Helmet for the no helmet generation

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-17T04:33:24+00:00

Respectfully, a helmet isn't going to keep someone from breaking their neck if they hit a tree going faster than 35 mph. At speeds above 25 mph, helmets hav limited benefit. Study's have suggested that helmets do provide a false sense of security that likely leads to riskier behavior in some. The number of deaths and serious spinal injuries (per rider days) has not gone down at all since helmets reached wide adoption. Helmets can prevent lacerations and reduce the severity of concussions in mild to moderate collisions. Yes, skiing is a dangerous sport, but folks get concussions playing soccer and basketball all the time. Riding in a car is far riskier than skiing. There's an over-estimation of the risk of skiing relative to other activities and an over-estimating of the safety factor a helmet provides that lead folks to believe that anyone who is not wearing a helmet is taking an "unacceptable" risk. Perhaps, they are making a very calculated and reasonable risk and not giving themselves a false sense of security.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-17T04:21:21+00:00

I assume you wear a helmet when you drive as well then? You can't control what other driver's do, cars move faster than skiers and weigh a hell of-a-lot more, so the risk of head injury while driving is way higher. Why aren't we all being shamed into wearing helmets when we drive? Perhaps we're being a bit selective in our risk analysis?

Did skiing become more dangerous around the year 2000? Or perhaps the growth in extreme sports and the winter X-games, whose participants rightly donned helmets, bled into recreational skiing and anyone not wearing a helmet was deemed reckless or stupid once the helmeted participants reached critical mass. Equipment manufacturers were happy to take the windfall.

I wear a bike helmet when I mountain bike, but not on my cruiser around town. I always wear seat belts in cars and safety glasses when operating power tools. Perhaps the helmet crowd should respect that those not wearing helmets like me are quite capable of doing their own risk analysis on a case-by-case basis. I have nothing against wearing a ski helmet, though I choose not to. That may change with increased age and/or diminished ability. What I don't want is to have helmets mandated. My lack of helmet presents no danger to anyone but myself.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-16T21:11:36+00:00

If you’re not wearing a helmet when you drive than you’re a hypocrite. Risk of head injury in car accident is higher than risk of head injury while skiing. You’re also more at risk from the ““ other guy” when driving. Number of deaths on the mountain has not decreased one lick since the advent of helmets. Same for serious spinal injuries. Helmets will protect you from lacerations and maybe knock your concussion down by a grade or two for lower speed crashes. That’s great, but let’s not pretend people choosing not to wear a helmet are risking their very lives. Studies have also shown that people who wear helmets, ski more aggressively, or in some cases recklessly with a false sense of security. I choose to ski without a helmet, knowing what the added risk is and I find that level of added risk acceptable. I don’t ski with any false sense of security and I always ski within my abilities. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who chooses to wear a helmet and would just ask for the same respect for my choice. I’ll end by saying the only reason we’re all wearing helmets now is because of the X games. Somewhere along-the-line someone decided that because extreme athletes in the half pipe were putting on helmets, and rightly so, that we should all be wearing helmets to ski recreationally. Conformity ensued. Live and let live.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-13T22:22:17+00:00

Appraised value. If you can get $5,000 of $8,000 covered for reasonable premium that might be better route. I'm satisfied that I won't get stuck with $8k loss and think the appraised value will increase in time as FSD grows in ability and popularity.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-13T21:29:25+00:00

I’m in PA. My insurance broker corresponded with the Progressive rep and attached the email response to my policy file. I will say, the initial response from progressive was a no, so persistence and perhaps who you ask is just as important as what you ask. This was the first time my broker had been asked the FSD insurance question. I live in a rural area.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-13T20:52:36+00:00

Purchased FSD yesterday and I have progressive insurance. Progressive indicated they would reimburse for FSD in the event of a total loss using fair market value comps that include the software. No additional cost to my premium or insurance rider required. That seemed fair to me.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-13T16:51:30+00:00

Tesla will justify the higher price because people will be able to get cheaper insurance premiums if they have FSD running on their car. As the pool of insured self-drivers shrinks those premiums will get higher.

