Joe Cipale

This article could set a record for reaching its Breidbart Index value (BI) in the shortest time possible. The BI is a value that measures the severity of spam (or in this case articles) over a 45-day period of time. (Go here for a cleaner definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index).

Given that there have been (at least) 75 articles over the course of 4 days here, this thread has been posted(?) to one group which leads us to a BI of:
BI = (75)^ 1/2 * (1 ) ~= 9

So we are a ways off form putting this into auto-cancel mode (the threshold is 20). ;)

~Sorry... what do you think us geeks do when we are waiting for things to finish?~

Which begs the next question of Kenji, what IS the breakdown of careers here in Obra by the numbers?

I'll get my coat...

Joe

C M wrote:

> Jon....good job with the original posting, as of this morning I count 71
> entries related to this topic, this may have set a record.
>
> On 2/26/08, jon.ragsdale@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > 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_bicycle.2edad9de.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OBRA mailing list
> > obra@list.obra.org
> > http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> >

gschreckchat@comcast.net

I like it, The ingenuity of stupidity. Basically, stupid people are stupid at everything except being stupid. Once again, you have brought clarity to my way of thinking. Keep up the good work. ;-)

--

George Schreck
gschreckchat@comcast.net
(503) 502-0425

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Greg Crane

> George you are so wrong! What kind of lawyer are you?
>
> This country was built on the theory of individual
> stupidity and that the collective stupidity of all
> individuals was superior to the bureaucratic stupidity
> of the government. Over the course of our nations
> history laws have been passed (for better or for
> worse) to mitigate our stupidity, some have been ruled
> unconstitutional and some not.
>
> But in the end the government has never been fully
> able to restrict stupidity, because stupid people are
> very ingenious in staying one or more steps ahead of
> the government. Thus proving that individual
> stupidity is a fundamental (some might even say God
> given)human right that no man can take away.
>
> Greg
> The sarcasm in this e-mail is made with 85% recycled
> material and the bitterness is derived from a 100%
> Fair Trade, Shade Grown joyless childhood.
>
>
>
> --- gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to
> > demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken
> > into separate pieces when I went over the top of my
> > bars and one had and entire side shaved down from
> > sliding along the road. The other two were more
> > "minor" in the they only had a crack up the side so
> > I might have survived in some way with some general
> > motor function.
> >
> > These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very
> > silly, as if taking laws that attempt to mitigate
> > the risks in certian activities violates our
> > liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental
> > right. The costs and benefits are balanced, and in
> > this case the cost of requiring helmets and brakes
> > seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The
> > fact is that society passes laws all the time with
> > respect to products and activities to protect us and
> > it always adds some cost. Some we like and some we
> > do not.
> > --
> >
> > George Schreck
> > gschreckchat@comcast.net
> > (503) 502-0425
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: "Jess Mace"
> >
> > > Michael-
> > > I work in the public health and epidemiology realm
> > and this is the main
> > > problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real
> > data concerning head
> > > trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> > > this is because it is extremely unethical to
> > establish a well powered
> > > epidemiologic study as it would require slamming
> > people's head into the
> > > ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> > > cohort study or double blind randomized control
> > study at various rates
> > > of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
> > >
> > > This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation
> > use on a regular
> > > basis, without recognizing the fact such data is
> > impossible to collect
> > > or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal
> > accounts and some
> > > times in public health policy, that is enough to
> > swing the tide.
> > >
> > > There are a few studies out there regarding
> > decreased traumatic brain
> > > injuries in children after helmet laws are
> > enacted, but they're not
> > > widely referenced due to measurement errors and
> > biased selection
> > > criteria if I remember correctly...the authors
> > recognize that it is a
> > > VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable
> > to enact a TBI).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jess C. Mace
> > > Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> > > for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> > > Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> > > Oregon Health & Science University
> > > 503.494.5886
> > >
> > > >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> > > I'll add my two cents to this.
> > >
> > > I have seen many, many "family groups" where the
> > kids are wearing
> > > helments and one or more adults are not. I believe
> > this sets up an
> > > image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a
> > couple of grown ups
> > > that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a
> > serious hit in the
> > > head.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, I have seen far too many people
> > who have donned
> > > their helmet and obviously equated it with some
> > sort of magic armor that
> > > allowed them to ride between traffic and parked
> > cars at 4 MPH, blithely
> > > unaware of their surroundings and the physics
> > behind getting run down by
> > > a 4000 pound car.
> > >
> > > It is my opinion that the term "skid lid"
> > definitely applies to bicycle
> > > helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but
> > when the plastic hits
> > > the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a
> > Snell Approved
> > > motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond
> > "..Well, it would have been
> > > worse without a helmet."
> > >
> > > The problem is simply one of common sense: riding
> > in traffic raises
> > > the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet
> > helps shave the odds a
> > > bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in
> > common sense. Case in
> > > point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels
> > on cars until someone
> > > pointed out that almost all cars came equipped
> > with 2-piece wheels.
> > >
> > > Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many
> > people on bicycles
> > > suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as
> > requiring admission to
> > > a hospital) with and without helmets?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: john
> > > To: obra@list.obra.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory
> > in Vancouver, WA
> > >
> > >
> > > I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and
> > against but
> > > personally i think we should require helmet use
> > for any sort of vehicle
> > > because most auto accidents involve head injury to
> > the occupants. Plus I
> > > know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel
> > more secure and safe
> > > (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little
> > more
> > > reckless(subconsciously or not).
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

C M

Jon....good job with the original posting, as of this morning I count 71
entries related to this topic, this may have set a record.

On 2/26/08, jon.ragsdale@comcast.net wrote:
>
> 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_bicycle.2edad9de.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

Steve Brown

Joe,

The little village established by the fur trading company on the
banks of the mighty Columbia is not the only town which I refer to as
something else besides it given name. The fact that the shortened
name is easier to say than Vancouver, USA to differentiate it from
the real Vancouver, (eh), is very helpful to all us international
types in Portland or Stumptown. In a state that is referred to as
Baja Washington or California's Canada.
What is next, a helmut law in Camas?

Steve Brown

On Feb 27, 2008, at 3:58 PM, Joe Cipale wrote:

> Steve Brown wrote:
>
>> My guess is that like most of the people who live in the Coov and
>> shop in Oregon, they will come to Oregon to ride without helmuts.
>>
>> Steve Brown
>
> Please... as of now.. stop this g*****n 'Coov' nonsense!
>
> Those of use from Washington (with the exception of a handful of
> moronic TV/Radio personalities) call the city by its proper name:
> Vancouver!
>
> This Coov BS is just that... BS.
>
> Thank you... We now return you to our current helmet rant...
>
>

Fergus

Good points on both sides of the argument.

I would like a choice regarding whether to wear a helmet. Part of
cycling to me is a sense of freedom and independence. Racing, as
well as commuting, entails risk analysis. These choices are part of
the challenge and excitement. I say to myself, "Ride Smart, Ride
Safe." Making the choices in order to be safe is one of the great
lessons one can take away from cycling. Making the choice to wear a
helmet is a great start in riding safe. Self-reliance comes with
risks, helmet or not.

Fergus

On Feb 26, 2008, at 2:40 PM, jon.ragsdale@comcast.net wrote:

> 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_bicycle.
> 2edad9de.html
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

George de Randich

I happen to be a silly neanderthal! I believe in safety, I wish that
bach in 1957 somebodr was pushing bicycle safety! It would have saved me
quite a bit of pain and my family quite a bit of expense in replacing my
caps every few years!!
Ordinarily I want government to stay out of my pockets and my life! But
in this case if you don't wear one if you get caught you should pay!

I think even Lance Armstrong might agree!

George Y. de Randich
27 February 2008.

XXX

On Wed, February 27, 2008 10:01 am, Jack Bennett wrote:
> While I appreciate people's concerns for our liberty, I humbly submit that
> you're looking at the wrong Washington as the problem. The truly important
> liberties in this country -- freedom of speech, trial by jury, protection
> against unreasonable search and seizure ... you know the drill -- are in
> real danger these days.
>
> I think it's misguided to get all upset about your right to turn yourself
> into a bloody pulp at others' expense. Requiring you to wear a helmet as
> an intrusion on your freedom pales beside warrantless wiretapping,
> arbitrary classification of people as enemy combatants, Guantanamo Bay,
> etc. You're concerned about liberty? Direct your energy at the real
> problem.
>
> Jack
>
>
> gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote: Well, I have five broken helmets that
> seem to demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken into separate
> pieces when I went over the top of my bars and one had and entire side
> shaved down from sliding along the road. The other two were more "minor"
> in the they only had a crack up the side so I might have survived in some
> way with some general motor function.
>
> These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if taking
> laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities violates
> our liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right. The costs
> and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of requiring helmets
> and brakes seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The fact is
> that society passes laws all the time with respect to products and
> activities to protect us and it always adds some cost. Some we like and
> some we do not.
> --
>
> George Schreck
> gschreckchat@comcast.net
> (503) 502-0425
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Jess Mace"
>
>> Michael-
>> I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
>> problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
>> trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
>> this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
>> epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
>> ground with and without helmets in a prospective
>> cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
>> of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>>
>> This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
>> basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
>> or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
>> times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>>
>> There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
>> injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
>> widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
>> criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
>> VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jess C. Mace
>> Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
>> for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
>> Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
>> Oregon Health & Science University
>> 503.494.5886
>>
>> >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
>> I'll add my two cents to this.
>>
>> I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
>> helments and one or more a dults are not. I believe this sets up an
>> image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
>> that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
>> head.
>>
>> On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
>> their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
>> allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
>> unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
>> a 4000 pound car.
>>
>> It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
>> helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
>> the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
>> motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
>> worse without a helmet."
>>
>> The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
>> the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
>> bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
>> point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
>> pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>>
>> Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
>> suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
>> a hospital) with and without helmets?
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: john
>> To: obra@list.obra.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>>
>>
>> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
>> personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
>> because most auto accidents invol ve head injury to the occupants.
>> Plus I
>> know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
>> (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
>> reckless(subconsciously or not).
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> .................................
> Jack Bennett
> bennett.jack@yahoo.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
>

--
George Y. de Randich

--
George Y. de Randich

Joe Cipale

The ONLY time I am going to weigh in on this cluster...

One of the BIGGEST issues of the last 30 years has been driver's education. Back 20 years ago, the powers that be (ignorant fools as I prefer to call them) decided that teaching students how to drive on the road was a waste of time. A few years later, school districts stopped teaching drivers education altogether. Now, if a student wants to learn to drive, they must go to Sears/ACME/Bobbaganoosh School of Driving Etiquette and Airline/Culinary Academy.

The bare minimum is being taught on what the rules of the road are, let alone such topics as driving defensively. Chief among those is 'knowing your surrondings'. Being aware that others are sharing the road with you - be they other cars, buses, or even cyclists is not your worry.

Enough of my rant. Time to killfile this thread and go out and ride.

Monty Hill wrote:

> To me making this a law speaks to the attitude of the average non-cyclist, that it is always the cyclist's fault he/she got injured or killed.
>
> It is so indicative of the prevailing attitude, "riding a bike is so dangerous" well the only reason I wear yellow, or strap on the lights or yes even wear a helmet is because there are so many vehicles on the road piloted by people who are just not aware of us or even don't care. It is not their life in jeopardy.
>
> Case in point after the young boy was murdered by the tri-met driver the news gave a lot of coverage to the mother who stated that they always talked about riding safety. This really frustrates me. Why did they not interview the drivers mother to ask her how she was taught about safety. Remember the facts of the case at the time were unknown, but the assumption was that they boy was just not riding safely enough. When driving a 10,000lb vehicle across a bike path maybe I should double check that there is not a cyclist. If it were a train line I might double check, but a bike lane? I am sure the driver is traumatized but the prevailing attitude is pre-meditated and remorse is not a remedy to the issue.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Monty Hill

To me making this a law speaks to the attitude of the average non-cyclist, that it is always the cyclist's fault he/she got injured or killed.

It is so indicative of the prevailing attitude, "riding a bike is so dangerous" well the only reason I wear yellow, or strap on the lights or yes even wear a helmet is because there are so many vehicles on the road piloted by people who are just not aware of us or even don't care. It is not their life in jeopardy.

Case in point after the young boy was murdered by the tri-met driver the news gave a lot of coverage to the mother who stated that they always talked about riding safety. This really frustrates me. Why did they not interview the drivers mother to ask her how she was taught about safety. Remember the facts of the case at the time were unknown, but the assumption was that they boy was just not riding safely enough. When driving a 10,000lb vehicle across a bike path maybe I should double check that there is not a cyclist. If it were a train line I might double check, but a bike lane? I am sure the driver is traumatized but the prevailing attitude is pre-meditated and remorse is not a remedy to the issue.

Joe Cipale

Greg Crane wrote:

> But in the end the government has never been fully
> able to restrict stupidity, because stupid people are
> very ingenious in staying one or more steps ahead of
> the government. Thus proving that individual
> stupidity is a fundamental (some might even say God
> given)human right that no man can take away.
>

When Man legislates a better mouse trap,
God creates a better mouse... or dumber human.

Rick Johnson

While we're trading anecdotes -



I have motorcycled well over 500,000 miles in my life covering
something like 20 countries. While I was wearing a helmet greater than
99% of the time there was only one occasion where the helmet saved me
from injury. On that occasion the helmet was strapped to the side of
the bike and it saved my leg from injury when I was hit from behind by
another motorcycle and knocked over.



The point? Anecdotes don't prove anything. That's why the term
"anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron.



