Post by Wyldcomfort on Mar 13, 2007 18:06:51 GMT -5
Howdy all.. I am more worried about Senate Bill 101 now than ever. They seem to be firm in their direction. Please read the following and it will give you some idea of the scope...If they don't confirm the direction of the training program to be based on rider fit and they use cc/age - we are essentially back to SB 49. I was hoping Parks was sincere about working with us...for us to be a part of it we need to be a part of it now...being part of a team doesn't mean coach brings you in after the game is over to pick up the garbage in the stands.....Thank you, Lindy
>>> "Linda Minten" <minten@gotsky.com> 03/12/07 8:58 PM >>>
Just wanted to follow up with you in regards to the hearing today.. There are three things we would like for you to consider as you amend this bill. The first is qualifying the type of training program for youth. Will it be based on cc/age or "rider fit". We also think it needs to be hands on training for kids rather than just a computer class.
We really can't support an age limit but with rider fit it will insure that a child is not riding too large of a vehicle. If a child cannot pass the rider guidelines established or is unable to pass the safety course, they would be unable to ride until a time that they could safely do so. We have several "rider fit" models that we are happy to share with you.
The third problem is having to be on the same type of veh. as the child you are supervising, has no real basis that we could find. We believe a child needs to be supervised but often that can be done on the ground or on a different type of veh.
There is a bit of housekeeping that needs to be done regarding the language of the bill. I have listed it below and it should be a very easy fix.
I gave your staff the Bill we intend to present at the next session. I will also send a copy with this note. You are more than welcome to use any language or ideas from that. If there is something that you would like to add, delete, or suggest please let us know. It is our intention to modify it after we see what your Bills cover. Your hands are tied on private lands where a large part of the accidents are happening so we hope to fill in some of the holes. We would like to be able to support Senate Bill 101 as there are only a few areas where we disagree. Please consider our changes and let me know if we can find common ground. I hope we can work something out as this would be a great alliance with the user groups who are very willing to help implement the training portion. It would also give great support in helping to pass this bill. Thank you for your time, Lindy
His response:
Ms. Minten:
In response to the three issues you raise, here is my quick response:
Training Program
Since the training program will be developed by administrative rule, not by statute, we will welcome your input into that process after the legislation passes. We plan to convene a rules advisory committee of interested persons to assist us in that process.
Age Restrictions
We found no compelling reason in yesterday's testimony to change our proposed minimum age limit for ATVs in the bill.
Same Vehicle Issue
This can easily be fixed with a small additional amendment to the bill.
Jim Myron
Legislative Coordinator
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
725 Summer St. N. E. Suite C
Salem, OR 97301
503.986.0728
FX 503.986.0796
My response to him....
Thank you and I do agree that we can collectively do a much better job. We
must first fix the informational gathering problems. If we are able to put
our user groups bill through next session we have included a requirement for
accident reporting - very similar to what DMV does. This will give us
another source of information. Once we have a central resource, we can take
a look at the underlying causes of these accidents and address together how
to fix them. It is my objective to welcome everyone to this table. We can
argue statistics that are incomplete and often inaccurate all day long but
then we are only tossing barbs back and forth between the groups. I hope we
can put an end to this and realize we are one group. What we are protecting
is the family part of a wonderful sport. It offers so much in the all over
health and well being of kids to participate and connect with parents and
grandparents. It is worth protecting and I believe that with this in mind we
are poised to do great things as a whole. Our common goal is to address
ways to make this a safer sport. What I have found with the limited amount
of information I have been able to get is that the majority of deaths are
due to a lack of supervision. There is resistance to address this but just
as drinking and driving with children is unacceptable, allowing a child to
ride unsupervised is too. A huge percentage of kids are riding without
helmets, this too needs to be strictly addressed. Most fatal accidents are
on private property or illegally on public roadways - not in family
recreational activities. I am confident and maybe a little too optimistic,
that we can get a handle on this situation. It is my desire to have
sponsorship on our bill from all sources, user groups, ATVA, AMA,
dealerships, manufacturers, medical professionals, OHSU, Parks and Rec., law
enforcement, Senators and Representatives, and YOU. It isn't until we can
come together as a group - because as you know it is like a house of cards -
that we can fix this. I think too that you will be very surprised at the
language the user groups have come up with. In many ways it is far more
restrictive with significant penalties for non compliance. You will be
pleased because it allows families to continue to safely ride, but penalizes
those who are careless and negligent. It will also put into place a hands
on training program requiring not only the child to become certified, but
the adults. We can talk more about that as time goes on - I would send you
a copy today but unfortunately when we transferred it became unreadable. I
had retyped it for the Hearing yesterday but when I came back home it
reverted back to the old copy. I send it to you but ignore the first two
columns as they are simply defining the classes - the rest of it should be
okay. As soon as I get a chance I will retype it and hopefully cut and
paste it. We want your input...this is a working draft and we certainly
don't have all the answers. The biggest area that we oppose with Safekids
is an age restriction. We feel with supervision, helmets, safety training
and a proper fit vehicle based on riders size, rather than the archaic age
to cc recommendations that are currently being redone with SVIA and CPSC, we
will not only have the support of everyone - we can fix the problem.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I appreciate so much your
assistance and look forward to a long mutually benefiting relationship.