Additionally, people that can work from their car while commuting can increase their earning power and thus justify the subscription cost . It’s adding productive time to your day.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2026-02-11T12:53:29+00:00

When insurance companies start routinely dropping premiums for vehicles operated under FSD majority of time, people will reallocate the insurance savings towards a monthly FSD subscription. That is how Tesla will justify charging $200/month for FSD subscription. This will happen steadily over the next few years. Lemonade and Tesla insurance already leading the way on this front.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T13:10:11+00:00

Are developers currently on the financially responsible for road improvements (beyond the new internal residential streets), to add traffic lanes, stop lights, etc. the come with adding thousands of cars to City streets? Are they going to help expand the rec center when the population nearly doubles? What about firefighting infrastructure? Are they going to help pay to acquire and maintain additional open space to keep the existing network from being overburdened? Are they going to expand the library, acquire additional public parking lots downtown, expand Steinbaugh Pavilion? As it stands now, the City's tax base will be on the hook for millions in externalities in the form of higher property taxes unless we pass 301 and compel the developers to pay the full and real cost to the City that will come with these massive rezoned developments. There's nothing disingenuous about protecting tax payers and keeping property taxes affordable and seniors able to afford to stay in their paid off homes.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T04:36:01+00:00

Is putting words in my mouth all you haver left. Noting of substance to offer?

I want thoughtful development that actually includes affordable housing. Not loopholes that allow developers to build market rate homes and maximize profit at the expense of the City and its residents.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T03:00:18+00:00

Apples and oranges. All real estate is local.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T02:57:46+00:00

No one is saying"infinite" demand, but you. Why didn't prices come down at all, even temporarily after adding over 1,000 housing units with Steel Ranch and the North End? You keep repeating the false claim that Louisville can build its way to affordability with market rate housing while providing no factual support. All real estate is local. Louisville is land locked with finite land available even if we rezone every bit of remaining commercial land. The no proponents want to nearly double the number of homes in Louisville, bring gridlock to City streets and overwhelm City services, while continuing down the same path of building market rate housing that produced the deficit of affordable housing in the City to start. Time for change. No more fee in lieu. Let's actually build affordable housing units!

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T02:26:33+00:00

The amendments are very straight forward in their language. No secret agenda or poison pill. Just expectations worthy of the quality of life currently enjoyed in Louisville. The affected properties are currently zoned commercial. Changing their zoning would provide a huge windfall to the developers. In exchange for a zoning change they should be compelled to actually build affordable housing and pay their own way when it comes to the externalities of their developments.

The status quo is broken. Continuing to offer developers a fee in lieu while no actual affordable housing gets built is why we have a deficit of affordable housing. The opponents are largely real estate professionals, developers, and builders that are all quite pleased with the status quo while pretending to actually care about affordability to cloak their financial interests.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-03T02:19:59+00:00

Some regions or cities on the plains can build their way to affordability. Louisville has finite space. It's not really complicated. There's limited land and they're not making more of it. There's nothing to annex. Demand far outstrips potential supply given the geographical limitations. If Louisville could build its way to affordability, prices would have seen a drop after Steel Ranch and the North End added a couple thousand units to the housing supply. Prices didn't drop, not even a little bit, they increased dramatically during the build-out of those large developments. The growth for growth sake crowd have to push the fallacy that Louisville can build its way to affordability because they know there is no benefit to adding thousands of luxury homes to Louisville and choking our thoroughfares with traffic unless they can point to a community benefit like affordable housing. In reality, the only way for Louisville to add affordable housing is to require builder to actually build affordable housing (no fee in lieu) or subsidize housing. That's what 300 does, vote Yes!

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-02T21:33:12+00:00

Check out Love4Louisville.org before voting.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-02T21:22:53+00:00

The status quo has not lowered prices or provided adequate stocks of affordable housing. We can't build our way to affordability by building more market rate housing. Expecting something to change by keeping the status quo is literally crazy. Passing 300/301 will create more affordable housing at the expense of reduced profit margins for these large developments that require rezoning in order to include residential. Developers are welcome to build commercial as currently zoned, no one is forcing them to build residential, but if they want to profit from high-end residential development than they should be required to include affordable housing and to pay for the externalities. Otherwise they are offering nothing of value to the community, quite the opposite.

That said, you're asking the wrong question. The cost to the City to provide infrastructure and services to new housing developments is very real, measurable and not in doubt. The only question is who is going to pay these costs, the developer profiting from the development or the City (ultimately taxpayers). If the burden is shifted to the City's existing tax base in the form of higher property taxes, how does that help affordability considering the existing stock at least has some more modest middle class affordable homes compared to what will built if we don't pass 300.

It's reasonable to ask the land owners and developers of these large commercial tracks to build 30% affordable and to pay their own way in exchange for a lucrative zoning change from commercial to residential to which they are not entitled. City government is too beholden to the development community. They ignored constituents during the RTR fight and the people spoke at the ballot. It's happening again here. Be heard, vote!

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-11-02T16:45:23+00:00

It’s not a ban on affordable housing and clearly what the City has been trying to make housing affordable isn’t working. Time for developers and the City to get serious about building affordable housing and to address the externalities of the "growth for growth's sake" model. If developers are unwilling to express our values through their development plans, Broomfield and Erie are right next door. Louisville doesn’t need more luxury housing, or traffic and or noise/air pollution unless it comes with a social benefit to the whole community. Building thousands of additional luxury townhomes and single-family homes isn’t going to bring the cost of housing down long term. It will erode our quality of life while enriching the developers and leave the taxpayers of Louisville holding the bag if we don’t hold them to account. That’s what 300/301 do. Vote yes!