Rick



Jess Mace wrote:

those are the anecdotal accounts I speak of..I've got two helmets myself

with trophy cracks hanging in my basement...

I firmly believe I would have been in the trauma ward for one of those

falls if it weren't for the helmet..

just think, by enlarge people thought smoking wasn't unhealthy 50 years

ago...sadly, change happens one funeral at a time.

Jess C. Mace

Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator 

for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

Oregon Health & Science University

503.494.5886

  

<gschreckchat@comcast.net> 2/27/2008 9:34 AM >>>

        

Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to demonstrate a viable

link.  Two of them were broken into separate pieces when I went over the

top of my bars and one had and entire side shaved down from sliding

along the road.  The other two were more "minor" in the they only had a

crack up the side so I might have survived in some way with some general

motor function.

These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if

taking laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities

violates our liberty.  Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right. 

The costs and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of

requiring helmets and brakes seems minor compared to the potential

injuries.  The fact is that society passes laws all the time with

respect to products and activities to protect us and it always adds some

cost.  Some we like and some we do not.  

--

George Schreck 

gschreckchat@comcast.net 

(503) 502-0425

-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: "Jess Mace" <macej@ohsu.edu> 

  

Michael- 

I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the

    

main 

  

problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head

    

trauma in the ED and helmet usage... 

this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered

    

epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into

    

the 

  

ground with and without helmets in a prospective 

cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various

    

rates 

  

of speed...would you sign up to be in it? 

This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular 

basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to

    

collect 

  

or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some 

times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide. 

There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain

    

injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not 

widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection 

criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a

    

VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI). 

Jess C. Mace 

Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator 

for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH 

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery 

Oregon Health & Science University 

503.494.5886 

    

"Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>> 

          

I'll add my two cents to this. 

I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing 

helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an 

image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown

    

ups 

  

that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the

    

head. 

On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned 

their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor

    

that 

  

allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH,

    

blithely 

  

unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down

    

by 

  

a 4000 pound car. 

It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to

    

bicycle 

  

helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits

    

the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved 

motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have

    

been 

  

worse without a helmet." 

The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises 

the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a

    

bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in

    

point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until

    

someone 

  

pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels. 

Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles

    

suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission

    

to 

  

a hospital) with and without helmets? 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: john 

To: obra@list.obra.org 

Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM 

Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA 

I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but 

personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of

    

vehicle 

  

because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants.

    

Plus I 

  

know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe 

(subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more 

reckless(subconsciously or not). 

_______________________________________________ 

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

  

Greg Crane

George you are so wrong! What kind of lawyer are you?

This country was built on the theory of individual
stupidity and that the collective stupidity of all
individuals was superior to the bureaucratic stupidity
of the government. Over the course of our nations
history laws have been passed (for better or for
worse) to mitigate our stupidity, some have been ruled
unconstitutional and some not.

But in the end the government has never been fully
able to restrict stupidity, because stupid people are
very ingenious in staying one or more steps ahead of
the government. Thus proving that individual
stupidity is a fundamental (some might even say God
given)human right that no man can take away.

Greg
The sarcasm in this e-mail is made with 85% recycled
material and the bitterness is derived from a 100%
Fair Trade, Shade Grown joyless childhood.

--- gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote:

> Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to
> demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken
> into separate pieces when I went over the top of my
> bars and one had and entire side shaved down from
> sliding along the road. The other two were more
> "minor" in the they only had a crack up the side so
> I might have survived in some way with some general
> motor function.
>
> These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very
> silly, as if taking laws that attempt to mitigate
> the risks in certian activities violates our
> liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental
> right. The costs and benefits are balanced, and in
> this case the cost of requiring helmets and brakes
> seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The
> fact is that society passes laws all the time with
> respect to products and activities to protect us and
> it always adds some cost. Some we like and some we
> do not.
> --
>
> George Schreck
> gschreckchat@comcast.net
> (503) 502-0425
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "Jess Mace"
>
> > Michael-
> > I work in the public health and epidemiology realm
> and this is the main
> > problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real
> data concerning head
> > trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> > this is because it is extremely unethical to
> establish a well powered
> > epidemiologic study as it would require slamming
> people's head into the
> > ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> > cohort study or double blind randomized control
> study at various rates
> > of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
> >
> > This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation
> use on a regular
> > basis, without recognizing the fact such data is
> impossible to collect
> > or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal
> accounts and some
> > times in public health policy, that is enough to
> swing the tide.
> >
> > There are a few studies out there regarding
> decreased traumatic brain
> > injuries in children after helmet laws are
> enacted, but they're not
> > widely referenced due to measurement errors and
> biased selection
> > criteria if I remember correctly...the authors
> recognize that it is a
> > VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable
> to enact a TBI).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jess C. Mace
> > Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> > for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> > Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> > Oregon Health & Science University
> > 503.494.5886
> >
> > >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> > I'll add my two cents to this.
> >
> > I have seen many, many "family groups" where the
> kids are wearing
> > helments and one or more adults are not. I believe
> this sets up an
> > image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a
> couple of grown ups
> > that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a
> serious hit in the
> > head.
> >
> > On the other hand, I have seen far too many people
> who have donned
> > their helmet and obviously equated it with some
> sort of magic armor that
> > allowed them to ride between traffic and parked
> cars at 4 MPH, blithely
> > unaware of their surroundings and the physics
> behind getting run down by
> > a 4000 pound car.
> >
> > It is my opinion that the term "skid lid"
> definitely applies to bicycle
> > helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but
> when the plastic hits
> > the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a
> Snell Approved
> > motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond
> "..Well, it would have been
> > worse without a helmet."
> >
> > The problem is simply one of common sense: riding
> in traffic raises
> > the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet
> helps shave the odds a
> > bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in
> common sense. Case in
> > point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels
> on cars until someone
> > pointed out that almost all cars came equipped
> with 2-piece wheels.
> >
> > Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many
> people on bicycles
> > suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as
> requiring admission to
> > a hospital) with and without helmets?
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: john
> > To: obra@list.obra.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory
> in Vancouver, WA
> >
> >
> > I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and
> against but
> > personally i think we should require helmet use
> for any sort of vehicle
> > because most auto accidents involve head injury to
> the occupants. Plus I
> > know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel
> more secure and safe
> > (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little
> more
> > reckless(subconsciously or not).
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Jess Mace

those are the anecdotal accounts I speak of..I've got two helmets myself
with trophy cracks hanging in my basement...
I firmly believe I would have been in the trauma ward for one of those
falls if it weren't for the helmet..

just think, by enlarge people thought smoking wasn't unhealthy 50 years
ago...sadly, change happens one funeral at a time.

Jess C. Mace
Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Oregon Health & Science University
503.494.5886

>>> 2/27/2008 9:34 AM >>>
Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to demonstrate a viable
link. Two of them were broken into separate pieces when I went over the
top of my bars and one had and entire side shaved down from sliding
along the road. The other two were more "minor" in the they only had a
crack up the side so I might have survived in some way with some general
motor function.

