Surely you’ve seen the fleet of pedicabs touring Seattle—giant tricycles manned by drivers and equipped with a bucket seat for passengers. They cruise slowly along the waterfront all summer, offering tourists scenic rides. They circle around stadiums at every sporting event in town, offering zero-emission, short-distance transportation alternatives. They even sun themselves outside the Puyallup Fair to truck tired fairgoers back to their cars.
The pedicab industry is growing, according to the Seattle Pedicab Operator’s Guild (seaPOG), but the industry has few regulations. The 15-member guild is trying to change that. You see, most pedicab operators are self employed—either they own their own trike or they rent one—so there’s no measure of the trike’s safety or the operator’s street safety. Since January, the guild has been working with the city to draft legislation to make pedicabs safer—including rear-light, brake, and safety belt requirements. The guild also wants to make training requirements standard for all pedicab operators.
But one city department hasn’t been cooperating, says Daniel deCordova, spokesman for seaPOG: the Seattle Police Department. Not only has SPD refused six invitations to help draft safety regulations for pedicabs, since July 1, pedicab drivers say that SPD’s traffic division has started routinely ticketing them for not wearing helmets. “Instead of working with us, they’re coming after us,” says deCordova. “Before July, there were no helmet tickets being issued, ever. Now our drivers are being kicked off their trikes. We’ve even had passengers threatened with citations. [Police officers] are creating a hostile environment where there doesn’t have to be one.”
Sgt. Sean Whitcomb, spokesman for SPD, didn’t have statistics on citations for pedicab drivers. But he argues that most officers issue helmet warnings, not citations, but that anyone violating King County’s helmet law is taking the risk of a $103 ticket. “Everyone benefits from wearing a helmet,” says Whitcomb, “whether you’re on skateboard, bike, horse… the sole responsibility of our traffic officers is to enforce traffic safety and education. Frankly, I’m more concerned that passengers aren’t required to wear helmets.”
But pedicab drivers argue that helmets don’t improve safety, and requiring passengers to wear helmets is impossible (they’d either have to be carrying their own or don on a ‘public helmet,’ which would be unhygienic and might not fit).
More after the jump!
“As far as we can tell, there’s never been an incident on a trike where a helmet would’ve helped,” says deCordova, because “trikes don’t fall over.” deCordova sites the fatal pedicab accident in 2008. “That cab wasn’t street legal,” he says. “It didn’t have the appropriate brakes and it was run by an inexperienced driver. Those are the kinds of issues we’re trying to fix through legislation.”
Drivers also argue that potential passengers won’t get in a cab with a helmeted driver. “They see the helmet and think the bike is unsafe. Then they walk on by to the next cab, even if it’s got broken spokes and is manned by an unwashed tweaker,” deCordova explains. “That’s why no major US cities require helmets for pedicab operators.”
deCordova adds that trike safety comes from having an experienced operator behind the handlebars, and that won’t happen if SPD continues to kill their business. “We can’t keep competent pedicab operators,” says deCordova, who explains that it takes at least a month to safely train a driver. An experienced driver can pull in $150 a day if they aren’t fined by SPD and forced to push their trikes home.
“It’s a decent job, you get exercise, and you’re removing carbon-powered transportation from the community,” deCordova says. “These officers are supposed to be making sure we’re safe, and instead they’re giving us a hard time. I’ve had officers scream at me. Others have had their passengers booted out and threatened with citations. How is that improving public safety?”
deCordova says that the guild hopes SPD will come to the table and start working with them on crafting legislation to make their profession safer. The guild hopes to present their ideas to the city council’s transportation committee later this year.
Brakes, not breaks.
These things do not “remove carbon-powered transportation from the community”; they replace nothing. They’re the less-annoying cousins of the freaking horse carriages. Nobody takes one instead of a cab; they take one instead of walking, for the class thrill of having someone else work for you for no particular reason.
“[Police officers] are creating a hostile environment where there doesn’t have to be one.”
LOL. This is what police officers do, across America.
