Senator Prozanski, to quote you from bikeportland.org:
"I guess maybe as I get older, I feel there are certain things we can do that enhance safety but at the same time not be over-burdening."
Your age or feelings are irrelevant to protecting the life and liberty of the people of Oregon.
Have you researched the *real effects* of mandatory helmet laws? There is no clear consensus that they are beneficial and there is actually plenty of evidence that they cause greater harm than good. They reduce the amount of cycling people do, which is the last thing we need right now considering the issues of global warming, traffic congestion, and obesity. Moreover, they promote the idea that cycling is dangerous -- it is not. Cycling is no more dangerous than walking or driving a car. Why don't we try requiring pedestrians and car drivers to wear helmets?
And don't you think our police already have enough ways to harass and inconvenience average people? Why should they focus on something that has been shown to be quite harmless instead of fighting crime?
It's also detestable that you are relying on the ignorance of the general public to get this passed. It's clear that you have not studied the issue in depth, and it's certainly common sense to assume that the average Oregonian has not either. From personal experience, I know that most cyclists are even ignorant of bicycle helmet statistics and studies. So why would you provide an opportunity for voters -- most of whom do not cycle much, many not at all -- to cause harm and curtail personal liberty in the name of paranoia and ignorance? This is tyranny of the majority, plain and simple.
We don't need you to harm and harass us with your misguided notions of protection. We don't need you to impose your ignorance upon us. Please inform yourself. Here are some good places to start:
Do helmets save lives? | Life and style | The Guardian
Why I Am Opposed to Mandatory Helmet Laws
Bicycle helmet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia