Matthew Klahn
It's a semantic argument: how do you define safety. The word "safety"
doesn't have an implicit connotation of "from yourself" or "from
others":
1 the condition of being protected from or unlikely to cause danger,
risk, or injury :
So, if you want to say that the government doesn't have a
responsibility to protect you from yourself, then say that. Don't say
it has no responsibility to legislate safety, because it absolutely
does, unless you want to throw away 100+ years of laws that protect
workers from unsafe labor standards, food safety legislation, etc.
But, we're wandering far from the topic here...
Matthew
On Feb 27, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Mike Murray wrote:
> The responsibility of government is NOT to legislate safety. The
> responsibility of government is to protect the individual from being
> damaged
> by the actions of others. In the absence of a government the bigger
> guy
> gets to beat up the smaller guy. Governmental structures prevent
> this. It
> is not the government's job to protect individuals from their own
> actions.
>
> Mike Murray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Klahn [mailto:mklahn@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 21:20 PM
> To: mtypinski@aol.com
> Cc: mike.murray@obra.org; obra@list.obra.org
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I don't think you really mean this. One of the biggest
> responsibilities the gov't has, as a collective will of the people, is
> to legislate (and enforce) safety: safety from bad products, safety
> from outside invasion, safety from improper practices that enrich a
> few at the expense of the majority, etc. Well, OK, OK, they're
> _supposed_ to have those responsibilities, and you can argue that they
> are good at it or not.
>
> Perhaps what you meant was legislating personal responsibility?
> Though, there are a number of instances of laws to "force" people to
> act responsibly or face penalties; in fact, requiring car insurance is
> but one example of this. So, while I understand your sentiment, your
> statement doesn't jive with my very-out-of-date civics lessons.
>
> I do agree with Mike, though, on the point that such legislation makes
> cycling seem more unsafe than, say, crossing the street (where you can
> also have right-of-way violations by high-speed vehicles cause tragic
> accidents), when they are probably roughly equal in risk. At least in
> a major metropolitan area like Portland.
>
> Matthew
>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2008, at 7:33 PM, mtypinski@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I hate legislating safety. I'm an avid motorcyclist as well as bike
>> rider, and ALWAYS wear a full face on the moto and a good Gyro on
>> the bike (the helmet; not the tasty sandwich). I've been in decent
>> bash-ups on both, and was glad I was wearing it. Nonetheless, the
>> decision was mine to make, not the governments. Having said that,
>> I'm also in favor of insurance riders in the contract that require
>> much higher premiums unless you ride with appropriate gear, and if
>> you get into an accident without a lower payout. It should be your
>> decision, but Robert has a great point.
>>
>> On the other hand, Darwin had some good points too. Bombing down
>> Springville from Skyline without a helmet is sort of evolution/
>> natural selection in action.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mike Murray
>> To: 'OBRA List'
>> Sent: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 7:24 pm
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>>
>> The cost of providing medical care to people injured in bicycle
>> accidents that might have been mitigated by a helmet is truly a drop
>> in the ocean. This is just not a significant portion of health care
>> costs. Even if no one wore bike helmets there is no reason why
>> health insurance costs should go up related to this. In fact, this
>> is also true for motorcycle injuries. Seat belt use in cars does
>> reach the level of being a non-trivial cost but interestingly health
>> insurance and car insurance costs are not lower in states that
>> require seat belt use; the savings just go to the insurance
>> companies.
>>
>> The biggest problem with mandatory helmet laws is that it promotes
>> the idea that riding a bike is dangerous. Frankly, in the grand
>> scheme of things it is not all that more dangerous than many other
>> activities that we do without considering risk. People get hurt
>> doing lots of thing (thank goodness because that is what keeps me
>> employed). This false sense of danger keeps people from riding
>> bikes. As a society we would be far better off if we had more
>> people riding bikes, helmeted or not.
>> Mike Murray
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]
>> On Behalf Of Robert Burney
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 16:57 PM
>> To: 'Rick Johnson'; 'C M'
>> Cc: 'OBRA List'
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>>
>> Rick,
>> I would agree with you IF society did not pick up the tab for those
>> who survive their own decisions. We all pay higher medical
>> insurance costs for those who decide to go without health
>> insurance. If the rider is not killed for lack of a helmet, all our
>> health insurance rates go up for the extra medical care required for
>> the individual. This is true whether or not that rider has his own
>> health insurance.