These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if
taking laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities
violates our liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right.
The costs and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of
requiring helmets and brakes seems minor compared to the potential
injuries. The fact is that society passes laws all the time with
respect to products and activities to protect us and it always adds some
cost. Some we like and some we do not.
--

George Schreck
gschreckchat@comcast.net
(503) 502-0425

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jess Mace"

> Michael-
> I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the
main
> problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head

> trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered

> epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into
the
> ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various
rates
> of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>
> This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
> basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to
collect
> or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
> times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>
> There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain

> injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
> widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
> criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a

> VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>
>
>
>
>
> Jess C. Mace
> Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> Oregon Health & Science University
> 503.494.5886
>
> >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> I'll add my two cents to this.
>
> I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
> helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an
> image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown
ups
> that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the

> head.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
> their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor
that
> allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH,
blithely
> unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down
by
> a 4000 pound car.
>
> It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to
bicycle
> helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits

> the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
> motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have
been
> worse without a helmet."
>
> The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
> the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a

> bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in

> point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until
someone
> pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>
> Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles

> suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission
to
> a hospital) with and without helmets?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
> personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of
vehicle
> because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants.
Plus I
> know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
> (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
> reckless(subconsciously or not).
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Steve Brown

My guess is that like most of the people who live in the Coov and
shop in Oregon, they will come to Oregon to ride without helmuts.

Steve Brown
On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Haverty, Chris wrote:

> You mean a Skid-Lid. I raced in one in the 80's when most everyone
> else (in the US) was wearing a leather "hair net". I remember how
> heavy that thing was - it must have been like 4 lbs.
>
> steve garcia wrote:
> Hey, does anyone remember what a Sid-Lid was. I still have mine,
> it's red with a visor.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Cipale
> To: john
> Cc: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:24:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
> john wrote:
>
> > Not wearing a helmet is actually less expensive for "society".
> Burial is relatively cheap whereas if you have a helmet on more
> likely to have long term brain injury.. plus there is a rebate if
> you are an organ donor. And along those lines someone here at
> work just told me that I could probably even get some to pay me to
> ride... morbid people...
> >
> > Seriously, my motorcycle insurance is really inexpensive, and
> i've been told (this means it might not be true), it's because:
> > 1. less likely to be medical bills because more likely you will
> be dead.
> > 2. less or little damage to equipment.
> >
> > If Vancouver or anyplace USA were really serious about safety
> they would increase education.
>
> What? Apply rational thought and commonsense to the equation? You
> must be one of those goldarned elitist Left-Wingers! :^)
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search._______________________________________________
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Haverty, Chris

You mean a Skid-Lid. I raced in one in the 80's when most everyone else (in the US) was wearing a leather "hair net". I remember how heavy that thing was - it must have been like 4 lbs.

steve garcia wrote: Hey, does anyone remember what a Sid-Lid was. I still have mine, it's red with a visor.

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Cipale
To: john
Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:24:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

john wrote:

> Not wearing a helmet is actually less expensive for "society". Burial is relatively cheap whereas if you have a helmet on more likely to have long term brain injury.. plus there is a rebate if you are an organ donor. And along those lines someone here at work just told me that I could probably even get some to pay me to ride... morbid people...
>
> Seriously, my motorcycle insurance is really inexpensive, and i've been told (this means it might not be true), it's because:
> 1. less likely to be medical bills because more likely you will be dead.
> 2. less or little damage to equipment.
>
> If Vancouver or anyplace USA were really serious about safety they would increase education.

What? Apply rational thought and commonsense to the equation? You must be one of those goldarned elitist Left-Wingers! :^)
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search._______________________________________________
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.

steve garcia

Hey, does anyone remember what a Sid-Lid was. I still have mine, it's red with a visor.

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe Cipale
To: john
Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:24:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

john wrote:

> Not wearing a helmet is actually less expensive for "society". Burial is relatively cheap whereas if you have a helmet on more likely to have long term brain injury.. plus there is a rebate if you are an organ donor. And along those lines someone here at work just told me that I could probably even get some to pay me to ride... morbid people...
>
> Seriously, my motorcycle insurance is really inexpensive, and i've been told (this means it might not be true), it's because:
> 1. less likely to be medical bills because more likely you will be dead.
> 2. less or little damage to equipment.
>
> If Vancouver or anyplace USA were really serious about safety they would increase education.

What? Apply rational thought and commonsense to the equation? You must be one of those goldarned elitist Left-Wingers! :^)
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

Joe Cipale

john wrote:

> Not wearing a helmet is actually less expensive for "society". Burial is relatively cheap whereas if you have a helmet on more likely to have long term brain injury.. plus there is a rebate if you are an organ donor. And along those lines someone here at work just told me that I could probably even get some to pay me to ride... morbid people...
>
> Seriously, my motorcycle insurance is really inexpensive, and i've been told (this means it might not be true), it's because:
> 1. less likely to be medical bills because more likely you will be dead.
> 2. less or little damage to equipment.
>
> If Vancouver or anyplace USA were really serious about safety they would increase education.

What? Apply rational thought and commonsense to the equation? You must be one of those goldarned elitist Left-Wingers! :^)

Neil Green

What about Froggs???

What else can we talk about?

Neil

john

Not wearing a helmet is actually less expensive for "society". Burial is relatively cheap whereas if you have a helmet on more likely to have long term brain injury.. plus there is a rebate if you are an organ donor. And along those lines someone here at work just told me that I could probably even get some to pay me to ride... morbid people...

Seriously, my motorcycle insurance is really inexpensive, and i've been told (this means it might not be true), it's because:
1. less likely to be medical bills because more likely you will be dead.
2. less or little damage to equipment.

If Vancouver or anyplace USA were really serious about safety they would increase education.

----- Original Message ----
From: Duncan Hay
To: David Hart
Cc: obra
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

I don't understand how this is even open for debate. You bring up the issue that helmets should be an option for those of us over the age of 18. Let's face it, a 19 year old is no more sensible than an 18 year old, and he is equally, if not more likely to get hit by a car. I am completely for personal choices, but unfortunately, helmets aren't simply about one's personal safety. If someone is hit by a car and is injured without paying a helmet, and is without health insurance, who pays for it? The taxpayers. Now, those same taxpayers theoretically are responsible for passing laws, and why would we ever want to have to pay for others "personal choices." So I say, screw personal rights and let's start thinking about safety, it's your personal responsibility to wear a helmet, so you aren't mopping up your brains, and so someone else isn't paying for the mop.

2008/2/26 David Hart :

post #24, how many more?

I would say the law is good for those under 18. If you chose not to wear a helmet when you are an adult, that's your personal choice. Being older and maybe a little wiser and maybe being an auto claims adjuster, I think the same for seatbelts. BUT more injuries in autos makes your rates go up. So to be honest, I take my lid off when I am on a bike trail on a hot day. It's just nice to have the wind over my near-balded head. Now when I am on the open road, you bet I got my lid on.