Why are they not ticketing normal cyclists? I see a dozen of them every day not wearing helmets.
The ones I see around the stadiums, dont use major roads, just sidewalks or alleys.
It seems to me that helmets for drivers is not an unreasonable request. Passengers, that’s a differnt matter… I get it that these pedicabs are really tourist attractions, not vehicles. But idf they’re using City streets It seems responsible for the drivers to have helmets on.
It’s so amusing how progressives are all gung-ho about regulating businesses … until that regulation impacts a hip, vaguely green business run by attractive young progressives.
I’m pleased to see that at least Fnarf sees through the eco-smokescreen.
For the record, I’m opposed to helmet laws on civil liberties grounds.
@4 FTW.
As for the SPD not showing up, I guess I understand they’ve got a lot on their plate what with the killings and beatings and all the other stuff they do, but it would have been nice if they at least sent a memo or something.
Maybe we should bring back rikshaws and latch them onto hobos?
@1, fixed. Thanks!
Lame.
I’ve never seen a pedicab do more than about 5 mph.
There is no logical reason to require either a seatbelt or a helmet for anything moving that slow.
@9, helmet protection doesn’t have anything to do with speed.
@5, you’re ridiculous. Helmet laws are not a civil liberties issue. You want to ride on public rights-of-way, you obey the public’s rules. And helmet rules are among the most sensible rules you could possibly find. Anti-helmet kooks are kooks.
We have pedicabs? I’ve never seen one. I guess that is because I’m not a tourist.
Agree with David @5: It’s nothing but nanny-state bullshit that we have laws mandating helmet use. What kind of bullshit is that? I guess the argument is that uninsured, unhelmeted people in the emergency rooms end up being a public expense, but such is the case with uninsured Big Mac eaters and uninsured rock climbers, or hikers, or backyard basketball players, or weekend Ultimate Frisbee enthusiasts. Should we require helmets for all those people too (or in the case of the Big Mac eater, state-enforced vegetarianism)?
@12, it’s not nanny-statism to want to keep your brains off of my sidewalk. Even if you’re not otherwise using them.
At least SPD aren’t shooting the passengers.
@11 “We have pedicabs? I’ve never seen one. I guess that is because I’m not a tourist. “
Go to a football game. Didnt see these things 4 years ago, but I see them every Sunday 2 hours before kickoff. They are primarily used for people who park south of the stadium to avoid paying 25$ for parking, almost everything south of Holgate Street is open parking. The demographic they target would be folks like my dad, experience some pain in walking, or people who are too drunk to walk, but sober enough to cheer for the right team.
I’ve never seen them use the main roads (too slow), always opting for the ally or sidewalks.
@14 How many non-whites use pedicabs?
If they were required to carry insurance this would take care of itself.
I’m sure any insurance carrier would be thrilled to be told that riding on a pedicab with no helmet is perfectly safe. Probably wouldn’t cost nothin’ to cover that liability.
Bicycles tip over. People on skateboards and rollerblades tip over. But as far as I know, pedicabs don’t tip over. And while it’s true that a pedicab passenger could be injured in a collision with a vehicle, pedestrians face the same danger, and pedestrians don’t wear helmets. What am I missing, helmet advocates?
You know what Seattle needs to truly make it perfect?
More rules. They’re for the good of the people after all.
Requiring pedicabs to wear helmets is like effectively banning street food except for hotdogs, peanuts and pop corn. Well intended, but short sighted, and quite frankly stupid. Excessive regulations lower choices for those residing, working and shopping in the urban center making it stale and bland.
More pedicabs, more food carts, more sidewalk salesman! Less typical Seattle nannystatism!
Do the cariage drivers have to wear a helmet or seatbelt? If not, why not?
@13, your argument could be used for any number of restrictions on private transportation. Riding a motorcycle with a helmet is inherently much more dangerous than riding a bicycle without a helmet. So, since we don’t want the blood of motorcyclists on “your” roads, then only “kooks” would oppose the prohibition of motorcycles.