>> If he/she does not have that insurance, all of us who do will pay
>> even more for our own insurance.
>> If that rider is crippled, Social Security disability insurance will
>> pay, which costs society even more.
>>
>> In short, I am all in favor of self determination so long as the
>> individual is not impacting others by their own decision. That is
>> rarely the case.
>>
>>
>> Robert Burney, JD
>> President
>>
>> RE Burney & Associates, Inc.
>> 8285 SW Nimbus Ave., Suite 124
>> Beaverton, OR 97008
>>
>> Brokerage of Life Insurance, Annuities,
>> Long Term Care and Disability Insurance.
>>
>> Office: 503-608-7813
>> Cell: 503-502-4289
>> EFax: 503-210-1595
>> Email: robert@reburney.com
>> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]
>> On Behalf Of Rick Johnson
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:44 PM
>> To: C M
>> Cc: OBRA List
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>>
>> Please speak for yourself only. I'm in favor of letting the
>> individual decide how valuable their brains are. If someone doesn't
>> think their gray matter is worth protecting I say let nature take
>> it's course.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> C M wrote:
>> I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, of us in OBRA land
>> are strongly in favor of wearing helemts and requiring others to do
>> the same. The question is how do we get the word out to the policy
>> makers ?
>> On 2/26/08, Mark J. Ginsberg wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> I don't disagree, but folks who study these things have reached
>> these conclusions.
>>
>> as for kids and helmets, in Oregon it is 16 and under. ors 814.488,
>> for those under 11 the adult gets the ticket, for those over 11, the
>> kid gets the ticket.
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Michael Benno wrote:
>> Mark, that is a good point if the cost of a helmet was significant.
>> However I would argue that point as being a barrier to owning a
>> helmet.
>>
>> New helmets are very affordable (under $40) and used helmets are
>> essentially free. I did a quick scan of craigslist and found several
>> helmets ranging in price from Free to $20 on the first page alone.
>> At what price were you thinking helmets would no longer be a barrier?
>>
>> Case in point: I had 4 excess helmets in my basement. These are all
>> top line race helmets (Giro, Bell, Lima, Lazer) with all with retail
>> prices over $90. I tried to sell them in craigslist for $10 each. No
>> bites! I posted them on craigslist for free, again no bites! I put
>> them on my curb and was only able to get rid of one (I live on a
>> bike route).
>>
>> Personally I think price is not a significant resitance to obtaining
>> them. Let me remind you all that kids under 10 are required to have
>> helmets for bikes, skateboards, scooters. So why not adults?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Mark J. Ginsberg markjginsberg@yahoo.com
>>
>> while it is not my personal view, the resistance to requiring
>> helmets, is that for those who can't afford much, adding an
>> additional requirement makes biking that much harder, and there are
>> studies that show that measurable amounts of people won't bike if
>> they must wear a helmet.
>>
>> so while I wear my helmet religiously, for a person who is just
>> getting started (who maybe needs a helmet the most), to force them
>> to wear a helmet can mean they don't even start riding a bike.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> Michael Benno wrote:
>> Personally, I applaud this effort and wish PDX would step up, as a
>> leader in the bicycle movement, and do the same. I'm not a safety
>> natzi or anything, but I just don't see the need to not require
>> helmets. I have three I'd be willing to donate to the cause.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: "jon.ragsdale@comcast.net"
>> To: obra@list.obra.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:40:49 PM
>> Subject: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>> There is a story on the front page of www.kgw.com reporting that
>> Vancouver has enacted a rule that in 30 days all cyclists will be
>> required to wear helmets. Full story:
> http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_022608_news_vancouver_helmet_law_b
> icycle.2edad9de.html
>>
>>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your
>> homepage._______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark J. Ginsberg
>> Attorney At Law
>> 1216 SE Belmont St.
>> Portland, OR 97214
>> (503) 542-3000
>> Fax (503) 233-6874
>> markjginsberg@yahoo.com
>> www.bikesafetylaw.com
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>> Try it now.
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark J. Ginsberg
>> Attorney At Law
>> 1216 SE Belmont St.
>> Portland, OR 97214
>> (503) 542-3000
>> Fax (503) 233-6874
>> markjginsberg@yahoo.com
>> www.bikesafetylaw.com
>> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
>> Try it now.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>> Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org