For a fun note, I crashed my bmx bike when I was 15 on good ol asphalt. Wearing shorts, no shirt, no helmet and bombing down a hill when I went a$$ over tea kettle. I had one scratch on my head but broke my arm in 6 places and had road rash from my shin to my hip.

"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"

good point too, I concur

2008/2/26 :

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_bicycle.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

--
Duncan Hay

Rubber side down.

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Erik Long

Right ON, Mike!

> From: mike.murray@obra.org
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:09:37 -0800
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008

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

Mike Murray

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

Donald Reeb

Gary for president !

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 27, 2008, at 7:27 AM, "Gary Malcolm"
wrote:

> One More?
>
>
>
> This argument is ridiculous.
>
>
>
> By the same logic we should outlaw insurance (hmmm…) and while
> you’re at it outlaw those cancerous rays from the sun too, for all t
> he good that will do.
>
>
>
> I cry crocodile tears for your poor burdened wallet that so needs to
> be padded by nibbling away at any whim of liberty I might dream of
> having. Why don’t I just send you money and then wrap myself in pill
> ows and duct tape? Equating the control of personal behavior with a
> monetary value is a disgusting, pandering, covetous and apparently,
> all-american pastime, but is still not worthy of regard by free men
> and women.
>
>
>
> By my level of sarcasm you might be able to tell that I tire of
> having self elected nannies dictate my life. Haven’t you?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Gary Malcolm
>
>
>
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org]
> On Behalf Of Robert Burney
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 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_bicycle.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

donaldreeb@juno.com

One More?

This argument is ridiculous.

By the same logic we should outlaw insurance (hmmm...) and while you're
at it outlaw those cancerous rays from the sun too, for all the good
that will do.

I cry crocodile tears for your poor burdened wallet that so needs to be
padded by nibbling away at any whim of liberty I might dream of having.
Why don't I just send you money and then wrap myself in pillows and duct
tape? Equating the control of personal behavior with a monetary value is
a disgusting, pandering, covetous and apparently, all-american pastime,
but is still not worthy of regard by free men and women.

By my level of sarcasm you might be able to tell that I tire of having
self elected nannies dictate my life. Haven't you?

Regards,

Gary Malcolm

________________________________

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Burney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 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_l
aw_bicycle.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

Jack Bennett

While I appreciate people's concerns for our liberty, I humbly submit that you're looking at the wrong Washington as the problem. The truly important liberties in this country -- freedom of speech, trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure ... you know the drill -- are in real danger these days.

I think it's misguided to get all upset about your right to turn yourself into a bloody pulp at others' expense. Requiring you to wear a helmet as an intrusion on your freedom pales beside warrantless wiretapping, arbitrary classification of people as enemy combatants, Guantanamo Bay, etc. You're concerned about liberty? Direct your energy at the real problem.

Jack

gschreckchat@comcast.net wrote: Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken into separate pieces when I went over the top of my bars and one had and entire side shaved down from sliding along the road. The other two were more "minor" in the they only had a crack up the side so I might have survived in some way with some general motor function.

These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if taking laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities violates our liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right. The costs and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of requiring helmets and brakes seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The fact is that society passes laws all the time with respect to products and activities to protect us and it always adds some cost. Some we like and some we do not.
--

George Schreck
gschreckchat@comcast.net
(503) 502-0425

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jess Mace"

> Michael-
> I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
> problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
> trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
> epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
> ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
> of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>
> This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
> basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
> or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
> times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>
> There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
> injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
> widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
> criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
> VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>
>
>
>
>
> Jess C. Mace
> Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> Oregon Health & Science University
> 503.494.5886
>
> >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> I'll add my two cents to this.
>
> I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
> helments and one or more a dults are not. I believe this sets up an
> image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
> that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
> head.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
> their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
> allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
> unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
> a 4000 pound car.
>
> It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
> helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
> the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
> motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
> worse without a helmet."
>
> The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
> the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
> bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
> point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
> pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>
> Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
> suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
> a hospital) with and without helmets?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
> personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
> because most auto accidents invol ve head injury to the occupants. Plus I
> know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
> (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
> reckless(subconsciously or not).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

.................................
Jack Bennett
bennett.jack@yahoo.com
.................................

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

gschreckchat@comcast.net

Well, I have five broken helmets that seem to demonstrate a viable link. Two of them were broken into separate pieces when I went over the top of my bars and one had and entire side shaved down from sliding along the road. The other two were more "minor" in the they only had a crack up the side so I might have survived in some way with some general motor function.

These arguments against brakes and helmets seem very silly, as if taking laws that attempt to mitigate the risks in certian activities violates our liberty. Sorry, but stupidity is not a fundamental right. The costs and benefits are balanced, and in this case the cost of requiring helmets and brakes seems minor compared to the potential injuries. The fact is that society passes laws all the time with respect to products and activities to protect us and it always adds some cost. Some we like and some we do not.
--

George Schreck
gschreckchat@comcast.net
(503) 502-0425

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jess Mace"

> Michael-
> I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
> problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
> trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
> this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
> epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
> ground with and without helmets in a prospective
> cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
> of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>
> This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
> basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
> or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
> times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>
> There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
> injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
> widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
> criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
> VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>
>
>
>
>
> Jess C. Mace
> Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
> for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
> Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
> Oregon Health & Science University
> 503.494.5886
>
> >>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
> I'll add my two cents to this.
>
> I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
> helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an
> image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
> that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
> head.
>
> On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
> their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
> allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
> unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
> a 4000 pound car.
>
> It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
> helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
> the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
> motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
> worse without a helmet."
>
> The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
> the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
> bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
> point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
> pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>
> Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
> suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
> a hospital) with and without helmets?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
> personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
> because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants. Plus I
> know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
> (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
> reckless(subconsciously or not).
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Rick C Johnson

Jess,
That addresses the problems with studies comparing the effectiveness of
helmets in reducing injury severity in specific cases. However, since
may of the proponents of helmet laws seem fond of citing the public
burden argument are there studies you can reference showing the overall
number of head injury cases relative to each other? Example, for
comparable populations the number of head injuries while bicycling vs
auto accidents vs equestrian activities vs falls in the home, etc?