Thank you, Lindy
From the folks at the state who are in charge of the statistical information we need. Lisa Millet is Adrienne Greenes boss and I have asked to work with her directly. We need them as part of our group - as I have said from day one...it will take all of us working together to do great things. Now we are just one step closer....
Hi Lindy,
Thanks for the background information.
I agree that our data systems are not capturing what is needed to
examine the problem. I am hoping that after the session we can work with
the state parks and the ATV group to design a data system that can
collect information on injury cases. This would be an excellent
partnership and approach. I'm hoping that you might be able to be a
partner in such an effort. We have been thinking some about this problem
and a combination of user survey possibly distributed through dealers
and using some sentinel hospitals to collect data in regions where there
are the most injuries could be a first step.
Death data are very limited in that death certs only provide some basic
demographics and nothing about risk or protective factors.
Hospitalization data are limited in the same way, although they can
provide some additional information about injuries, treatment, cost of
care and transfer to other levels of care.
The Trauma Registry is the most limited as it only records the most
serious injuries.
Since Oregon has no emergency department data we have no data on injury
cases that are treated and released from EDs.
Police data do not capture most events as the police do not patrol most
recreational areas and would only be present in case of a death. Same is
true for medical examiner data and child fatality review data.
There are multiple factors that further complicate looking at the data
from these data sets. They include coding issues, lack of ability to
link the data sets and look across them, and the problem of potential
for duplication in the hospitalization data set as there is no unique
identifier - this means that if someone is stabilized in Deschutes but
needs level 1 care and is life flighted to OHSU then the case will
probably show up twice in the hospital data set. Doesn't happen to
frequently but it can and does. Finally some cases that appear in
hospital data set do die and we don't understand fully the ration of
injury to death yet.
With regard to our production of data for any and everyone who calls
for it - that is part of our mission. We make every attempt to do so
with dispassion and objectivity. When advocates on either side of an
issue use data or the media uses data we have no control over how they
interpret the data or how it is used. This is as it should be as we will
only go so far as to recommend strategies to reduce injury based on what
the data suggest, what research literature has proven and what other
states have tried with some success.
One final note. Part of the difficulty in finding, mining, examining,
and interpreting data includes a staffing issue that will be resolved on
April 9 when we will get a new epidemiologist hired into a position that
has been vacant since last summer due to a staff person dying of cancer.
As you can imagine we are doing the best we can to follow up on your
request as well as request from media, legislators, and staff within our
department.
