Post by Wyldcomfort on Mar 15, 2007 7:56:52 GMT -5
Hello, today was a very busy and productive day. We will be meeting with parks in a little over a week and before we do I want to encourage your input. First of all we will stand firm on no age restriction....we will support restrictions to kids based solely on rider fit and ability to operate. This is the standard that many states have incorporated and it has been very successful. What this means to all of us is that we will hold ourselves accountable for making sure the bike we choose for our child to operate will fit in these guidelines. Gone are the days when kids are laying on the tank in order to be able to turn it, gone are the days when there is six inches from foot to peg and a child can't shift or brake... In asking for no age restriction we must have a way to keep our kids on appropriate sized vehicles. In the past we have all agreed to this...soon we will be at a place where the rubber meets the road and we must be willing to step up to the plate and see this through. We will need you to participate in your area with hands on training....we need you to be leaders and coaches. Maybe there will be a little money in it - but will you do it just for love of the sport and children?? It is our intention to propose an amendment to Senate Bill 101. Yes, our group. Senate Bill 101 needs our support but we are not willing to give it without some changes. We are asking the ATVA and AMA for directions on how to proceed with this legislatively. They are going to take another look at the bill and help us draft the amendments. If we can get these through - we must help with implementation. We must speak with one voice. We must all step out of our worlds and reach out to fellow members and their children to secure our ability to keep riding for generations to come. Hey, I have got to tell you there are plenty of other things that I wish I had been doing over the past two months and I must admit I had to really think about making a longer term commitment - but if not us...then who. So my hat is in the ring - I will stick it out for the long haul...figure my life has to account for something!! Lindy (see best fit guidelines from Utah below)
Now how about sending a letter to this lady at the Oregonian to let her know we are watching very closely how they cover these ATV stories.....I did! Here is a letter from one of our folks - impressive!!
Hi, That is in fact an opinion piece and reflects the view of the newspaper's Editorial Board. I will forward your comments to the editors there, as they are entirely separate from the departments that produce news articles. Therese Bottomly, managing editor
03/11/07 10:59 AM >>>
I am very concerned in regards to your article titled "Dying To Ride Full-Sized ATV's". This story seems to demonstrate the reporter's lack of technical expertise and inference to ambiguous data not clearly based on fact. As such, it appears to be opinionated and could adversely affect current efforts to address a very serious issue.
First of all, you refer to an epidemic of child deaths and injuries on ATV's. By definition, an epidemic is typically a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected"; based on the "incidence rate". Yet, with the substantial increase in ATV use by all age groups, the incident rate is decreasing annually. Oregon tends to outpace other states in this national demographic, as reported by the CPSC.
You provide that the Mullins study found that half of injured riders treated at OHSU suffered head, neck or face injuries, and the number of patients requiring spine operations has increased seven-fold. I have reviewed some of the incidents that fall into this category. It was clear that many of these unfortunate injuries were the direct result of failing to wear helmets and occurred on PRIVATE PROPERTY. (Feel free to research this if in doubt) Currently, Oregon statutes provide the following:
821.202 Failure of Class I or III all-terrain vehicle rider to wear motorcycle helmet; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a Class I (4-wheeled ATV) or Class III (dirt-bike) all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger to wear a motorcycle helmet if the person is under 18 years of age, operates or rides on a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet.
821.203 Endangering Class I or III all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of endangering a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger if:
(a) The person is operating a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public and the person carries another person on the Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle who is under 18 years of age and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet; or
(b) The person is the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 18 years of age and the child operates or rides on a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public without wearing a motorcycle helmet.
As you can see, these requirements already exist, yet where is the regulatory oversight and parental accountability? Could a change to only public land applicable statutes reduce injuries that predominantly happen on private land? Isn't that what we should really address?
You also provide that "the ATV industry and its most vocal supporters insist that there's nothing to see here, that legislators should just move on, that voluntary training and education, and parental supervision, are sufficient." And yet there is no substantial push from the "the ATV industry and its most vocal supporters" regarding the OPRD backed House Bills and Senate Bill that will mandate training, passenger restrictions and other similar improvements, with some revision to technical details. There is even an effort by these same people to incorporate proficiency demonstration by children once they receive training. Obviously, we missed that insignificant little fact.
