The Legislature is in Town -- Let the Craziness Begin

The 76th Legislative Session is underway. Legislators have selected their presiding officers, established the committee memberships, heard from the Governor, introduced hundreds of bills (most of which will go nowhere), and now are back home for about a month as a way to save money.

The plethora of bills that have been introduced range from key bills to which a significant number of legislators are committed to bills that are based on something that seemed like a good idea at the time to flat out wacky ideas. Examples of the wacky ideas from the past (the 1970s), include bills that would have allowed the placement of locks on prison cells only on the inside where they could be operated by the prisoners themselves,  prohibited the use of metal canes by the blind to prevent them from electrocuting themselves, and requiring the state Blind Commission to adopt a uniform color for guide dog harnesses so that a motorist would know that a pedestrian was blind if spotted walking stiffly alongside a dog wearing a guide dog harness that was of the particular designated color.

Introduction of a bill is one of the least significant things that occurs at the state legislature. All bills that are introduced are referred to a committee. If any consideration of passage is to be given the bill, then the committee will hold at least one hearing during which supporters and opponents of the bill can express their views. If there appears to be support on the committee for the bill, then, usually, amendments will be prepared responding any concerns raised during the hearing. Only after a majority of the committee members vote to move the amended bill forward does it go the floor of the originating chamber, (e.g., the House of Representatives). If the bill passes there, then it goes to the other chamber (e.g., the Senate) for consideration and the whole process of committee referral, hearings, consideration of amendments, and consideration of passage on the floor is repeated. (If the Senate were to amend the bill, then it would go back to the House for concurrence in the Senate's amendments.

The Portland biking community has just gone through a period of apoplexy over the introduction by Rep. Greenlick of HB 2228 to prohibit transporting young children on a bicycle. The representative is a progressive legislator who has worked hard on health issues during a his 10-year tenure in the legislature. He is a well-respected, thoughtful member of the legislature from northwest Portland. He has been supportive of bicycling and willing to work with the cycling community on issues important to the community.

Clearly HB 2228 is a non-starter. It is hard to imagine where any base of support could come from. Many in the cycling community feel strongly that it is no more dangerous to transport a child by bicycle than it is to do so by motor vehicle and crash statistics undoubtedly support that view. Additionally, while many people experience a high level of angst over the rare crash involving a young child and make calls for immediate governmental action to prevent it ever happening again, they tend to ignore the alternatives and the much more serious health consequences of an auto-dependent society--obesity, diabetes, and the heath impacts of poor air quality--with which we are confronted.

Unfortunately, however, many in the Portland biking community have not been able to approach this issue with respect or a sense of perspective and, as a result, risk alienating the very people whose support is needed to make cycling more safe and accessible for the rest of us. Some commentors on the BikePortland site have called for Rep. Greenlick's removal from office, some have called him nuts, and others have called him crazy. One commentor has even suggested that he owes her an apology for introducing the bill because, from her perspective, he has caused the cycling community irreparable  harm.

In actuality, any harm to the cycling community has come not from introduction of the bill, but from many cyclists' own intemperate response to it. It is reasonable and expected that cyclists express their opposition to the bill and, better yet, clearly and concisely describe why the bill is a bad idea. But, allowing a discussion to deteriorate to personal attacks on Rep. Greenlick, or any other member of the legislature, only works to alienate him and other legislators. The axiom that one can disagree, but should not be disagreeable applies in spades to legislative discussions.

The non-constructive reaction to HB 2228 probably is only the first opportunity that Portland cyclists will have to undercut efforts to secure a better legal environment for cycling. We should hold on to our hats for the reaction to the almost inevitable introduction of a bill proposing to register bicycles. That will give Portland-area cyclists yet another opportunity to alienate legislators over a bill that will have the same prospects of passage that bicycle registration bills have had during previous legislative sessions--next to zero.

While many good things have come from the Internet and the ability of just about anybody to share their thoughts with everybody else, there also is a downside. Those who post to news related forums enjoy a certain level of anonymity which may tend to prompt posting of more hostile, less constructive observations that would be the case if they were speaking face-to-face with others. Those who post don't necessarily need to know anything about the subject matter about which they are posting or have the ability to put the subject matter in context. Finally, while forums are intended to foster discussion, few posts demonstrate evidence that the poster read and thought about the preceding posts. While BikePortland is a wonderful source of information about cycling, certainly its forums demonstrate the downside of the medium.