Rick

Jess Mace wrote:

>Michael-
>I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
>problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
>trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
>this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
>epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
>ground with and without helmets in a prospective
>cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
>of speed...would you sign up to be in it?
>
>This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
>basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
>or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
>times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.
>
>There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
>injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
>widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
>criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
>VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).
>
>
>
>
>
>Jess C. Mace
>Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
>for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
>Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
>Oregon Health & Science University
>503.494.5886
>
>
>
>>>>"Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>>
>I'll add my two cents to this.
>
>I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
>helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an
>image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
>that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
>head.
>
>On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
>their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
>allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
>unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
>a 4000 pound car.
>
>It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
>helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
>the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
>motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
>worse without a helmet."
>
>The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
>the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
>bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
>point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
>pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.
>
>Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
>suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
>a hospital) with and without helmets?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: john
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
>
> I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
>personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
>because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants. Plus I
>know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
>(subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
>reckless(subconsciously or not).
>
>_______________________________________________
>OBRA mailing list
>obra@list.obra.org
>http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
>

Chris Shultz

For both motorcycles and bicycles, the law should allow a choice: Either (1)
you wear a helmet, OR (2) you post a bond of sufficient value to keep you in
a vegetative state for, let's say, 25 years.

Then the person who values "choice" can choose to put up their own resources
(not the taxpayers' resources) and enjoy their freedom go to helmetless.

And there would need to be a sticker, big enough for the police to see, if
you want to post a bond and not wear a helmet.

-- Chris

Jess Mace

Michael-
I work in the public health and epidemiology realm and this is the main
problem with helmet advocacy...there is NO real data concerning head
trauma in the ED and helmet usage...
this is because it is extremely unethical to establish a well powered
epidemiologic study as it would require slamming people's head into the
ground with and without helmets in a prospective
cohort study or double blind randomized control study at various rates
of speed...would you sign up to be in it?

This fact is what opponents of helmet legislation use on a regular
basis, without recognizing the fact such data is impossible to collect
or accurately measure. all we have in anecdotal accounts and some
times in public health policy, that is enough to swing the tide.

There are a few studies out there regarding decreased traumatic brain
injuries in children after helmet laws are enacted, but they're not
widely referenced due to measurement errors and biased selection
criteria if I remember correctly...the authors recognize that it is a
VERY difficult thing to measure (too many variable to enact a TBI).

Jess C. Mace
Clinical Outcomes Research Coordinator
for Timothy Smith, MD, MPH
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Oregon Health & Science University
503.494.5886

>>> "Michael O'Hair" 2/26/2008 6:37 PM >>>
I'll add my two cents to this.

I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing
helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an
image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups
that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the
head.

On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned
their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that
allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely
unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by
a 4000 pound car.

It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle
helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits
the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved
motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been
worse without a helmet."

The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises
the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a
bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in
point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone
pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.

Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles
suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to
a hospital) with and without helmets?

----- Original Message -----
From: john
To: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but
personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle
because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants. Plus I
know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe
(subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more
reckless(subconsciously or not).

Steve Brown

As long as everyone is getting a say in this I might as well go for
it. I spent a little time as a the Director of Safety for a steel
fabricator in the late 70's, just when OSHA as starting to get some
acceptance in the workplace. One of the most basic issues at the
time was wearing hard hats. The argument against it was, how is this
plastic helmut going to protect me against a steel beam falling on
me". The helmut was about visibility to other workers, being
protected against minor and survivable accidents, and about always
acting safely. Just two weeks ago I had to visit Pacific Veneer in
Aberdeen, WA. Before we conducted any business, I was given a five
minute safety talk. You do not know how good that made me feel that
this company was practicing safety first. It was not just a slogan.
Wear the damn helmut, safety has a lot more to do with an overall
approach than a single item. Last summer at geeger natz, in
Pennsylvania, I learned that I could ride a motorcycle without a
helmut but could not buy beer at a grocery store. For my money, I
would rather be protecting from the bike rather than the beer.

Steve Brown
On Feb 27, 2008, at 8:02 AM, Jay Rideout wrote:

> Hey Gary,
> Just another attempt at social engineering... dictated by our
> pocketbook. Anyway, on the other item, as unfortunate as it may
> seem, our safety/laws/engineering applications (planes, trains,
> automobiles, and bicycles) are all designed balancing safety and
> economics.
>
> The sad thing is there are people making everyday decisions about
> how we are to live our lives based on the most extreme ends of the
> bell curve (1/1,000,000) instead of following a more common sense
> approach... hmmmm, is common sense an uncommon attribute?
> Best,
> Jay
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gary Malcolm
> To: OBRA List
> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:27:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA
>
> One More?
>
>
> This argument is ridiculous.
>
>
> By the same logic we should outlaw insurance (hmmm…) and while
> you’re at it outlaw those cancerous rays from the sun too, for all
> the good that will do.
>
>
> I cry crocodile tears for your poor burdened wallet that so needs
> to be padded by nibbling away at any whim of liberty I might dream
> of having. Why don’t I just send you money and then wrap myself in
> pillows and duct tape? Equating the control of personal behavior
> with a monetary value is a disgusting, pandering, covetous and
> apparently, all-american pastime, but is still not worthy of regard
> by free men and women.
>
>
> By my level of sarcasm you might be able to tell that I tire of
> having self elected nannies dictate my life. Haven’t you?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Gary Malcolm
>
>
> From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-
> bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Robert Burney
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 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_bicycle.
> 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
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
> Search.
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Jay Rideout

Hey Gary,
Just another attempt at social engineering... dictated by our pocketbook. Anyway, on the other item, as unfortunate as it may seem, our safety/laws/engineering applications (planes, trains, automobiles, and bicycles) are all designed balancing safety and economics.

The sad thing is there are people making everyday decisions about how we are to live our lives based on the most extreme ends of the bell curve (1/1,000,000) instead of following a more common sense approach... hmmmm, is common sense an uncommon attribute?
Best,
Jay

----- Original Message ----
From: Gary Malcolm
To: OBRA List
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:27:10 AM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

One More?

This argument is ridiculous.

By the same logic we should outlaw insurance (hmmm…) and while you’re at it outlaw those cancerous rays from the sun too, for all the good that will do.

I cry crocodile tears for your poor burdened wallet that so needs to be padded by nibbling away at any whim of liberty I might dream of having. Why don’t I just send you money and then wrap myself in pillows and duct tape? Equating the control of personal behavior with a monetary value is a disgusting, pandering, covetous and apparently, all-american pastime, but is still not worthy of regard by free men and women.

By my level of sarcasm you might be able to tell that I tire of having self elected nannies dictate my life. Haven’t you?

Regards,

Gary Malcolm

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On Behalf Of Robert Burney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 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_bicycle.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

-----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 home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Gary Malcolm

One More?

This argument is ridiculous.

By the same logic we should outlaw insurance (hmmm...) and while you're
at it outlaw those cancerous rays from the sun too, for all the good
that will do.

I cry crocodile tears for your poor burdened wallet that so needs to be
padded by nibbling away at any whim of liberty I might dream of having.
Why don't I just send you money and then wrap myself in pillows and duct
tape? Equating the control of personal behavior with a monetary value is
a disgusting, pandering, covetous and apparently, all-american pastime,
but is still not worthy of regard by free men and women.

By my level of sarcasm you might be able to tell that I tire of having
self elected nannies dictate my life. Haven't you?