And as to the quote "by now, it is painfully clear that children under the age of 16 do not belong on adult-sized ATVs that can weigh 600 pounds and top speeds of 60 mph.", it amazes me that you could promulgate the theory that 600 pound ATV's are now the poster child for adult ATV's. Any ATV capable of being 600 pounds is a utility vehicle, commonly called UTV's and seen on farms/ranches. It is almost unheard of that a recreational ATV would reach those weights. My teenage daughters Yamaha YFM250 weighs less than 260 pounds. My performance based larger ATV, a 700 Yamaha Raptor, weighs 398 pounds.
And that brings us to your exception to the Oregon mother who backs the bill, Sue DeLoretto-Rabe, whose son, Kyle, died in an ATV accident in 2002, that has received cruel, unsigned e-mails that attack her support for restrictions and blame her for her son's death. Let's get the silly stuff over with, are we really capable of receiving e-mails that have no traceability? If so, that is a trick no one here knows how to do. And as to her particular event, let's chat. Granted, this is just my perspective, but I think I speak for quite a few parents and I beg your indulgence.
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 dismissed. Like many of us, I know how the loss of a loved one feels. Sue does not have a monopoly on this subject.
I have seen where some feel that openly viewing and sharing her publicly available ATV purchase certificate and police reports of her son's death is a form of attacking Sue and is consequently unfair and cruel. For me, it was a process to understand the issues that will affect my family. It begs the question, what change is she really trying to affect for the ATV riding public? 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, parents do purchase so-called adult sized quads knowing full well that they intend to have their children ride them because of various reasons, whether it's due to developmental size, experience level or similar considerations. It is my understanding that Sue is trying to convince us that these warnings were not enough to compel her to keep her son off of the utility sized 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/initialed, 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?!?! 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. Additionally, Salem has to decide to actually take the millions we pay into the OPRD account and utilize it for enhanced enforcement oversight of irresponsible riders.
Similarly, that is where Sue was also remiss in my humble opinion. Yes, we 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 per use 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.
And finally, you state that "the critics also complain that ATVs are being singled out for regulation. In fact, ATVs are a notable exception to existing laws that set reasonable age limits to drive automobiles, motorboats and personal watercraft such as Jet Skis." Yet, children do die on and in these vehicles due to negligence of the responsible and supervisory adult. Did these restrictions prevent watercraft injuries for children these past few years? Did these restrictions prevent children under 18 or 16 (or even 12) from being injured or killed operating automobiles? Restrictions are not the answer, education, training, awareness and accountability for breaking the law are. The OPRD is trying to do that and we are not standing in their way. Please consider these issues and re-consider your publicized position.
**************************************************************************************
Follow the Fit Guidelines. It's important that your ATV fits you like a
glove. But how do you know if you're riding a machine that's too big or
small? Check the following rules!
Clearance between ATV seat and inseam while standing up on footpegs. To
stand up and properly absorb shocks through the legs while riding on rough
terrain, you have to have the right clearance between your seat and inseam.
Proper clearance also keeps the seat from hitting you during a ride,
possibly throwing you over the handlebars. You'll need three to six inches
clearance between the ATV seat and inseam while standing up on footpegs.
(The maximum will be controlled by the reference point below.)
Upper Legs. The upper portion of your leg, from about the top of your knee
to your hip, should be about horizontal. This helps you control your ATV. A
little above or below horizontal shouldn't be a problem, but huge
differences (knees significantly below or above the hips) should be checked
by an adult. If your knees are quite a bit above the hips, turn the handle
bars in both directions and check for contact with knees or legs.
Foot Length. Check and see if you can brake correctly. Lock the heel of your
right shoe against the footpeg or in the proper position on the running
board. Your toe should be able to depress the footbrake with a simple
downward rotation of your foot. Check if you have any contact with the
engine or exhaust protrusions. You should be able to use the brakes
consistently without hesitation. (The same rule applies to the ATV's left
side, where the gearshift is located.)
Grip Reach. To steer and balance correctly, sit normally on your ATV with
your hands on the handlebars. Your elbows should have a distinct angle
between your upper arm and forearm. If your elbows are straight out, you won
't be able to turn the handlebars. (Make sure you aren't leaning forward to
compensate for a short reach.) If your elbows are at less than right angles,
you are too large for the ATV and steering and maintaining balance will be d
ifficult.
