Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



Chris B. <[email protected]> quoted someone thusly
in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "That includes N.D.P. MPP Michael Prue, who lost his brother to a bike
> accident in 1998. ?There isn't a day goes by that I don't see someone
> on the streets of Toronto, an adult, with no helmet on their head, and
> I want to get out of my car or off the sidewalk and I want to grab
> them and I want to shake them,? he reflects. ?I want to tell them that
> this was an absolutely wrong thing, a bad thing to happen."

Oh dear! Shaking them? MPP Prue really should read up on rotational
injuries that are not prevented --- and may be exacerbated -- by
wearing a helmet.

Peter Storey
 
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 14:36:05 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>AustinMN wrote:
>
>> Chris Phillipo wrote
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > I'm saying that he constantly posts statistics that claim
>>>> > helmet use is detrimental to the health of the people because it
>>>> deters
>>>> > them from riding, I counter that in Nova Scotia helmet use is not
>>>> > enforced so where exactly is this deterrent for riders?
>>>>
>>>> Chris, these two statements don't oppose and contradict each other.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Come again?
>>
>>
>> Take a deep breath. Just because a law is not enforced, doesn't mean
>> there aren't people who obey it.
>>
>> The existence of the law (whether or not it is enforced) _is_ a deterrent.
>>
>
>More to the point, just because a law is not enforced - or, more likely,
>not _usually_ enforced - doesn't mean that there are people who are put
>off by the _possibility_ of enforcement.
>
>Those who think a MHL has no effect on cycling are being very unrealistic.

Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
for ont.bicycle.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>
> To go even further, the mere existence of a law purported to be for
> "safety" purposes, even if it is *guaranteed* to be unenforced, can
> potentially be a deterrent, since it spreads the idea, sometimes
> unconsciously, that the activity is dangerous.

Not to mention spreading the silly idea that the government is your parent.
 
Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:

> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, bikerider@-no-
> > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> >>
> >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> >>
> >
> > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
>
> Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> actively enforced?


He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
obeyed nor enforced.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Chris B. wrote:

>
>
> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> for ont.bicycle.

Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:

>
>
> That had nothing to do with the point of my post but I'm sure that this
> bill, like almost all others, has no provision in it for extra law
> enforment spending.

Which means, of course, that any time the cops give to enforcing it is
time taken away from real productive activity.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Ken [NY) wrote:

>
> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
> the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
> this proposed law.
>

But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!

Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Chris B. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
>> for ont.bicycle.
>
>Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
>hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

I hadn't even considered that, sorry.

I must say, I'm not usually so provincial.
--

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis
 
Chris B. <[email protected]> writes:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:25:14 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Chris B. wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> >> for ont.bicycle.
> >
> >Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> >hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.
>
> I hadn't even considered that, sorry.
>

Krygoswki's claim doesn't make much sense - normally you get an
error if you can't post and the newsreader just reports it. If
he really can't post, then he should first try a different newsreader
to rule out a bug in the version of Mozilla he uses (5.0) and
then report the problem to his employer (he seems to be posting
from work.)
 
> My kids are grown, but they _certainly_ did a lot of riding without bike
> helmets. In fact, I assume _all_ of us did. A parent is allowed to
let his kid climb a tree without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid play pickup baseball without a helmet. He's allowed to let his
kid ride his pony without a helmet. In each of these, and many other
situations, the choice is reasonably left up to the parent. What in
the world is so dangerous about cycling that justifies overpowering
parental judgement?


This makes sense to me. There were certainly no helmet laws when I was
a child and there were none for my children. I sometimes wonder how I
survived childhood and also how my children survived. I rode in the
back of my fathers pickup truck with my brother all through my
childhood. If you put your kid in the back of a pick up in the NY/NJ
area today, you would be arrested for child abuse or neglect. We
didn't have car seats, seat belts, helmets, and our cribs had slats we
could stick our heads through,and wooden high chairs we could climb
out of very easily. HOW DID WE SURVIVE??? When I had my first child
there were no still no car seat laws. Some of my greatest memories of
childhood were building cars out of wood crates and roller skate
wheels and flying down the steepest hills we could find with no
brakes. How the heck did we survive? My brother and I still laugh
about those days. We fell out of our treehouse when it collapsed and
survived and in the process learned to build a better tree house. To
ride our bikes, we just hopped on and rode. We never went to a LBS for
anything. If the bike broke we found a way to put it back together.
When the chain fell off we stopped and fixed it until it fell off
again. When the brakes broke we used our feet. It is funny to think
about that is this age of hi tech and safety laws. I must admit I had
a few black eyes and battle scars from hanging around with an older
brother but.... Maybe there are just too many laws protecting our
safety now. I would not trade those old stories of childhood for
anything. Even with the black eyes. When do laws become a hindrence
rather than a help?
Peace and stuff
http://hometown.aol.com/lbuset/
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris B. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Frank, why did you remove the cross post? It is very much on topic
> > for ont.bicycle.
>
> Because my system won't let me post there. When I try, the entire post
> hangs. I agree it's very much on topic there. Feel free to copy.