Will send on some information as soon as I get it. Lisa
My letter back to her:
Thank you and I do agree that we can collectively do a much better job. We
must first fix the informational gathering problems. If we are able to put
our user groups bill through next session we have included a requirement for
accident reporting - very similar to what DMV does. This will give us
another source of information. Once we have a central resource, we can take
a look at the underlying causes of these accidents and address together how
to fix them. It is my objective to welcome everyone to this table. We can
argue statistics that are incomplete and often inaccurate all day long but
then we are only tossing barbs back and forth between the groups. I hope we
can put an end to this and realize we are one group. What we are protecting
is the family part of a wonderful sport. It offers so much in the all over
health and well being of kids to participate and connect with parents and
grandparents. It is worth protecting and I believe that with this in mind we
are poised to do great things as a whole. Our common goal is to address
ways to make this a safer sport. What I have found with the limited amount
of information I have been able to get is that the majority of deaths are
due to a lack of supervision. There is resistance to address this but just
as drinking and driving with children is unacceptable, allowing a child to
ride unsupervised is too. A huge percentage of kids are riding without
helmets, this too needs to be strictly addressed. Most fatal accidents are
on private property or illegally on public roadways - not in family
recreational activities. I am confident and maybe a little too optimistic,
that we can get a handle on this situation. It is my desire to have
sponsorship on our bill from all sources, user groups, ATVA, AMA,
dealerships, manufacturers, medical professionals, OHSU, Parks and Rec., law
enforcement, Senators and Representatives, and YOU. It isn't until we can
come together as a group - because as you know it is like a house of cards -
that we can fix this. I think too that you will be very surprised at the
language the user groups have come up with. In many ways it is far more
restrictive with significant penalties for non compliance. You will be
pleased because it allows families to continue to safely ride, but penalizes
those who are careless and negligent. It will also put into place a hands
on training program requiring not only the child to become certified, but
the adults. We can talk more about that as time goes on - I would send you
a copy today but unfortunately when we transferred it became unreadable. I
had retyped it for the Hearing yesterday but when I came back home it
reverted back to the old copy. I send it to you but ignore the first two
columns as they are simply defining the classes - the rest of it should be
okay. As soon as I get a chance I will retype it and hopefully cut and
paste it. We want your input...this is a working draft and we certainly
don't have all the answers. The biggest area that we oppose with Safekids
is an age restriction. We feel with supervision, helmets, safety training
and a proper fit vehicle based on riders size, rather than the archaic age
to cc recommendations that are currently being redone with SVIA and CPSC, we
will not only have the support of everyone - we can fix the problem.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I appreciate so much your
assistance and look forward to a long mutually benefiting relationship.
Thank you, Lindy
>>> "Linda Minten" <minten@gotsky.com> 03/12/07 8:58 PM >>>
Just wanted to follow up with you in regards to the hearing today.. There are three things we would like for you to consider as you amend this bill. The first is qualifying the type of training program for youth. Will it be based on cc/age or "rider fit". We also think it needs to be hands on training for kids rather than just a computer class.
We really can't support an age limit but with rider fit it will insure that a child is not riding too large of a vehicle. If a child cannot pass the rider guidelines established or is unable to pass the safety course, they would be unable to ride until a time that they could safely do so. We have several "rider fit" models that we are happy to share with you.
The third problem is having to be on the same type of veh. as the child you are supervising, has no real basis that we could find. We believe a child needs to be supervised but often that can be done on the ground or on a different type of veh.
There is a bit of housekeeping that needs to be done regarding the language of the bill. I have listed it below and it should be a very easy fix.
I gave your staff the Bill we intend to present at the next session. I will also send a copy with this note. You are more than welcome to use any language or ideas from that. If there is something that you would like to add, delete, or suggest please let us know. It is our intention to modify it after we see what your Bills cover. Your hands are tied on private lands where a large part of the accidents are happening so we hope to fill in some of the holes. We would like to be able to support Senate Bill 101 as there are only a few areas where we disagree. Please consider our changes and let me know if we can find common ground. I hope we can work something out as this would be a great alliance with the user groups who are very willing to help implement the training portion. It would also give great support in helping to pass this bill. Thank you for your time, Lindy
His response:
Ms. Minten:
In response to the three issues you raise, here is my quick response:
Training Program
Since the training program will be developed by administrative rule, not by statute, we will welcome your input into that process after the legislation passes. We plan to convene a rules advisory committee of interested persons to assist us in that process.
