And you can buy beer from service stations.
Either that or a really bad hair day.
I guess that's what they mean by helmet hair !
Seems to be a sad story behind these plates.
The sad story is apparently
The Jane Higdon Memorial Fund is dedicated to the dreams and aspirations of Jane Higdon, who was tragically killed May 31, 2006, when she was struck by a truck while on a bicycle training ride on one of Oregon's beautiful rural roads outside her home in Eugene, at the age of 47.
Too many of those sad stories. I hope some good comes out of it.
If you want a comprehensive listing of the helmet laws in the USA here it is:- http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm - if you need some bias confirmation that is the website for you.
Portland Oregon is touted as the bike capital of the USA. It has the largest modal share for bicycles of any city in the USA. There is a large cycling culture in Portland. Another NW city up the road is Seattle where there are MHLs and its about as bicycle unfriendly as most US cities - read the friendly disclaimer on this link http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikemaps.htm.
As to using pictures of helmeted cyclists - we are talking the USA. Look at this link (scroll down past the damning tirade against the ABC newsreaders who said dooring was the cyclist's fault) to the bit about Bicycle Indiana. http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/i-wanna-be-doored-gettin...
Oh BTW the debate is the Helmet LAW debate not the Helmet debate. To quote someone else:-
Why don't all cyclists support repealing MHL, even those who think helmets are extremely effective and worthwhile? After all;
- Repealing MHL will not prevent you from wearing your helmet and getting all the benefits if you are unlucky enough to hit your head. Helmets will still be available in the shops; indeed they might even get cheaper as helmet manufacturers have to work a bit harder to get the sale.
- Repealing MHL will increase the number of cyclists. We can debate my how much, but the answer is definitely positive - I can attest to this as Mrs Dan won't ride a bike as she doesn't want to wear a helmet but also doesn't want to break the law. Perhaps she is the only one, or perhaps as Chris Rissel's research suggests it could double cyclist numbers in the next 2-3 years. Either way, there is a positive effect.
- An increase in cyclist numbers has to be a good thing; it makes cycling safer for all (safety in numbers), as well as increasing the cyclist voice for advocacy and facilities. (and saving the planet etc etc)
So repealing MHL has only positive benefits for existing cyclists. Given that repealing MHL has only positive benefits for you, why are you so keen on keeping it?
Ive cycled Seattle to Los Angeles and found the roads awesome for riding on. Portland Oregon is bike central for sure.