Baltimore Spokes
Biking in Baltimore
Sign Up!
Welcome to Baltimore Spokes
Wednesday, November 25 2015 @ 06:11 AM UTC

HB 339 Required Use of Protective Headgear - Oppose

Bike LawsThis bill will require all cyclists but not moped riders to wear a helmet. (But § 21-1306.1 says moped rider must wear a helmet. So the moped bit is confusing/contradictory.)

1) I will add a new point to this discussion, motorcyclists get this with their mandatory helmet law:
§ 21-1306.1.(e) Failure to use required headgear; evidence; civil actions. --
  • (1) The failure of an individual to wear protective headgear required under subsection (b) of this section may not:
  • . (i) Be considered evidence of negligence;
  • . (ii) Be considered evidence of contributory negligence;
  • . (iii) Limit liability of a party or an insurer; or
  • . (iv) Diminish recovery for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or operation of a moped or motor scooter.

Cyclists should get that as well.

2) From my observations Maryland has a below average number of cyclists. We need to work on getting more cyclists, not making it more restrictive. For more points about Undesirable effects of mandatory helmet use.

3) WABA opposes: Why We Don’t Support Mandatory Helmet Laws

4) Bikeyface makes a great post on SERIOUS ABOUT SAFETY. Let's work down this list before we get to the last item, OK?

Main page:

Story Options


Trackback URL for this entry:

No trackback comments for this entry.


The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Nate Evens letter to Maryland delegates against House Bill 339 “Required Use of Protective Headgear.”
[ ]

My Account

Sign up as a New User
Lost your password?


Site Map


There are no upcoming events

Older Stories

Friday 09-Oct

Thursday 08-Oct

Tuesday 06-Oct

Sunday 04-Oct

Saturday 03-Oct

Thursday 01-Oct

Wednesday 30-Sep

Tuesday 29-Sep