Regards,

Gary Malcolm

________________________________

From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Burney
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 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_l
aw_bicycle.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

Kurt Ward

2 cents, one word: Darwin

Darell C. Provencher

Just an FYI, but Oregon does have a mandatory helmet law for children age 15
and under. I've participated in and presented at a few "Bike Rodeos" for
kids over the past few years ( a couple of times with the OHSU Trauma Unit),
and I believe it's best to get kids and parents doing these things together
at an early age. How much is YOUR head worth?

"In Oregon, it is the law that youth 15 and under must wear a properly
fitted helmet when riding a bicycle. The penalty for not wearing a helmet
while riding a bicycle is $25.

Effective January 1, 2004, Oregon law will require youth 15 years of age and
younger to wear safety helmets when riding on skateboards, scooters, and
in-line skates in public places. Public places include but are not limited
to streets, sidewalks, parking lots, and skate parks. Failure to wear
protective headgear is a traffic violation, which carries a fine of $25 for
each offense."

Darell

On 2/26/08, jon.ragsdale@comcast.net wrote:
>
> 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_bicycle.2edad9de.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

--
Note NEW email address is darellp@easystreet.net -- no longer .com

Matthew Klahn

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_bicycle.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

Duncan Hay

I don't understand how this is even open for debate. You bring up the issue
that helmets should be an option for those of us over the age of 18. Let's
face it, a 19 year old is no more sensible than an 18 year old, and he is
equally, if not more likely to get hit by a car. I am completely for
personal choices, but unfortunately, helmets aren't simply about one's
personal safety. If someone is hit by a car and is injured without paying a
helmet, and is without health insurance, who pays for it? The taxpayers.
Now, those same taxpayers theoretically are responsible for passing laws,
and why would we ever want to have to pay for others "personal choices." So
I say, screw personal rights and let's start thinking about safety, it's
your personal responsibility to wear a helmet, so you aren't mopping up your
brains, and so someone else isn't paying for the mop.

2008/2/26 David Hart :

> post #24, how many more?
>
> I would say the law is good for those under 18. If you chose not to wear a
> helmet when you are an adult, that's your personal choice. Being older and
> maybe a little wiser and maybe being an auto claims adjuster, I think the
> same for seatbelts. BUT more injuries in autos makes your rates go up. So to
> be honest, I take my lid off when I am on a bike trail on a hot day. It's
> just nice to have the wind over my near-balded head. Now when I am on the
> open road, you bet I got my lid on.
>
> For a fun note, I crashed my bmx bike when I was 15 on good ol asphalt.
> Wearing shorts, no shirt, no helmet and bombing down a hill when I went a$$
> over tea kettle. I had one scratch on my head but broke my arm in 6 places
> and had road rash from my shin to my hip.
>
> "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"
>
> good point too, I concur
>
> 2008/2/26 :
>
> > 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_bicycle.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 listobra@list.obra.orghttp://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> > Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbarfor 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
>
>

--
Duncan Hay

Rubber side down.

David Hart

post #24, how many more?

I would say the law is good for those under 18. If you chose not to wear a
helmet when you are an adult, that's your personal choice. Being older and
maybe a little wiser and maybe being an auto claims adjuster, I think the
same for seatbelts. BUT more injuries in autos makes your rates go up. So to
be honest, I take my lid off when I am on a bike trail on a hot day. It's
just nice to have the wind over my near-balded head. Now when I am on the
open road, you bet I got my lid on.

For a fun note, I crashed my bmx bike when I was 15 on good ol asphalt.
Wearing shorts, no shirt, no helmet and bombing down a hill when I went a$$
over tea kettle. I had one scratch on my head but broke my arm in 6 places
and had road rash from my shin to my hip.

"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"

good point too, I concur

2008/2/26 :

> 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_bicycle.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 listobra@list.obra.orghttp://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
> ------------------------------
> Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbarfor your browser.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>

mtypinski@aol.com

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_bicycle.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

Mike Murray

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

Jeff Tedder & Shari

Erik,
Not sure who John is, but it was not run against my health insurance....It was under my PIP.....Nothing to do with health care...I guess maybe you should get the facts before you blow your horn.....Everybody else that has emailed me back direct has had good things to say and they are sorry it happened......Maybe someday this will happen to you and then you might change your attitude somewhat....Have a nice day.....

om: Erik Long
To: robert@reburney.com ; 'Rick Johnson' ; 'C M'
Cc: 'OBRA List'
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

Howdy John! And Thank you for explaining the link between bicycle helmets and health insurance.

In my foolishness, I had always thought that the high cost of health insurance was pretty much directly linked to the astronomical cost of health care. HOW FOOLISH I'VE BEEN!

Thank you.

We should really be petitioning all our local government officials to pass more laws to protect us from ourselves.

Obesity is the #1 killer in the United States! Let's outlaw that next!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: robert@reburney.com
To: RCJohnson1@attglobal.net; cm23468@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:56:30 -0800
CC: obra@list.obra.org
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_bicycle.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 listobra@list.obra.orghttp://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obraUnsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix". Check it out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Michael O'Hair

I'll add my two cents to this.

I have seen many, many "family groups" where the kids are wearing helments and one or more adults are not. I believe this sets up an image problem: helmets are for kids. I have told a couple of grown ups that it's hard to be a parent when you've taken a serious hit in the head.

On the other hand, I have seen far too many people who have donned their helmet and obviously equated it with some sort of magic armor that allowed them to ride between traffic and parked cars at 4 MPH, blithely unaware of their surroundings and the physics behind getting run down by a 4000 pound car.

It is my opinion that the term "skid lid" definitely applies to bicycle helmets. They are good for minor accidents, but when the plastic hits the asphalt at speed (30 MPH or more), not even a Snell Approved motorcycle helmet can guarantee much beyond "..Well, it would have been worse without a helmet."

The problem is simply one of common sense: riding in traffic raises the risk of wrecks, therefore wearing a helmet helps shave the odds a bit. Unfortunately, legislatures do no deal in common sense. Case in point, Hawaii was going to outlaw 2-piece wheels on cars until someone pointed out that almost all cars came equipped with 2-piece wheels.

Who out in OBRA-land has the actual data? How many people on bicycles suffer non-superficial head injuries (defined as requiring admission to a hospital) with and without helmets?

----- Original Message -----
From: john
To: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants. Plus I know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more reckless(subconsciously or not).

Erik Long

Howdy John! And Thank you for explaining the link between bicycle helmets and health insurance.

In my foolishness, I had always thought that the high cost of health insurance was pretty much directly linked to the astronomical cost of health care. HOW FOOLISH I'VE BEEN!

Thank you.

We should really be petitioning all our local government officials to pass more laws to protect us from ourselves.

Obesity is the #1 killer in the United States! Let's outlaw that next!