Throttle Reach. To control your speed and handling, check your throttle
reach. With your right hand in the normal operating position, check to see
if your thumb can easily operate the throttle. Turn the handlebars to the
extreme left and right positions. Check again for any interference with easy
operation.
Brake Reach. Make sure you have good stopping control. Place your hands in
the normal operating position, with fingers straight out. Check to see if
the first joint (from the tip) of your middle finger extends beyond the
brake lever. If not, your hand is too small to effectively grasp the lever
in an emergency. Make sure your thumb also reaches the engine stop switch.
Squeeze the brake lever a few times to be sure you can comfortably use the
controls.
The ATV Safety Institute had a bunch of youth related material that is
excellent.
Now how about sending a letter to this lady at the Oregonian to let her know we are watching very closely how they cover these ATV stories.....I did! Here is a letter from one of our folks - impressive!!
Hi, That is in fact an opinion piece and reflects the view of the newspaper's Editorial Board. I will forward your comments to the editors there, as they are entirely separate from the departments that produce news articles. Therese Bottomly, managing editor
03/11/07 10:59 AM >>>
I am very concerned in regards to your article titled "Dying To Ride Full-Sized ATV's". This story seems to demonstrate the reporter's lack of technical expertise and inference to ambiguous data not clearly based on fact. As such, it appears to be opinionated and could adversely affect current efforts to address a very serious issue.
First of all, you refer to an epidemic of child deaths and injuries on ATV's. By definition, an epidemic is typically a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected"; based on the "incidence rate". Yet, with the substantial increase in ATV use by all age groups, the incident rate is decreasing annually. Oregon tends to outpace other states in this national demographic, as reported by the CPSC.
You provide that the Mullins study found that half of injured riders treated at OHSU suffered head, neck or face injuries, and the number of patients requiring spine operations has increased seven-fold. I have reviewed some of the incidents that fall into this category. It was clear that many of these unfortunate injuries were the direct result of failing to wear helmets and occurred on PRIVATE PROPERTY. (Feel free to research this if in doubt) Currently, Oregon statutes provide the following:
821.202 Failure of Class I or III all-terrain vehicle rider to wear motorcycle helmet; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of failure of a Class I (4-wheeled ATV) or Class III (dirt-bike) all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger to wear a motorcycle helmet if the person is under 18 years of age, operates or rides on a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet.
821.203 Endangering Class I or III all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of endangering a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle operator or passenger if:
(a) The person is operating a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public and the person carries another person on the Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle who is under 18 years of age and is not wearing a motorcycle helmet; or
(b) The person is the parent, legal guardian or person with legal responsibility for the safety and welfare of a child under 18 years of age and the child operates or rides on a Class I or Class III all-terrain vehicle on premises open to the public without wearing a motorcycle helmet.
As you can see, these requirements already exist, yet where is the regulatory oversight and parental accountability? Could a change to only public land applicable statutes reduce injuries that predominantly happen on private land? Isn't that what we should really address?
You also provide that "the ATV industry and its most vocal supporters insist that there's nothing to see here, that legislators should just move on, that voluntary training and education, and parental supervision, are sufficient." And yet there is no substantial push from the "the ATV industry and its most vocal supporters" regarding the OPRD backed House Bills and Senate Bill that will mandate training, passenger restrictions and other similar improvements, with some revision to technical details. There is even an effort by these same people to incorporate proficiency demonstration by children once they receive training. Obviously, we missed that insignificant little fact.
And as to the quote "by now, it is painfully clear that children under the age of 16 do not belong on adult-sized ATVs that can weigh 600 pounds and top speeds of 60 mph.", it amazes me that you could promulgate the theory that 600 pound ATV's are now the poster child for adult ATV's. Any ATV capable of being 600 pounds is a utility vehicle, commonly called UTV's and seen on farms/ranches. It is almost unheard of that a recreational ATV would reach those weights. My teenage daughters Yamaha YFM250 weighs less than 260 pounds. My performance based larger ATV, a 700 Yamaha Raptor, weighs 398 pounds.
