Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Chris B., Nov 4, 2004.

  1. Peter Storey

    Peter Storey Guest

    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
     


  2. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    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
     
  3. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    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.
     
  4. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:

    > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > > 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
     
  5. 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]
     
  6. 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]
     
  7. 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]
     
  8. Chris B.

    Chris B. Guest

    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
     
  9. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    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.)
     
  10. Maggie

    Maggie Guest

    > 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/
     
  11. JFJones

    JFJones Guest

    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
     
  12. JFJones

    JFJones Guest

    [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > Dragan Cvetkovic <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    > > > 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.
     
  13. Marcus Coles

    Marcus Coles Guest

    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
     
  14. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    [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
     
  15. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    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
     
  16. AustinMN

    AustinMN Guest

    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
     
  17. 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.


    Bullshit, 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]
     
  18. dgk

    dgk Guest

    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.
     
  19. Peter

    Peter Guest

    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.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Guest

    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
     
Loading...
Loading...