The leading cause of death and injury among children are car accidents. We certainly don’t want the blood of children on “your” roads, so only “kooks” would oppose restricting the transportation of children by automobiles.
Tell me again why we have a police force? Oh yeah, to harass innocent citizens. Wonder if there are any law enforcement related initiatives or referendums to vote against.
that’s “carriage”
Oh, and helmet laws were passed with lots of support from insurance companies tired of paying out for head injuries.
@10 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
I think it’s in the best interests of the state that people not be allowed to listen to shitty music, too. Sorry, Fnarf, but most of your music has got to go.
@21, we do restrict the automobile travel of children. Ever seen a car seat?
Your argument — some level of risk will always exist, therefore it’s stupid to try to moderate it — isn’t a good one. Better than “mah civil libburtease”, perhaps, but not by much.
@almost everyone have you lost sight of the fact that helmets save lives, much like seatbelts save lives? They keep your head from coming apart on pavement during an accident. Bike and car accidents happen all the time. As a cyclist who wears a helmet every time I ride, I just find this to make complete sense. Especially with the more than occasional impatient or oblivious motorists in this city.
@18: pedicabs don’t tip over? http://www.seattlepi.com/local/374131_pe…
“trikes don’t fall over.”
HAHAHHA
@21, car seats have been mandatory for over a decade, now, I believe. And, still, car accidents are the number one killer of children. So, if we go by your bike-helmet standards, certainly more restrictions are required, at the very least the prohibition of non-school related travel for children.
My argument is no different than the best anti-drug war arguments. If you’re going to prohibit an adult from doing something to his own body because it’s dangerous, then in order to be philosophically relevant, you have to argue first for the prohibition of the most dangerous things. (That is, if there is any philosophical relevance whatsoever in the idea that the state owns your body to the degree that it can tell you what you’re allowed and not allowed to do with it.)
When a prohibitionist favors keeping pot illegal while keeping alcohol legal, then we know that prohibitionist is full of shit on an intellectual level. As you favor keeping bike helmets mandatory while dismissing the idea of prohibiting much more dangerous personal behavior, then your arguments are of the same quality as the prohibitionist’s.
@28, personally I think it’s great that you wear a helmet. When my son is grown, I hope he shares your caution. But whether or not helmets make riding safer is a different argument than whether or not the state owns you, and therefore, has the right to force you to wear one.
Also, I believe @25’s link is relevant to the discussion.
@31, @32, you’re a fucking idiot. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want on a public road, period. That includes pot and alcohol prohibition, numbskull. If you want to go helmet-free while you’re sitting at home getting high and jacking off to Cato Institute mailers, be my guest, but when you’re on MY ROADS you’ll play by the rules of the road.
Society has an interest here. If you don’t see it, FUCK OFF, SOCIOPATH.
@31, why don’t you cite some statistics? Will they show that that the death rate of children in car accidents has declined, thereby undermining your claim that they’re “still the number one killer of kids!!” ?
It’s not the position on the list of what kills kids that matters; it’s the actual ratio of deaths to accidents, and the actual number of deaths, that tells us whether those laws are good or not.
Frankly, if my government and insurance company have to spend more money on serious and fatal motorcycle accidents then ones that are minor thanks to helmet use, then the issue of helmet use affects me and therefore I have a voice in what you do when you get on a bike. That’s our representative democracy for you, and if you don’t like it you can leave.
@33, when you don’t have an argument, you call names. Then you misrepresent arguments.
You don’t have the right to do whatever you want on a public road, period. That includes pot and alcohol prohibition, numbskull.
Never said those rights exist. No one is arguing that a person should be able to operate a motorcycle under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This is entirely different from an individual refusing to wear a helmet. You’re making things up, which is another indicator that your argument is weak.
If you want to go helmet-free while you’re sitting at home getting high and jacking off to Cato Institute mailers be my guest, but when you’re on MY ROADS you’ll play by the rules of the road.
