Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



Maggie wrote:
>>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??? ...stuff deleted

There is an overwhelming sense of fear in our society, to the point that
it is laughable. They check your shoes before going into public
buildings because one idiot tried (unsuccessfully, mind you) to do
something bad with shoes on a plane. What's next? Wingtips of mass
destruction?

My brothers and I used to throw knives and screwdrivers in a game
called, "eat the knife" (it was a more innocent time - grin). We
intentionally knocked each other off bikes jousting or dogfighting. The
modern era is so marked by fear that parents won't let their children
play sandlot ball because their future careers could be ruined. It is
insane. Sure, we got hurt and the doctors put us back together so that
we could do it again.

The reality is that children will do dangerous things, learn from their
mistakes, and dust themselves off. Seldom were the injuries serious
enough to warrant medical attention, and even rarer did we go on to do
the really dangerous things that rebelious teens attempt today (such as
kayaking Niagra Falls). Kids learn not to make certain mistakes twice. I
am uncertain whether we are doing them any great favor by trying to
protect them from a natural element of growth.

Rick
 
Peter <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.

It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed. And
his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
there was such a law.

> 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.

Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill Z. wrote:
> Peter <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> It refutes what he said, which was a baseless personal attack about
> my ethics, when I merely reported the behavior I've observed.

You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

> And
> his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement" are
> pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a helmet
> law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California one was
> passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't been a word
> since. If you moved to the state more recently, or weren't interested
> in cycling when the law was passed, you wouldn't have a clue that
> there was such a law.

Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?

What police? The police presumably have better things to do.
Most of my observations of children riding to school have been
on a bike trail where I've only seen one police officer in the
last ten years. He was hiding behind a bush with his radar gun
on the only downhill in 30 miles of trail steep enough to let
cyclists slightly exceed the 15 mph speed limit by coasting.

But as I said, the presence of helmets shows that the schools,
possibly with help from the parents, are enforcing the rule at
the end of the ride, i.e. upon arrival at the school. The fact
that the helmets are not being worn is a good indication that the
kids dislike the helmet rule and that its existence is likely to
serve as a disincentive to ride for some fraction of them.
 
[email protected] (Maggie):

>> Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?
>
>Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
>helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
>adults should make their own choice.

Ahem. What business do people like you have with _my_ children? Thanks,
but no thanks. I think parents have the duty to protect their children
against the malicious claptrap of illinformed busybodies selling
harmfull snake-oil products of all sorts. Like bicycle helmets, for
example.

Btw, what do motorcycle helmets have to do with bicycling?

--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions
 
maxo <[email protected]>:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
>>
>> They do! They do!
>
>I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
>against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]

You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
work.


--
Radhelme sind die Bachblüten des Straßenverkehrs
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [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?
> > >
*****Note what Zaumen said here and then read his comment below*****
> > > 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.

Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
about the ones that quit? Idiot.

>
> 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
 
Peter <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Peter <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>>[email protected] (JFJones) writes:
> >>
> You stated (and continue to state) that if a law is not
> enforced by the police then it must not have any effect on people.
> He was pointing out that that won't be true for people who
> choose to obey laws for reasons not directly related to police
> enforcement. Repeating your previous observation about lack of
> police enforcement is in no way a refutation.

Now you are lying. He made a statement about *my* ethics when I
reported the observed behavior, and he made no statement about others.
And he provided no evidence regarding what typical behavior is.

If you think it is to obey the law, I suggest you compare how fast
people drive above the speed limit when the police are present and
when they are not. Or, if you don't want to time that, sit at an
intersection with a traffic light for 10 minutes and count the red
light runners. People run red lights all the time around here - way
too often for it to be by accident, and even though red light running
can get people killed. Oh, and to be conservative, I only count it as
really running the light if the light had turned green in on the cross
street when they enter the intersection, to eliminate confusion over
short yellow phases.

> > And his comments about "self-enforcement and parental enforcement"
> > are pure BS - he hasn't shown that most people have a clue that a
> > helmet law exists. It was sort of publicized when the California
> > one was passed, but that was some 10 years ago and there hasn't
> > been a word since. If you moved to the state more recently, or
> > weren't interested in cycling when the law was passed, you
> > wouldn't have a clue that there was such a law.
>
> Not true if you have kids who attend school. The helmet law and the
> school's policy regarding it were mentioned several times at Back-to-
> School events for parents. Notices about the law are also posted in
> most state parks that I've visited as well as school bulletin boards.

Your school's policies have nothing to do with wearing a helmet on a city
street. At most they can require a helmet while on school property,
and any flyers and other such information will be widely ignored. I
get all sorts of information in utility fliers, for example, and that
goes directly into the trash - it resembles advertising and if it looks
like advertising, it gets treated as advertising.

Also, in poorer communities (where the level of helmet use seems to be
far lower than in the more affluent communities), chances are that any
such law is not mentioned at all. They have more important issues to
handle and very limited resources.

> > Which is illegal. Did the police notify their parents?
>
> What police? The police presumably have better things to do.

Oh, so you admit the law isn't being enforced and people are breaking
it.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Wolfgang Strobl <[email protected]> writes:

> maxo <[email protected]>:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:10:06 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >
> >>>Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.
> >>
> >> They do! They do!
> >
> >I just think this is an absurd way to go about public safety. I'm no more
> >against helmets than seatbelts and airbags. [...]
>
> You're of course free to have an opiinion on everything, but this is
> somewhat misleading. There is a difference. Seatbelts work. So do
> airbags, to a much lesser extend and only when combined with a properly
> worn belts. Bicycle helmets, on the other hand, have been shown _not_ to
> work.

Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Michael wrote:

>
> I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
> have that helmet on.

And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
_tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant change
in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything, there are
more head injuries per cyclist than before.

If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
should be detectable.

Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
saved my life!!!"

And 20 years ago, that story would have been "Darn, I _almost_ bumped my
head a little."

since then? I ride to the store 1/2 a block away I'm
> wearin it.

Hey, don't stop there. You do lots of other things with more risk of
head injury. Walking down stairs? Climbing a ladder? Walking across
the street? Strap that baby on!


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

>
>
> Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
>

:) :) :)

Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :)


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
[email protected] (JFJones) writes:

> [email protected] (Bill Z.) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > [email protected] (JFJones) writes:
> >
> Zaumen makes a statement about zero impact of helmet laws and then
> posts a non-sequitur about the kids he sees on the street. Wasn't this
> about the ones that quit? Idiot.

The only "idiots" are people like Jones, who now is trying to change
the topic. The issue was not if a few people quit, but if people quit
in any significant numbers. Unenforced, poorly advertised, and widely
ignored laws are not going to cause people to give up cycling in any
significant numbers. The idea that a helmet law, under these
circumstances, would have any noticable impact on the number of
cyclists out there is just plain silly. It's about as silly as the
religious right wing's apparent belief that two guys walking down the
street holding hands in San Francisco is somehow going to break up a
marriage in Ohio (to give an example using the hot-button issue du
jour.)

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

Well? No reply, I see. :)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
> >
>
> :) :) :)
>
> Can you believe it's Bill Zaumen saying that? :)

Krygowski is trying to cover up the fact that Wolfgang has as much of
an anti-helmet agenda as Krygowski does. BTW, if I remember
correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set, I presume
because he was posting from work, so don't expect to find his
rants on the subject in the archives.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Michael wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm willing to bet I'd either be dead or drooling on myself if I didn't
> > have that helmet on.
>
> And I'm willing to bet you wouldn't. Why? Because the absolutely
> _tremendous_ rise in bike helmet use hasn't caused a significant
> change in serious head injuries per cyclist. In fact, if anything,
> there are more head injuries per cyclist than before.
>
> If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
> should be detectable.

There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
which make cycling more dangerous than before. With a large
vehicle, you are far more likely to have you head hit in primary
impact then when the vehicle is small enough that you can see
over it. And the larger size cuts your sight lines considerably.

And that's been going on during the same time period that helmet
use increased.

> Much more likely, IMO: all these helmets are producing stories that go
> like this: "Wow, dude, my helmet touched the ground!!! It must have
> saved my life!!!"

This is typical Krygowksi ******** - putting words in people's mouths.
In fact, I've never seen him reply to a post in which someone reported
an incident where a helmet might have helped without discounting the
helmet. Not *one* incident whatsoever.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
I think many parents and youth are simply unaware of the inherent dangers
of sport and the benefits if wearing helmets as was the cace with
seatbelts. The law will change all.

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Maggie wrote:
>
> >>Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?
> >
> >
> > Who are you hurting beside yourself if you choose not to wear a
> > helmet? What is the crime? I think children should wear helmets, but
> > adults should make their own choice.
>
> I think parents should be allowed to make the choice for their children.
>
> 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?
>
>
> --
> Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
> Substitute cc dot ysu dot
> edu]
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/04
 
[email protected] (Bill Z.):

>Wolfgang is back, repeating the same things he's said for years.
^
Hi Bill. Still digging? :-}


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions
 
"dgk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

.. 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.

Oh geez....Are we going to have to listen to this stupid ******** for the
next four years? Show some proof or stick it.

Cheto
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> BTW, if I remember
> correctly, he used to post with the x-no-archive flag set...

As usual, you're either remembering wrong or inventing things.

Bill, I'm continually astounded that you don't embarrass yourself to
silence.


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

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>If all these helmets are really doing what you believe, the benefits
>>should be detectable.
>
>
> There's been an increase in red-light running and other reckless
> behavior, plus a huge increase in the average vehicle size, all of
> which make cycling more dangerous than before.

Ah. Interesting conjecture. But I see you've posted no evidence to
support it - as usual.

Now's the time for you to post some evidence of both the increase in red
light running, and the increased cycling danger.

I think what would suffice for the latter would be data showing an
increase in serious injuries to parts of the body other than the head,
significantly greater than the increase in serious head injuries.

So, Bill: Got data?


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

> In 1996, Clinton got 49% of the vote,
> a plurality, but not a majority. I don't remember anyone saying he had
> no mandate to pursue his announced policies.

Do you remember Clinton _claiming_ he had a mandate? If so, you should
give a quote. If not, quit making yourself look foolish.

>
> "When ye encounter the infidels,3 strike off their heads till ye have
> made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the
> fetters."
> --Koran, SURA1 47.-MUHAMMAD [XCVI.]


" Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the
priest who represents the Lord your God must be put to death. Such evil
must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12)

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

> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 19:41:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <[email protected]> claims:
>
[Ken NY:]
>>> 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.
>> [fk:]
>>********, 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!
>
>[Ken NY:]
> Well, I was refering to something a gentleman wrote in another
> thread:

That was obvious. You made a fool of yourself by bringing that topic
unbidden into _this_ thread, then pretending you didn't. If you're not
capable of keeping your conversations straight, you should either take
notes or stop posting.

BTW, I note the propensity of hard-ass right wingers to save all their
forgiveness for themselves. What ever happened to personal
responsibility? What ever happened to owning up to ones' mistakes? Are
those are only for other folks?

Now perhaps you should return to the topic of the thread - or better,
some simpler bike-related topic. The simpler the topic, the less
trouble you'll have.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back