From his hospital bed a Portland man gave a statement to police this week in which he acknowledged drinking, drag racing and a fatal crash that killed a cyclist in Gresham, according to The Oregonian.

The man “told police he had two alcoholic drinks before racing a random driver in Gresham early Sunday (October 8), crashing into another car, then hitting and killing another man riding his bike” the paper reported, citing court records. It notes that despite the 23-year-old man’s claim to have had only two drinks “his blood alcohol content was still above the legal limit when his blood was tested 17 hours after the crash.”

While drag racing another vehicle the man also wound up driving on the wrong side of Southeast Stark Street. According to a witness cited by the paper, the fatal crash involving the cyclist took place when the driver “went into oncoming traffic, hit a Ford Escape, spun around” and struck the bike rider.

On Thursday evening, according to Bike Portland, “a quarter-mile of Portlanders lined Southwest Naito Parkway’s temporary protected bike lane” as a form of protest at plans for its removal. The temporary lane is scheduled to be removed on Monday, October 1, but a separate blog post from the advocacy group notes that “the city has worked up a rough engineering concept that includes a bike path and protected two-way bike lanes between Salmon Street and Harrison Street.” Regardless of how one views the bike lane proposals on Naito Parkway the fact that Portland is even having civic conversations like these is a good sign for out community.

This week’s protest comes at a moment when there is a significant amount of activity surrounding bike safety here in what is often called the country’s most bike-friendly city. But it also comes at a moment when government data is reminding all of us that despite its bike-loving reputation Portland could do much better.

Chapters 814 and 815 of Oregon’s legal code (see links below) are often presented as a reminder of the obligations cyclists have when using our roads. It is important to understand, however, that they place an even more significant level of responsibility on drivers of cars and trucks. Because the legal code considers bikes vehicles it is the responsibility of all other vehicle operators (i.e. drivers) to treat them with the same caution and respect they use around cars, trucks and motorcycles. As a widely reported government study noted last month, cycling deaths have been on the rise nationwide. The 818 cyclist deaths on our nation’s roads in 2015 (the latest year for which data is available) represented a 12 percent jump from the previous year.

Over the years public awareness of the seriousness of distracted driving has only grown. In the same vein, our legal system’s efforts to address the problem have matured, reflecting both changes in communications technology and a better understanding of distracted driving as a problem.

One result, as The Oregonian reports, are new changes to Oregon’s distracted driving laws, set to come into effect on October 1. At the core of the new rules are “a stricter ban on cellphone use while driving and higher fines which escalate for repeat offenders.”

As I noted back in May when HB 2597, as the law is known, was still making its way through the legislature, there are two key elements to this law: one involving definitions and the other focusing on penalties.

People throughout the Southeast are struggling to put their lives back together after the damage caused by hurricanes Harvey and Irma over the last few weeks. More trouble, however, is on the way. Most immediately this takes the form of Hurricane Maria. This latest storm is already hitting a number of Caribbean islands hard (some of which were also hit by the earlier storms) and may also strike the US mainland in the coming days.

Some of the trouble, however, will be completely man-made. Over the coming weeks and months many homeowners struggling to rebuild are likely to discover that the policies they counted on are written more with a mind to protecting insurers than helping the insured.

Most media attention concerning hurricanes and insurance focuses on flood insurance. Few private companies are willing to underwrite flood insurance for anyone living in a flood-prone area so it is offered by the federal government instead. At times like these we see many newspaper and television stories about people who should have bought flood insurance but didn’t or, in the wake of massive storms like Harvey and Irma, people who didn’t think they needed flood insurance in the first place and are now discovering that their policies do not cover the damage to their property.

The well-known organic and health-food manufacturer Amy’s Kitchen is based in California but operates a plant here in Oregon. According to a recent article in the Sonoma Press-Democrat the company is being sued “by four former employees who claim the company systematically put workers at risk through overwork and unsafe conditions.”

At first glance this would appear to be a straightforward worker’s comp dispute. According to the newspaper a key allegation in the lawsuit involves injuries allegedly sustained by one plaintiff while handling large and heavy objects in the plant. While the current lawsuit as reported by the Press-Democrat does not seek damages on the basis of third-party liability issues these are worth exploring on a hypothetical level, because they are a potential factor in many workplace deaths and injury cases.

The key case when considering this sort of third-party liability in Oregon is Kilminster v Day Management Corp (323 Or. 618) which was decided by the Oregon Supreme court in 1996. In that case the estate of a man who died on the job contended that the employer “deliberately did not provide its workers, including decedent, with legally-required safety equipment.” The court also found that the company did not offer necessary safety training to employees and did not have a proper safety plan in place.

An exposé in the Los Angeles Times has brought renewed focus to something we lose sight of too often here in the United States: prisoners still have rights, and that includes the mentally-ill.

The newspaper notes that “three decades of federal litigation” has conclusively established “that psychiatric care in prison is a constitutional right” and yet it tells the story of a man suffering from schizophrenia who spent 46 hours with his arms and legs “shackled to a chair in the San Luis Obispo County jail.” The man died a short time after being released from the chair and then “dumped on the floor of a nearby cell.”