Silly me, I thought they were “our” roads. And so we see the inner authoritarian. Instead of offering a reason for the law, that the law exists is enough. The same argument has been made in defending some of the most intrusive, conservative laws ever.
Society has an interest here. If you don’t see it, FUCK OFF, SOCIOPATH.
What’s really fascinating is that you think it’s an insult to suggest that I might read papers out of the Cato Institute, in a voice that can easily be found in the comments section of “Free Republic” and “Red State.” Those guys say the exact same thing about CI, and they use the same tone of voice with the same panicked, shrill, condescending attitude.
In the vein of “Hey, your fly is open,” don’t you hear yourself?
Most of my dearest, dearest friends disagree with me about this, and have for years. Even if you and I disagree, why would you act like this? Because you can? Is this how adults should disagree on things?
FUCK OFF, SOCIOPATH
@34, I hope you don’t think I’m against requiring baby seats. I’m not against it because it directly influences the lives of dependents. Of course, that can be a slippery slope and I think there’s always going to be a balancing act between the rights of adults and the rights of their children.
That said, my overall point is, that if we’re going to force adults to protect their own bodies, one should be consistent, otherwise we should look at the issue more closely. Riding a motorcycle with a helmet is much more dangerous than riding a bicycle without a helmet. If we can agree on that, then the same people who think that adults should be forced to wear helmets on bicycles, should then believe that adults should be prohibited from riding motorcycles, because that would protect so many more people from harm.
Like I said, it’s very similar to the weaknesses one finds in arguments for drug prohibition.
Frankly, if my government and insurance company have to spend more money on serious and fatal motorcycle accidents, then ones that are minor thanks to helmet use, then the issue of helmet use affects me and therefore I have a voice in what you do when you get on a bike.
And what I do with my food? And my hobbies like skydiving and mountain biking? And how I have safe sex? They all affect you since The Government and The Insurance Companies make you pay in one way or another for my actions. This is why it’s not a simple matter.
That’s our representative democracy for you, and if you don’t like it you can leave.
This is exactly what conservatives say when you complain about things. It sounds like you’re saying, “If you don’t like the laws of the land you should just get out,” which would be really lame, because it’s what conservatives have been telling liberals for a long time. Sometimes it just means, “I don’t want to talk about it anymore,” which is totally cool, I understand. But you should just say it.
Public roads are a shared transport system, no different than a rail line and system of train stations, or airports and the planes that land there. It’s well understood that all of the participants in an integrated system like rail, passengers and workers, must follow a set of rules for the system to work. They have to put up with things like security searches. But for some reason, Americans don’t believe driving your private wheels public roads is participating in an integrated system. They actually go beyond mere individualism and think that what you do out on public roads is the very essence of personal freedom.
All this balderdash began as nothing more than advertising copy to sell cars and gasoline and movie tickets, but somehow that marketing meme has taken on a life of its own until you have libertardians today who really do believe patriots died in foxholes so some shit-for-brains could run around without a helmet. It’s sad, really.
@37,
Skydiving companies generally absolve themselves of all liability if your equipment fails or if you fuck up and cause your own death. On public roads, insurance is the name of the game. Even if you don’t have insurance, if you get into an accident, the other driver’s insurance has to pay for your ass. If you are insured, your insurance has to pay for you, and, according to the rules of insurance, the insurance company can’t refuse to pay even if you’re too fucking dumb to take basic safety measures like wearing a seatbelt. That’s why these laws exist, to protect the rest of us from YOUR stupidity.
And no one even remotely intelligent makes an anti-drug prohibition argument on the basis of my body, my choice. They make the argument on the basis of prohibition not working and it being more expensive than it’s worth.
And all your other inane points work out similarly. The government can’t monitor your eating behavior or sexual habits, and, if it tried, those measures would be just as expensive and ineffective as drug prohibition. The cops and highway patrol are in a position to easily ticket your ass if you’re not wearing a helmet or seatbelt, making those laws very effective at relatively little expense.