You can post via Google. It can be accessed via the three newsgroups, eg
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&group=ont.bicycle
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, bikerider@-no-
> > > spam-thanks-rogers.com says...
> > >>
> > >> I wonder why. Are you aware that mandatory helmet laws implemented in
> > >> Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Zealand and parts of Australia have not only
> > >> not shown benefits but have actually had negative effects (decreased
> > >> numbers of cyclists in all cases and sometimes an increase in the rate
> > >> of head injury after the law is enacted)?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Ho hum, that would be a neat trick considering the helmet laws are not
> > > even enforced outside of Halifax in Nova Scotia. Which makes me think
> > > the rest of these "statitics" are in quesiton.
> >
> > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > actively enforced?
>
>
> He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> obeyed nor enforced.
>
> Bill

Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
the case of kids parental enforcement.
 
According to Canadian Cyclist
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/dailynews/November/11.4.0412.39PM17.shtml
it has been sent to committee for study.

It would seem to me that some benefit might be obtained by targeting the
members of this committee. Does anybody know the correct procedure
for such communication.

Another case of politicians making decisions with bad information and
once this happens laws may be modified but never repealed as that would
cause loss of face for the originators of such poorly considered statutes.

Since CPSC bicycle helmets are designed for low speed, low energy
impacts and more head injuries occur from slipping in the bathtub or
shower than bicycling perhaps as an alternative mandating the use in
that environment would make far more sense. ;^)

Marcus Coles
 
[email protected] (JFJones) writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > > Are you saying that people should obey the law only if it is actually and
> > > actively enforced?
> >
> > He's saying what I have said for years on this topic: that laws that
> > are not obeyed or enforced have zero impact on human behavior. People
> > are not going to stop cycling because of a helmet law that is neither
> > obeyed nor enforced.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
> the case of kids parental enforcement.

Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
under.

That's the reality, moronic self-styled "moralists" who confuse
reporting the facts with a person's own ethical standards
notwithstanding. I might add that many parents probably don't even
know the law exists (it isn't publicized very well), in which case
Jone's "ethical values" / "self-enforcement" claims would be
particularly daft. "Ethical values" do not compel you to obey a
law that you don't know exists.

My guess is that Jones is a Bush supporter---he's sufficiently
out of touch with the real world. Any bets?

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Then your location is a fluke. Virtually everywhere else MHL's are put
>> in
>> place, ridership declines.
>>
>> But my suspicion is that your collection methods are more flawed than the
>> one who found ridership is down. You do base your statement on a
>> scientific
>> survey, not your own impression, right?
>>
>> Austin
>> --
>> I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
>> There are no X characters in my address
>>
>>
>
> I base my statement on having sold more bikes in the past 2 years than
> ever before and there being a club with over 100 members vs. 10 from 2
> years ago.

If you sell bicycles, then you really ought to know that ownership does not
equal ridership. Today, probably 95% of all bicycles sold never see 100
miles, ever.

Club ridership is also misleading. There is more club ridership, but not to
many years ago almost nobody rode in clubs.

Austin
 
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>> becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>> the case of kids parental enforcement.
>>
>>
> Well not counting you, I haven't met that person.

I've met a dozen. I'm even married to a woman who has said "If they make me
wear a helmet, I'm not riding." I know her well enough that it makes no to
her difference if the law is enforced or not.

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address
 
Ken [NY] wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>>>the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>>>this proposed law.
>>>
>>
>>But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
>>wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!
>
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
> Bush to continue his policies,

I believe you're oversimplifying - as is Mr. Bush. Not surprising in
either case.

so forgive them (us) their gloating and
> their "simplistic thinking".

:) I can't believe you're asking for forgiveness!

> It's funny, but the left continues year after year to look
> down their considerable noses at common folk, and through Yankee tight
> lips, regard their every loss to be caused by stupid voters.

Ken, you're a piece of work.

If I look down on anyone, it's not "common folk." I _do_, however, look
down on stupid voters.

FWIW, that includes people who vote for Kerry & Edwards because Edwards
is cute. It includes poor young people who vote for Bush because "He's
for the rich, and I plan to be rich some day." It includes people who
vote for Kerry because he rides a road bike. It includes people who
voted for Bush because they _still_ think we found WMDs in Iraq.

