Post by Wyldcomfort on Mar 4, 2007 8:17:54 GMT -5
A person had a question in regards to "Why send a copy of the contract signed by Sue Rabe to the committee?" This letter is a good response to that.
This is just my perspective, but I think I speak for quite a few parents. First of all, Sue is not a victim. Her son was the victim. Am I being cold-hearted? Maybe, but I tend to not think so. Let me qualify that before I get pasted. Like many of you, I know how the loss of a loved one feels. Sue does not have a monopoly on this subject. I will not go into details, but those of you that know me well know of my son that has a life-long debilitating injury from his stint in the military, of the loss of my father to military service and of my own loss of which I will not speak. Nuff said.
I have seen where some feel that openly viewing and sharing the certificate and reports of her son’s death is a form of attacking Sue and is consequently unfair and cruel. But, what is she doing to us? Do the majority of us deserve the repercussions of her guilt? The owner registration and training certificate plays an important role in this issue because Sue claims, as does certain supporters, that she was not made aware of the dangers of the ATV she placed her son on. Yet, this document clearly shows she was made aware of it and she attested to that by signature and initials. It actually says “By initialing each line, I understand, promise and give my word of honor”! The ATV also had more warnings on it than it practically had graphic designs.
Now, as you said, and I agree many do this, parents do purchase these quads knowing full well that they intend to have their children ride them because of various reasons, whether it’s due to size considerations, experience level or whatever. What Sue is trying to say is that these warnings were not enough to compel her to keep her son off of the ATV she knowingly placed him on. In all fairness, let’s be open-minded here for a second. There was ATV training offered, there were statutes in place that already should have precluded similar events (yes-I know, public versus private land), there was warnings on the ATV, there is reams of OPRD safety information and training. So, with all that available, what could SB 49 truly accomplish? I implore you to re-read the proposed statute. Could it have saved Kyle? Think about that for a second…… Now read the certificate she signed, the painful police report and ask again, could SB 49 have saved him?
When a parent makes decisions that could potentially affect the life of a child, then you accept a certain amount of risk. We do that every day; whether it is during a baby’s bath, swimming, boating, school sports or any other POTENTIALLY hazardous activity. What balances the scales of fate in our favor is our ability to be responsible. That is the same situation in almost every one of the near-identical examples of child ATV fatalities (I see the number 18 being thrown around), whereas a child was placed in a hazardous position. C’mon, no helmets?!?!?! No supervision?!?! What the heck! In the absence of a legitimate law enforcement presence to ensure statutory compliance, there has to be US. Government cannot be there as an excuse for poor oversight by all of us.
Similarly, that is where Sue was also remiss in my humble opinion. Yes, I feel the pain of her loss. But, I am unwilling to dispense that pain onto my children and grandchildren. If this message was to somehow reach her, I would ask that she have an open mind and open heart and see what it is we are trying to preserve. There are alternatives that can be developed to meet the intent of what she is hoping to accomplish, but SB 49 is not that method. Until there is a global effort to address the large scale issue of design, there must be enhanced training, education and proficiency as an interim measure. Other states have done this with success. And as for statistics, the accident rate is dropping. But, folks keep drawing upon raw numbers instead of comparing it to per numbers utilized. I have also felt compelled to engage with various law-makers to see if there could be an effort to sponsor a future Bill to address these issues without making the sport extinct. Is this a solution? Who knows for sure but we can at least try?
But, what I can say for sure is that it is disheartening to hear and read of personal attacks, mysterious drive-bys, crank-calls and open insults. That is not how to make this go away or promulgate a comprehensive fix. Discussing the certificate or the police report in open forum is not an attack; it is understanding the truth and the facts behind something that is likely to adversely affect us all. As the famous saying goes, “can’t we all get along?”
Sorry for being long-winded. Hope it helps.
This is just my perspective, but I think I speak for quite a few parents. First of all, Sue is not a victim. Her son was the victim. Am I being cold-hearted? Maybe, but I tend to not think so. Let me qualify that before I get pasted. Like many of you, I know how the loss of a loved one feels. Sue does not have a monopoly on this subject. I will not go into details, but those of you that know me well know of my son that has a life-long debilitating injury from his stint in the military, of the loss of my father to military service and of my own loss of which I will not speak. Nuff said.
I have seen where some feel that openly viewing and sharing the certificate and reports of her son’s death is a form of attacking Sue and is consequently unfair and cruel. But, what is she doing to us? Do the majority of us deserve the repercussions of her guilt? The owner registration and training certificate plays an important role in this issue because Sue claims, as does certain supporters, that she was not made aware of the dangers of the ATV she placed her son on. Yet, this document clearly shows she was made aware of it and she attested to that by signature and initials. It actually says “By initialing each line, I understand, promise and give my word of honor”! The ATV also had more warnings on it than it practically had graphic designs.
Now, as you said, and I agree many do this, parents do purchase these quads knowing full well that they intend to have their children ride them because of various reasons, whether it’s due to size considerations, experience level or whatever. What Sue is trying to say is that these warnings were not enough to compel her to keep her son off of the ATV she knowingly placed him on. In all fairness, let’s be open-minded here for a second. There was ATV training offered, there were statutes in place that already should have precluded similar events (yes-I know, public versus private land), there was warnings on the ATV, there is reams of OPRD safety information and training. So, with all that available, what could SB 49 truly accomplish? I implore you to re-read the proposed statute. Could it have saved Kyle? Think about that for a second…… Now read the certificate she signed, the painful police report and ask again, could SB 49 have saved him?
When a parent makes decisions that could potentially affect the life of a child, then you accept a certain amount of risk. We do that every day; whether it is during a baby’s bath, swimming, boating, school sports or any other POTENTIALLY hazardous activity. What balances the scales of fate in our favor is our ability to be responsible. That is the same situation in almost every one of the near-identical examples of child ATV fatalities (I see the number 18 being thrown around), whereas a child was placed in a hazardous position. C’mon, no helmets?!?!?! No supervision?!?! What the heck! In the absence of a legitimate law enforcement presence to ensure statutory compliance, there has to be US. Government cannot be there as an excuse for poor oversight by all of us.
Similarly, that is where Sue was also remiss in my humble opinion. Yes, I feel the pain of her loss. But, I am unwilling to dispense that pain onto my children and grandchildren. If this message was to somehow reach her, I would ask that she have an open mind and open heart and see what it is we are trying to preserve. There are alternatives that can be developed to meet the intent of what she is hoping to accomplish, but SB 49 is not that method. Until there is a global effort to address the large scale issue of design, there must be enhanced training, education and proficiency as an interim measure. Other states have done this with success. And as for statistics, the accident rate is dropping. But, folks keep drawing upon raw numbers instead of comparing it to per numbers utilized. I have also felt compelled to engage with various law-makers to see if there could be an effort to sponsor a future Bill to address these issues without making the sport extinct. Is this a solution? Who knows for sure but we can at least try?
But, what I can say for sure is that it is disheartening to hear and read of personal attacks, mysterious drive-bys, crank-calls and open insults. That is not how to make this go away or promulgate a comprehensive fix. Discussing the certificate or the police report in open forum is not an attack; it is understanding the truth and the facts behind something that is likely to adversely affect us all. As the famous saying goes, “can’t we all get along?”
Sorry for being long-winded. Hope it helps.