Age Restrictions
We found no compelling reason in yesterday's testimony to change our proposed minimum age limit for ATVs in the bill.
Same Vehicle Issue
This can easily be fixed with a small additional amendment to the bill.
Jim Myron
Legislative Coordinator
Oregon Parks and Recreation Department
725 Summer St. N. E. Suite C
Salem, OR 97301
503.986.0728
FX 503.986.0796
My response to him....
Thank you and I do agree that we can collectively do a much better job. We
must first fix the informational gathering problems. If we are able to put
our user groups bill through next session we have included a requirement for
accident reporting - very similar to what DMV does. This will give us
another source of information. Once we have a central resource, we can take
a look at the underlying causes of these accidents and address together how
to fix them. It is my objective to welcome everyone to this table. We can
argue statistics that are incomplete and often inaccurate all day long but
then we are only tossing barbs back and forth between the groups. I hope we
can put an end to this and realize we are one group. What we are protecting
is the family part of a wonderful sport. It offers so much in the all over
health and well being of kids to participate and connect with parents and
grandparents. It is worth protecting and I believe that with this in mind we
are poised to do great things as a whole. Our common goal is to address
ways to make this a safer sport. What I have found with the limited amount
of information I have been able to get is that the majority of deaths are
due to a lack of supervision. There is resistance to address this but just
as drinking and driving with children is unacceptable, allowing a child to
ride unsupervised is too. A huge percentage of kids are riding without
helmets, this too needs to be strictly addressed. Most fatal accidents are
on private property or illegally on public roadways - not in family
recreational activities. I am confident and maybe a little too optimistic,
that we can get a handle on this situation. It is my desire to have
sponsorship on our bill from all sources, user groups, ATVA, AMA,
dealerships, manufacturers, medical professionals, OHSU, Parks and Rec., law
enforcement, Senators and Representatives, and YOU. It isn't until we can
come together as a group - because as you know it is like a house of cards -
that we can fix this. I think too that you will be very surprised at the
language the user groups have come up with. In many ways it is far more
restrictive with significant penalties for non compliance. You will be
pleased because it allows families to continue to safely ride, but penalizes
those who are careless and negligent. It will also put into place a hands
on training program requiring not only the child to become certified, but
the adults. We can talk more about that as time goes on - I would send you
a copy today but unfortunately when we transferred it became unreadable. I
had retyped it for the Hearing yesterday but when I came back home it
reverted back to the old copy. I send it to you but ignore the first two
columns as they are simply defining the classes - the rest of it should be
okay. As soon as I get a chance I will retype it and hopefully cut and
paste it. We want your input...this is a working draft and we certainly
don't have all the answers. The biggest area that we oppose with Safekids
is an age restriction. We feel with supervision, helmets, safety training
and a proper fit vehicle based on riders size, rather than the archaic age
to cc recommendations that are currently being redone with SVIA and CPSC, we
will not only have the support of everyone - we can fix the problem.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I appreciate so much your
assistance and look forward to a long mutually benefiting relationship.
Thank you, Lindy
From the folks at the state who are in charge of the statistical information we need. Lisa Millet is Adrienne Greenes boss and I have asked to work with her directly. We need them as part of our group - as I have said from day one...it will take all of us working together to do great things. Now we are just one step closer....
Hi Lindy,
Thanks for the background information.
I agree that our data systems are not capturing what is needed to
examine the problem. I am hoping that after the session we can work with
the state parks and the ATV group to design a data system that can
collect information on injury cases. This would be an excellent
partnership and approach. I'm hoping that you might be able to be a
partner in such an effort. We have been thinking some about this problem
and a combination of user survey possibly distributed through dealers
and using some sentinel hospitals to collect data in regions where there
are the most injuries could be a first step.
Death data are very limited in that death certs only provide some basic
demographics and nothing about risk or protective factors.
Hospitalization data are limited in the same way, although they can
provide some additional information about injuries, treatment, cost of
care and transfer to other levels of care.
The Trauma Registry is the most limited as it only records the most
serious injuries.
Since Oregon has no emergency department data we have no data on injury
cases that are treated and released from EDs.
