No, no and NO! That’s dangerous, people!

As long as we are busy banning things, I don’t see why we should allow any potential hazard to remain in our lives.

Moreover, I’m thinking that the freshly convened Oregon Legislature will be trying mightily to ignore the rabid badger in its lap — i.e., the budget. That’s a no-win situation for any elected official, so lawmakers may well be ripe for some handy distractions. Like a safety crusade!

So, here are a few more bicycle-related bills that EugeneBicyclist lobbyists be pushing in the days ahead:

It shall be unlawful for any cyclist to undertake the transport of a banjo …

Or any item that could be (or could be mistaken for) a jousting lance …

Or perhaps that is actually a small surface-to-air missile.

Either way, we don’t like the looks of it. So, no. Not allowed.

Heck, let’s just make it no unsafe loads, in general.

Spotted on Coburg RoadWe’d also like to propose that it shall be illegal to have more than one milk crate on any one bicycle.

And for God’s sake, one cyclist shall not be permitted to propel more than one bicycle simultaneously.

Spotted on Pearl Street downtownWhat was this young man thinking? Clearly, he was not thinking about safety, was he? A $90 fine is what we are thinking. At least. Because, look — can you believe it? — he appears to be wearing headphones, as well.

One cyclist shall not be permitted to propel more than one bicycle simultaneously even if one of said bicycles has no wheels.

Need we explain the perils of this? I think not.

Also, it shall be unlawful to place in-your-face, holier-than-thou and/or sanctimonious signs or messages on your bike.

Spotted outside the libraryThese are not appropriate in the era of The New Civility.

We shall allow no handlebars oriented at cruel or impossible angles

Spotted outside Smith Family bookstoreCan you say “impaled”? No! We don’t condone bullfighting in this country, and we will not condone this.

No laminated decorative spoke cards …

which might possibly fly out and sever someone’s jugular.

No! This is a death machine in waiting.

And my God, I shudder to think of the horrid scenarios that could result from this activity:


No dangerously oversized baskets.

I mean, really. Is this person needing to portage a half dozen rabbits all at once?

Nor shall we permit baskets that look like they were formerly used as props on the set of “Survivor” …

And which could sag dangerously onto the front tire resulting in a friction and therefore fire hazard. The last thing we need out on our public highways are cyclists bursting into flames.

I think, also, that we can learn something from the corporate lawyers who are charged with protecting bicycle manufacturers from lawsuits. They must know something.

So, we will prohibit the riding of bicycles in the rain, just to be safe …

… and also at night, when it is known to get dark.

(!) This attorney even saw the need for an exclamation mark (!)

Oh, oh! And this! I almost forgot. How is it possible — how! — that this is still legal? After all these years?

“Look, Ma!” my ass. NO! End it now.

If you feel I’ve forgotten something, feel free to exercise your right to petition your government for a redress of grievances …

6 thoughts on “No, no and NO! That’s dangerous, people!

  1. All kidding aside, is it such a bad idea to have more SENSIBLE regulation of cycling?

    I am of the “vehicular cycling” camp, i.e., I ride my bike as a vehicle (as defined in Oregon Revised Statutes) and expect to be treated as such. I stop for red lights, I yield right-of-way where appropriate, etc. Daily, I see cyclists either clearly unaware of the rules of the road or defiant of them (campus area, I’m looking at you). I will say that it IS dangerous to ride a bike while having a dog on a leash, it IS bad PR to go through red lights while cars sit at the stop fuming. Cyclists as a class have no more common sense than the average motorist, and until we assertively and responsibly claim our legitimate place on the roadways we will always be treated as second-class citizens.

    At the same time the proposed ban on carrying kids is purist stupidity, blaming victims (responsible cyclists) for the actions of criminals (motorists who drive recklessly around cyclists). The criminal justice system enables the outlawry of the motorist by imposing the mildest of sanctions for wantonly killing and maiming cyclists in traffic; apparently, driving drunk is the only serious vehicular crime; mere negligence gets you a pass.

    1. skinner city,
      I generally agree with you. As I’ve written before, I’m annoyed by cyclists who more or less ignore a red light. It is PR (although it’s more than that, too).

      Yeah, the dog-on-leash shot here was actually the one that did give me some pause — for the dog’s sake if nothing else :)

  2. You sound like you want to be an inhibitor for anothers exciting day lived free to the best of their ability and choice.
    -if somebody wants to ride a bike, and you think they are riding like an idiot,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s