT/0*JAl C£3T D/0. - LETTERS Won't defend So. not one of us "sad people without visions” streamed in Hof) Weigel's defense, huh7 Gee whiz. t:hill out. We ere individuals and oat h one of us t,an appreciate celiba cy or not. It appears to me that Weigel is making a martyr of himself, running around com plaining (yes, complaining) no one wants to caress him with his point of view. I, for one. will not defend him. simply because I do not agree with him His commentary [ODE, May 18) is quite aggressive in that it knocks other people left and right In one sense he's preat h ing love and understanding, but un underlying tone of hypocrisy manifests itself Be celibate. Go right ahead It doesn't bother me I'm not say ing he shouldn't be celibate. So why do 1 (we) bother you? Why does it bother you that "Andrew's silly letter" should be published7 I applaud the Emerald for publishing dissent ing points of view. Weigel can call me and any one else his "opponent" if he wants He is creating sides here, nut me It's true. I do not have the "same hope and love" for him as he might for me. I never asked for anything from him. So why on earth would he have "hope" for me? Am I, or anyone, missing something he can give me? Peter Sheir Post Baccalaurette Righteous? Hob Weigel’s commentary in the Emerald an May 18 really struck a nerve within me. Ini tially. I was impressed with his courage to stand up for his lifestyle. However, 1 didn't like the methods Weigel used to vent his anger over the fact that, God forbid, someone made fun of his lifestyle He certainly has a right to express his displeasure with the way he is being treated But for someone who dislikes the cur rent state of humanity so much. ht> seems bent on generalizing about those who aren't as incor ruptible us him. Me states, "Mow dare any of you compare a lifestyle whose very focus is fruitless self-grati fication with a lifestyle of celibacy ." Mow dare Weigel believe he is somehow more righteous because he leads this "pure" life For someone who claims to have just as much love and hope for other people, he fails to understand that there are some people who actually make love to each other instead of using sen for this "fruitless self gratification " Another phrase in Weigel's commentary disturbed me. Me claims we don't understand the personal sacrifices he has made for those who "are/were gay." Since when do gay people sim ply stop being gay? Me says he offers a "total lack of persecu tion " Seems Weigel has some learning to catch up on Perhaps he should stop con gratulating himself so much. Paul VanSickie Pre-Journalism Junior fascists It's instructive to see the junior Fascists from the Student Insurgent demonstrating their thuggish approach to political discussion in their latest issue. Evert more instructive is the silence of their friends on the faculty. At the first University Assem bly meeting to discuss the amendment to the race, gender, non-European requirement, the issue came up of intimidation of the faculty who openly opposed the proposed change. Propo nents of the motion ridiculed this concern at the meeting, and in the last issue of the Insurgent listed this as one of the issues in the debate that "poisoned the atmosphere of the c.ampus." Now the intimidation has become overt and public in the Insurgent, and we're waiting to hear from those who told us that this was a silly and poisonous issue. Perhaps we misunder stood — maybe all they meant was that there) was no issue of intimidation on the part of the faculty or the administration, because that would be handled by their student auxiliaries. Scott DeLancey Professor, Linguistics Brand speaks Recently I wrote to five facul ty members who were attacked by the Student Insurgent. I told them that I directed members of tlie University administration to respond quickly, and as a result. Provost Norm Wessells wrote a letter to the editor of the Kmer old. The letter would have come from me if I had been on cam pus to sign it. 1 also offerer) the resources of the University, through Director of Public Safety and the Coordi nator of Student Conduct, to help in dealing with any reper cussions from that publication. I find it totally irresponsible to label individuals, as was done in the Insurgent. It is con trary to the ideals and traditions of higher education This type of intimidation hinders construc tive dialogue and makes it more difficult for the lampus commu nity to resolve the complex issues surrounding curricular change. While it is true that free speech and First Amendment rights permit significant lati tude, respect for others cannot be forsaken. Unfortunately, in this instance, as well as others that have taken place recently, some persons have not shown the respect each person deserves. We need to get past those attacks. We need to reopen the conversations that will lead to mutual respect. Neither the President nor the Provost can do this for the campus; it requires the participation of faculty, staff and students alike. I.et us com mit ourselves to building a com munity in which each individ ual person is appreciated and respected. Myles Brand President