Police data do not capture most events as the police do not patrol most
recreational areas and would only be present in case of a death. Same is
true for medical examiner data and child fatality review data.
There are multiple factors that further complicate looking at the data
from these data sets. They include coding issues, lack of ability to
link the data sets and look across them, and the problem of potential
for duplication in the hospitalization data set as there is no unique
identifier - this means that if someone is stabilized in Deschutes but
needs level 1 care and is life flighted to OHSU then the case will
probably show up twice in the hospital data set. Doesn't happen to
frequently but it can and does. Finally some cases that appear in
hospital data set do die and we don't understand fully the ration of
injury to death yet.
With regard to our production of data for any and everyone who calls
for it - that is part of our mission. We make every attempt to do so
with dispassion and objectivity. When advocates on either side of an
issue use data or the media uses data we have no control over how they
interpret the data or how it is used. This is as it should be as we will
only go so far as to recommend strategies to reduce injury based on what
the data suggest, what research literature has proven and what other
states have tried with some success.
One final note. Part of the difficulty in finding, mining, examining,
and interpreting data includes a staffing issue that will be resolved on
April 9 when we will get a new epidemiologist hired into a position that
has been vacant since last summer due to a staff person dying of cancer.
As you can imagine we are doing the best we can to follow up on your
request as well as request from media, legislators, and staff within our
department.
Will send on some information as soon as I get it. Lisa
My letter back to her:
Thank you and I do agree that we can collectively do a much better job. We
must first fix the informational gathering problems. If we are able to put
our user groups bill through next session we have included a requirement for
accident reporting - very similar to what DMV does. This will give us
another source of information. Once we have a central resource, we can take
a look at the underlying causes of these accidents and address together how
to fix them. It is my objective to welcome everyone to this table. We can
argue statistics that are incomplete and often inaccurate all day long but
then we are only tossing barbs back and forth between the groups. I hope we
can put an end to this and realize we are one group. What we are protecting
is the family part of a wonderful sport. It offers so much in the all over
health and well being of kids to participate and connect with parents and
grandparents. It is worth protecting and I believe that with this in mind we
are poised to do great things as a whole. Our common goal is to address
ways to make this a safer sport. What I have found with the limited amount
of information I have been able to get is that the majority of deaths are
due to a lack of supervision. There is resistance to address this but just
as drinking and driving with children is unacceptable, allowing a child to
ride unsupervised is too. A huge percentage of kids are riding without
helmets, this too needs to be strictly addressed. Most fatal accidents are
on private property or illegally on public roadways - not in family
recreational activities. I am confident and maybe a little too optimistic,
that we can get a handle on this situation. It is my desire to have
sponsorship on our bill from all sources, user groups, ATVA, AMA,
dealerships, manufacturers, medical professionals, OHSU, Parks and Rec., law
enforcement, Senators and Representatives, and YOU. It isn't until we can
come together as a group - because as you know it is like a house of cards -
that we can fix this. I think too that you will be very surprised at the
language the user groups have come up with. In many ways it is far more
restrictive with significant penalties for non compliance. You will be
pleased because it allows families to continue to safely ride, but penalizes
those who are careless and negligent. It will also put into place a hands
on training program requiring not only the child to become certified, but
the adults. We can talk more about that as time goes on - I would send you
a copy today but unfortunately when we transferred it became unreadable. I
had retyped it for the Hearing yesterday but when I came back home it
reverted back to the old copy. I send it to you but ignore the first two
columns as they are simply defining the classes - the rest of it should be
okay. As soon as I get a chance I will retype it and hopefully cut and
paste it. We want your input...this is a working draft and we certainly
don't have all the answers. The biggest area that we oppose with Safekids
is an age restriction. We feel with supervision, helmets, safety training
and a proper fit vehicle based on riders size, rather than the archaic age
to cc recommendations that are currently being redone with SVIA and CPSC, we
will not only have the support of everyone - we can fix the problem.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I appreciate so much your
assistance and look forward to a long mutually benefiting relationship.
Thank you, Lindy