@38, your first paragraph fails to even attempt to justify forcing an adult to wear a motorcycle helmet or even a bicycle helmet.
Your second paragraph is simply condescending to people who disagree with you.
Not much to work with.
I cant believe Im saying this, but I agree with Fnarf on all accounts here.
@39
On public roads, insurance is the name of the game. Even if you don’t have insurance, if you get into an accident, the other driver’s insurance has to pay for your ass. If you are insured, your insurance has to pay for you, and, according to the rules of insurance, the insurance company can’t refuse to pay even if you’re too fucking dumb to take basic safety measures like wearing a seatbelt. That’s why these laws exist, to protect the rest of us from YOUR stupidity.
I’m not sure why you’re getting the impression that I don’t wear a seatbelt. I always do. I just don’t think a good argument for forcing adults to wear seatbelts is, “The Insurance companies SAY SO!”
And no one even remotely intelligent makes an anti-drug prohibition argument on the basis of my body, my choice.
Why is that? Are you saying that my body is not my choice? That your body is not your choice? I apologize for not being “remotely intelligent,” but I sincerely am asking, why doesn’t personal autonomy come into play? Drug abusers certainly affect insurance rates don’t they?
And all your other inane points work out similarly. The government can’t monitor your eating behavior or sexual habits, and, if it tried, those measures would be just as expensive and ineffective as drug prohibition. The cops and highway patrol are in a position to easily ticket your ass if you’re not wearing a helmet or seatbelt, making those laws very effective at relatively little expense.
Ah, so then your argument is “a law that is easily enforced is a good law.” I don’t get it. Are you saying that if it was somehow made cheap and easy to enforce restrictions on what adults can eat or how they’re having sex, that then those restrictions would be good to have?
Never give a troll a doctorate.
One of these pedicab drivers that works the Ms games likes to amuse his passengers by riding on just two wheels (the front and one of the rear wheels). In that case, I’d advocate helmets for all involved. Otherwise, a helmet seems like overkill.
Safer? Of course – but pedestrians would be safer with helmets as well, since some of them fall and bonk their heads. Again, though – overkill.
However, the pedicab drivers saying that wearing helmets would make customers think that the trikes are unsafe is such bullshit. The truth is that they just don’t want to look like a dork.
Can’t we compromise or something? Clearly both sides have great points, why not require a hat or something made out of wool? That way when the pedicab that’s been scientifically designed not to fall over if maintained property falls over their head will have some kind of protection, but they don’t have to look like a dork.
LJM # 37, most of your “slippery slope” rejoinders are NOT, in fact, things that impact insurance or government, with the possible exception of food. For example, it’s pretty well documented that partially hydrogenated oils are far worse for your health than the saturated fats we were all warned against 20 years ago, and HFCS is very questionable too. But if I follow your reasoning, people (and presumably the good old free market) ought to be allowed to consume it if they want, and it would be “nannyism” to support legislation banning these ingredients from food.
If I may be allowed to use your slippery slope reasoning, we ought not to support any law designed with public safety in mind because ultimately such laws tell adults what and what not to do. So traffic lights are nannyism because the government tells us when we can go through an intersection, when it ought to be left up to the vehicles that show up to sort out.
Now I’ve seen what you’ve actually written and know you don’t really support such a thing at all. But this is a good example of why the “slippery slope” argument is usually a poor one for supporting your case.
LJM, the short answer is that the individual benefits of not wearing a helmet are zero, and the social benefits of requiring helmets are greater than zero.
It’s moot anyway. The helmet law isn’t going anywhere, and nobody is going to make a special rule for these silly pedicabs.
we are not talking about creating new helmet laws.
a commercial business should follow any law that pertains.
it really has nothing to do with anything else.
Jesus fucking Christ, I’m so glad our police force and lawmakers have solved all the IMPORTANT problems and can spend their time and our tax money on asinine shit like keeping the 15 people who do this for a living safe.
Also, are aficionados of this service called pediphiles? If not, they should be.