Those are all real examples I heard... and the list goes on. Yes, I
look down on those folks. I can deal with ignorance, but not stupidity.
(There's a saying in education: "Stupidity is forever, but
ignorance we can fix.")


>
>>Ah well. We're off topic, aren't we?
>
>
> Sorry, Sir, but I did not send it off into a political thread,
> I just followed it, due to my simplistic thinking, I guess. We
> commoners are like that.

********, Ken. This thread was about a helmet bill in Canada. You most
certainly did send it off into a political thread. Certainly, you can't
be _ignorant_ of that fact!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:32:38 GMT, "Ken [NY]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 21:33:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
><[email protected]> claims:
>
>>Ken [NY) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To the fellow who was thinking about fleeing to Canada from
>>> the horrors of Bush's low tax rates, you might want to think about
>>> this proposed law.
>>>
>>
>>But then, there's the opportunity to get free of Neanderthal right
>>wingers and their simplistic "thinking." The choice isn't easy!
>
> Those "Neanderthal right wingers" just sent a mandate to Mr.
>Bush to continue his policies, so forgive them (us) their gloating and
>their "simplistic thinking". People in the heartland don't like to
>think in curley-cues, preferring straight thought.


Mandate? 48% of Americans voted against him and many who voted for him
did so inspite of his policies. No mandate there. To me, it is likely
that his victory came from the fact that his team made the voting
machines that left us no paper trail to verify. I think they cheated.
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> [email protected] (JFJones) writes:

>>Unlike cynical Bill, some people have ethical values that prevent them
>>becoming lawbreakers. They quit cycling through self-enforcement or in
>>the case of kids parental enforcement.
>
>
> Some of us are ethical enough to report what we see accurately. On
> quite a number of occassions around here, I've seen kids riding
> without helmets and the police ignoring them, and this is in a state
> where we do have a helmet law that applies to anyone 17 (18?) or
> under.

Of course this says nothing to refute the statement by Jones which was
about self-enforcement and parental enforcement and specifically not
about police enforcement.

My commute route goes past an elementary school, an intermediate
school, and a high school. I still see a considerable number of
kids cycling, albeit not nearly as many as before the helmet law
was passed. Almost all have helmets, but only about 20% of those
helmets are on their heads - most of the others are dangling from
the handlebars.

Now maybe there's some new fashion that makes it trendy to have
a helmet hanging from your handlebars, but I think the more likely
explanation is that the helmet law is in fact being enforced, but not
while the kids are enroute. Instead it's enforced at one or
both ends of the trip - at the school and/or at the home. Not by
police, but by parents and/or school personnel.

The other thing I conclude is that most of the kids dislike wearing
the helmet so much that they'd rather take it off once out of sight
of school and/or home and put up with the inconvenience of having it
flop around from their bars than continue wearing it. Given that
degree of dislike it's not surprising that some fraction would
choose not to ride at all once a helmet law is passed.
 
I'm undecided. People who don't wear helmets are stupid plain as day. Maybe
our gene pool need a little weeding, but lemme tell you a small story....

I'm a downhiller the more air the better, I think any drop less than 5 feet
is for sissies. So ya I ride good, Really good. (Lately easing back 'cause
my fiancee worries too much) Usually in the city I don't wear my lid cause
it's a full face. Last spring, normal commute to work, done it 100's of
times. I mean I was a courier dammit. It was particulally cold that day so
I wore my helmet. It keeps my head warm. I got cut off by a cab (What with
those guys?) I fell. I Seperated my AC joint, Sprained my wrist, and my head
bounced off the ground so hard I got whiplash. I was in bed for over a week.


I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
have that helmet on. since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
wearin it. I don't want my kids to have to change my Diapers When I'm 35.
But hey if your dumb enough to ride with out one Ya kinda deserve it. But I
don't want people hurt. So ya I'm undecided

"Chris B." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The law would apply to people who skateboard, ride scooters or in-line
> skate. Apparently they have decided to leave adult cyclists alone for
> now.
>
> http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20041104-009/page.asp
>
> My favourite part:
>
> "That includes N.D.P. MPP Michael Prue, who lost his brother to a bike
> accident in 1998. "There isn't a day goes by that I don't see someone
> on the streets of Toronto, an adult, with no helmet on their head, and
> I want to get out of my car or off the sidewalk and I want to grab
> them and I want to shake them," he reflects. "I want to tell them that
> this was an absolutely wrong thing, a bad thing to happen."
>
> --
> "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
> victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
> robber-barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber-
> baron's cruelty may at some point be satiated; but those who
> torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they
> do so with the approval of their own conscience."
>
> - C.S. Lewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back