And that brings us to your exception to the Oregon mother who backs the bill, Sue DeLoretto-Rabe, whose son, Kyle, died in an ATV accident in 2002, that has received cruel, unsigned e-mails that attack her support for restrictions and blame her for her son's death. Let's get the silly stuff over with, are we really capable of receiving e-mails that have no traceability? If so, that is a trick no one here knows how to do. And as to her particular event, let's chat. Granted, this is just my perspective, but I think I speak for quite a few parents and I beg your indulgence.
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 dismissed. Like many of us, I know how the loss of a loved one feels. Sue does not have a monopoly on this subject.
I have seen where some feel that openly viewing and sharing her publicly available ATV purchase certificate and police reports of her son's death is a form of attacking Sue and is consequently unfair and cruel. For me, it was a process to understand the issues that will affect my family. It begs the question, what change is she really trying to affect for the ATV riding public? 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, parents do purchase so-called adult sized quads knowing full well that they intend to have their children ride them because of various reasons, whether it's due to developmental size, experience level or similar considerations. It is my understanding that Sue is trying to convince us that these warnings were not enough to compel her to keep her son off of the utility sized 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/initialed, 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?!?! 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. Additionally, Salem has to decide to actually take the millions we pay into the OPRD account and utilize it for enhanced enforcement oversight of irresponsible riders.
Similarly, that is where Sue was also remiss in my humble opinion. Yes, we 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 per use 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.
And finally, you state that "the critics also complain that ATVs are being singled out for regulation. In fact, ATVs are a notable exception to existing laws that set reasonable age limits to drive automobiles, motorboats and personal watercraft such as Jet Skis." Yet, children do die on and in these vehicles due to negligence of the responsible and supervisory adult. Did these restrictions prevent watercraft injuries for children these past few years? Did these restrictions prevent children under 18 or 16 (or even 12) from being injured or killed operating automobiles? Restrictions are not the answer, education, training, awareness and accountability for breaking the law are. The OPRD is trying to do that and we are not standing in their way. Please consider these issues and re-consider your publicized position.
**************************************************************************************
Follow the Fit Guidelines. It's important that your ATV fits you like a
glove. But how do you know if you're riding a machine that's too big or
small? Check the following rules!
Clearance between ATV seat and inseam while standing up on footpegs. To
stand up and properly absorb shocks through the legs while riding on rough
terrain, you have to have the right clearance between your seat and inseam.
Proper clearance also keeps the seat from hitting you during a ride,
possibly throwing you over the handlebars. You'll need three to six inches
clearance between the ATV seat and inseam while standing up on footpegs.
(The maximum will be controlled by the reference point below.)
Upper Legs. The upper portion of your leg, from about the top of your knee
to your hip, should be about horizontal. This helps you control your ATV. A
little above or below horizontal shouldn't be a problem, but huge
differences (knees significantly below or above the hips) should be checked
by an adult. If your knees are quite a bit above the hips, turn the handle
bars in both directions and check for contact with knees or legs.
Foot Length. Check and see if you can brake correctly. Lock the heel of your
right shoe against the footpeg or in the proper position on the running
board. Your toe should be able to depress the footbrake with a simple
downward rotation of your foot. Check if you have any contact with the
engine or exhaust protrusions. You should be able to use the brakes
consistently without hesitation. (The same rule applies to the ATV's left
side, where the gearshift is located.)
Grip Reach. To steer and balance correctly, sit normally on your ATV with
your hands on the handlebars. Your elbows should have a distinct angle
between your upper arm and forearm. If your elbows are straight out, you won
't be able to turn the handlebars. (Make sure you aren't leaning forward to
compensate for a short reach.) If your elbows are at less than right angles,
you are too large for the ATV and steering and maintaining balance will be d
ifficult.
Throttle Reach. To control your speed and handling, check your throttle
reach. With your right hand in the normal operating position, check to see
if your thumb can easily operate the throttle. Turn the handlebars to the
extreme left and right positions. Check again for any interference with easy
operation.
Brake Reach. Make sure you have good stopping control. Place your hands in
the normal operating position, with fingers straight out. Check to see if
the first joint (from the tip) of your middle finger extends beyond the
brake lever. If not, your hand is too small to effectively grasp the lever
in an emergency. Make sure your thumb also reaches the engine stop switch.
Squeeze the brake lever a few times to be sure you can comfortably use the
controls.
The ATV Safety Institute had a bunch of youth related material that is
excellent.