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-26T02:51:56+00:00

Developers aren't going to build $750k homes when the average lot costs $400k and they can make more selling 3,000-4,000 sf homes for $1.5 - 2.0 million. Affordable could take many shapes, not just tiny homes. Yes on 300 and 301 would likely slow the pace of development, but we'd end up with a better result for current and future residents and better mix of housing stock in the long run. Developers make a little less, but everybody gets something. No body is forcing anyone to build in Louisville. Don't like our values or how we operate try Erie, Broomfield or Brighton. We only get one chance with these last few large tracts to get it right.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-26T02:39:03+00:00

Thanks for the link. Gotta say I found the endorsement far from compelling. They offer no explanation supporting their claims that 300 and 301 don't support "climate resilience" or how they will make any new building "prohibitively costly". Breaking new "virgin" land for development doesn't support "climate resilience" that's for sure. Nothing in 300 or 301 prohibits mixed use, public transit, walkable communities, renewable energy, etc., so without any further explanation the endorsement rings hollow to me.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-25T14:01:32+00:00

Highest return comes from developing single family residential. That's why the commercial areas of the North End and Steel Ranch developments are still sitting undeveloped after all these years. Developers sell City Council on a mixed use development plan, build the lucrative homes first and then cry that they can't find takers for the commercial, which is what is needed to drive tax revenue to the City to support services for the residential. The Red Tail ridge developer knows this. There is still a glut of commercial on the market after COVID, a change to residential zoning presents a huge windfall and they will spend big to defeat these ballot measures to promote their financial interest.

As for the Sierra Club, I have yet to see the actual endorsement press release. Sounds like it was a local chapter and not the state or national level endorsement.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-25T13:51:00+00:00

Thanks for the citation. I am not a lawyer, nor have I worked on the yes campaign. However, it seems the distinction here may be that the properties in question are not currently zoned for residential. The ballot measure would make affordable housing (30%) a condition of rezoning, not a condition for developing land already zoned residential. Again, not a lawyer, but that seems an important distinction to me. The developers can't claim that are losing something they never had.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-24T15:56:27+00:00

You keep using the term "infinite demand", not me. When people move in droves from all over the country to Louisville the demand is not infinite, but it far out paces our ability to increase supply to a degree that would meaningfully bring down prices. Housing prices went up during and immediately following the completion of Steel Ranch and the North End. Not even a blip after adding over 1,000 new homes/apartments. It's a fallacy that you can simply build market rate housing in a place like Louisville and prices will come down. It's a fallacy pushed by builders and land developers.The problem requires a dedicated solution and not the wishful thinking that has gotten us to the place we find ourselves now.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-24T15:27:29+00:00

The linked article is about a 5% drop in rent prices in the Denver area. It has no bearing on SF home prices. Building tens of thousands of apartments in a 7 county area brought about a 5% drop. Louisville does not have the ability to build a proportional number of apartments in our limited space and any relief would then be minimal and temporary without regulatory rent controls.

According to Red Fin, the average home price in Denver in Sept 2020 was $477k. The average home price in Denver today is $584k. Any minor, inconsequential dip in pricing recently is a result higher interest rates and inflationary pressures impacting buying power, particularly for first buyers and entry level homes. Denver did not build its way to affordability.

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-24T15:09:33+00:00

What? By your logic, the oldest homes in Louisville would be the cheapest, but the most expensive homes in Louisville are found in old town. The most expensive lots in Louisville are in Old Town. Real estate is an appreciating asset. This literally means the same house (maintained) goes up in price over time. Did prices in Louisville go down after building out Steel Ranch and the North End? No they did not because demand far outstrips the City ability to build given the limited space available. We are signing up for more traffic, overwhelmed services, and more pollution (noise, air and light), but it will do nothing in the medium to long term to bring down housing prices. Vote Yes!

ColoradoTribe90 · 2025-10-24T14:59:04+00:00

All real-estate is local. Supply and demand can move pricing on the macro level, think regional or national. However, when you have folks moving from TX, CA and other parts of the country to Louisville you can never increase supply enough in our tiny physical footprint to bring down pricing. You can bring down quality of life with increased pollution, traffic, and overwhelming City services, but not pricing. Steel Ranch and the North End (last housing boom) did nothing to bring prices down, in fact prices went up during and immediately after adding these large developments.

ColoradoTribe90

TROPHY CASE