The case has shocked the local community, and led to “a record $5 million legal settlement” according to the newspaper. But the events that led to this tragedy are worth exploring because of the lessons they hold for the rest of the country, including us here in Oregon. It is essential to understand that the victim was being held at a county facility because of a state program designed to reduce prison overcrowding. The result of that program was to push many prisoners out of state facilities and into municipal and county ones. This is significant because state and local jails are rarely equipped to deal with long-term inmates who have mental health issues.

The sad case of a 10-year-old Klamath Falls girl and the severe injuries she suffered when attacked by four dogs has brought the complex legal questions surrounding Oregon dog attacks back onto the public agenda.

As reported by area newspapers the East Oregonian and the Herald and News the June attack left the girl with “a torn scalp, punctured lung and broken ribs” and required several weeks of in-patient treatment at a Portland hospital. A ‘GoFundMe’ page set up by friends and neighbors to help the family deal with medical expenses quickly raised over $15,000, according to the Herald and News.

Meanwhile, according to the East Oregonian, legal proceedings concerning the dogs moved ahead. Earlier this month the Associated Press reported that the Klamath County Commission “voted unanimously… that it was in the public interest to euthanize the animals.” The paper reported that the commission, after investigating the attack, determined that the owner of the dogs, all English mastiffs, had the “inclination but not the ability” to keep the animals under proper control. It rejected an offer on the owner’s part to move the dogs to a different part of the state.

An effort by the Trump administration to roll back an obscure Medicare rule has provoked a loud, and unexpected, backlash according to multiple reports in The Hill, a newspaper that specializes in covering the federal government in general and Congress in particular. The paper reports in June an obscure regulatory body known as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) said it intends to repeal a “rule that prohibited nursing homes that accept Medicare or Medicaid funds from including language in their resident contracts requiring that disputes be settled by a third party rather than a court.”

This is an issue that I have been following for some time both in terms of this specific rule (click here to read my blog from last year when it was originally issued) and in terms of the broader question of arbitration ‘agreements’ that seek to deny ordinary Americans access to our courts when they suffer financial or physical neglect at the hands of a rich or powerful company (an issue I first addressed in 2013).

Thus, it is very heartening to see such a widespread backlash against the administration’s proposed rule changes. According to The Hill, 16 states and the District of Columbia filed formal objections to the policy change when these came due early last week. “Pre-dispute binding arbitration agreements in general can be procedurally unfair to consumers, and can jeopardize one of the fundamental rights of Americans; the right to be heard and to seek judicial redress for our claims,” the state attorneys general wrote in objecting to the proposed rule changes, according to The Hill. “This is especially true when consumers are making the difficult decisions regarding the long term care of loved ones. These contractual provisions may be neither voluntary nor readily understandable for most consumers.”

An almost off-hand remark by President Trump during an address to police officers last week was swiftly denounced by police officials in red and blue states alike. As the Washington Post reports, “some police leaders worried that three sentences uttered by the president… could up-end nearly three decades of fence-mending.”

Speaking to officers gathered on Long Island for an event focused on gang violence, Trump spoke about “roughing up” suspects and said: “When you guys put someone in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, ‘don’t hit their head’ and they just killed somebody – don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away. Okay?”

Denunciation of the comments came from police departments across the country. Even the department Trump had addressed, in Suffolk County, New York, put out a statement rejecting his suggestion that ignoring the right of people being arrested would be OK in certain circumstances. At the most basic level, an admonition to police to mistreat suspects goes against the presumption of innocence that lies at the base of American law. On a more immediate level it raises fears, as the Post notes, that individual officers will find encouragement in the president’s words, seeing in them a kind of validation for bad, even illegal, behavior.

A groundbreaking study published last week by the New York Times has reverberated through the sports world. “A neuropathologist has examined the brains of 111 NFL players – and 110 were found to have CTE, the degenerative disease linked to repeated blows to the head,” the paper writes.

A few days later, National Public Radio reported that the NFL was ending a $30 million research partnership with the National Institutes of Health. Citing original reporting by ESPN, NPR said that after almost five years nearly half of the funds the league committed to the study of brain injuries remained unspent “following a bitter dispute in 2015 in which the NFL backed out of a major study that had been awarded to a researcher who had been critical of the League.”

It goes without saying that youth and high school sports are a far cry from the NFL, but with these two stories in the news it is worth revisiting the issue of youth sports and TBI for two reasons. First, anyone playing in the NFL only got there after years of youth, high school and college football. It has long been established that head injuries have a cumulative effect, so it is incumbent on all of us to ask what can be done to minimize these injuries long before young people get to the professional level. Second, and more importantly, whatever one may think of the NFL’s approach and attitude toward concussion issues, professional football players enter each game with the best equipment possible – including helmets built to standards far more exacting than anything a middle or high school student wears onto the field. That, in turn, requires us to look carefully at both the practices and the laws governing youth contact sports to see whether we are doing everything we can to prevent injuries to children.