From: robert@reburney.com
To: RCJohnson1@attglobal.net; cm23468@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:56:30 -0800
CC: obra@list.obra.org
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_bicycle.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 listobra@list.obra.orghttp://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obraUnsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail®-get your "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx

Jeff Tedder & Shari

Well after I was just sued by a jack-a__ cyclist in a frivolous law suit I would say it's a great idea...This guy did not have a helmet on and caused an accident with another cyclist...ME.... and then sues me because he did not have any insurance at ALL...No helmet, alot of head injury plus other broken bones....And walks away with 39,800.00 dollars
and smile on his face....The jury felt so sorry for him and all his injuries were caused by him not wearing a helmet and being irresponsible in the way he rides a bike....
I do have great insurance that took care of the case and I do wear a helmet.....
So not wearing a helmet effects alot more people than just the person performing the stupid act.....Believe me....

Cc: obra@list.obra.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

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_bicycle.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

Rick Johnson

By that logic any restriction then becomes justified - outlawing
smoking, banning fattening foods, eliminating the driving of
automobiles and so on. I'm sure you have plenty of studies that show
how much all those activities result in higher insurance costs. I'd
even go so far as to challenge you to provide reputable studies showing
not just the costs related to head injuries in our latest target group
but their effect relative to other everyday activities.



To apply your logic consistently we would have to require helmets while
walking on snow or ice, getting in and out of the bath tub and while
participating in a myriad of other simple activities. Since that is not
the case what we have here is simply singling out a high profile group
and applying a discriminatory policy.

Feel free to express your opinion but I have little patience for red
herring arguments.



Rick



Robert Burney wrote:

<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
color:black;}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:black;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->

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
<markjginsberg@yahoo.com>
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 <mbenno@yahoo.com> 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 <mbenno@yahoo.com>
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" <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_bicycle.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

mellierat@comcast.net

Well, I am a helmet natzie (sp?) and Proud of It! We live in Oregon, We have a seat belt law, We don't have Socialized Medicine, We have stupid people. We SHOULD have a helmet law! There is not a day goes by I'm not tempted to yell out my car window to a 'bike rider' PUT ON A HELMET! I was at the Silverton Road Race last year and saw the worse bike crash of my life. I am happy Ryan Macnab was wearing a helmet or we would have a cycling widow in our OBRA family. It hurts my heart every time I read about another death to a cyclist weather he/she is racing or not.

This OBRA chat has made me motivated to become political and follow in the footsteps of Vancouver!
Melanie

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert Burney"

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_bicycle.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

john

I know this is just a sliver of arguments for and against but personally i think we should require helmet use for any sort of vehicle because most auto accidents involve head injury to the occupants. Plus I know when i slap on a helmet and drive, I feel more secure and safe (subconsciously or not) and so i drive a little more reckless(subconsciously or not). We could mandate a nascar getup, and so one could even run into a wall at 180 mph and maybe try and see how many somersaults the car could do. Would make a great youtube video.

But back on subject: I also feel it is very important to require others to wear helmets, cause i would feel so bad if I hurt you. as long as you have a helmet on, i can feel better about driving (or riding or racing) while distracted. Well, one negative to this is that one wouldn't be able to use the excuse: "but the victim was not wearing a helmet" (obviously the implication is its the victims fault), but anyway... The elderly should be required wear helmets too and (as long as we are at it) hip padding, especially while walking (and especially for master level cyclists who are shown to have low bone density). For the elderly, falls are second only to vehicle accidents in causing head injuries. Its for their own good. for if we can save just one life... ( the myriad of other issues and problems and threats to nature and other living creatures be damned). and ad nauseam

I will of course wear a helmet in a group ride or racing, cause its a dangerous activity and its required. But riding to the store to get groceries, Come on, nope! It has to be convenient, i want to step out the door and be hauling down the street in like 5 seconds. But I am riding slower, and I am aware of my surroundings at all time, and probably subconsciously a whole lot safer withOUT a helmet on.

Seriously though, if helmets are required for bicycle and motorcycle use, they should be required for ALL vehicle use . studies have shown that airbags and seatbelts don't really help with head injury in an auto accident... only helmets are effective.

Robert Burney

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

Rick Johnson

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 <markjginsberg@yahoo.com>
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 <mbenno@yahoo.com>
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 <mbenno@yahoo.com>
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"
<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_bicycle.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

  

Erik Long

To everyone who's supporting this new statute: You're supporting the control of Government over your life.

WHERE DOES IT STOP? This is a slippery slope, folks. If bikes are
dangerous enough to require a helmet, maybe we should require elbow and
knee pads, too. In fact, maybe manufacturers should be building these
things with integrated roll cages and a parimiter frame, like on a
car. Y'know what? Bike riding is just too dangerous to the people who
ride bikes, so let's make bikes illegal altogether . . .

I am a 12 year veteran of the bicycle industry and a life-long cyclist. I can tell you that bicycle helmets have saved my life at least once. I think everyone should wear one when riding. That's what I THINK.

Here's what I KNOW: In a "free" society such as ours, it is absurd to require safety equipment for someone old enough to make their own decisions.

I make a habit of wearing a helmet any time I mount a bicycle, but I sometimes trade the helmet for a nice, warm, cap. In fact, I sometimes even leave the helmet at home just because I don't feel like wearing it. If that's a risk I decide to take, it does no harm to anyone but me.

If I feel a need to express that I don't care about the risk of riding without a helmet by not wearing one, that's my right. In fact, I do believe there was a legal document Amended to that effect a couple hundred years ago.

Nobody gets to MAKE you protect yourself from something that MIGHT happen. Thats your responsibility.

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:38:55 -0800
From: mbenno@yahoo.com
To: jon.ragsdale@comcast.net; obra@list.obra.org
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Helmets will be mandatory in Vancouver, WA

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_bicycle.2edad9de.html

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/

Kevin Hedahl

It should be important to remember that all of us at OBRA have developed a
very strong culture around wearing helmets. I can't remember the last time I
was on a ride with someone who wasn't wearing one.

There are significant portions of the cycling community that don't wear
helmets and would be seriously put off by being required to wear them. The
best answer to this isn't legislation. The best answer to this is by using
the same mechanism that has led to all of us wearing helmets every day, peer
pressure. It's the same reason I bitch at people who don't even bother to
slow down for stoplights and stopsigns.

/kevin

2008/2/26 C M :

> 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_bicycle.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
>
>

C M

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_bicycle.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
>
>

Matthew Klahn

So, traffic in Portland is exactly like traffic in Holland? Awesome!
Must have been an overnight change!

I don't really care if people around town wear helmets or not, but at
least compare apples to apples...

Matthew

On Feb 26, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Erik Voldengen wrote:

> Ish, I hope this doesn't happen in Oregon. For some potential
> cyclists, this is just going to discourage their use of bikes, be it a
> ride to the park, or a quick trip to the store for some milk.
>
> Do they require helmets in Holland? And how's that working over
> there?
>
> -Erik
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org

Erik Voldengen