What a disappointment it is to move back to Halifax and see bicycle use being discouraged by Helmet law enforcement.
—D Tweed
This article appears in Jun 25 – Jul 1, 2009.
Bicycle helmets
Leave a comment
Subscribe to our newsletter
Be the first to know about breaking news, articles, and updates.
Agreed! (for those who know me, once again…) who can afford such personal “freedom”?
The gov’t would be really useful if they hung around to stop me from eating pizza that’s been in my fridge a day too long………. Oh! They’ve done their part! It’s called EDUCATION and the gov’t needs to stop right there.
If I’m stupid enough to risk eating too-many-days-old pizza and end up in hospital there’s no fine for my stupidity (or yours) nor should there be! With concern to adults, why helmet bylaw doesn’t fall into this realm of thinking is quite beyond me.
Educate me about safety equipment. Don’t force my hand, Hilter!
I’m not not sure by your comment whether you are for or against the use of helmets
I personally believe that helmets should always be worn. Bicycle vs. Car the car will always win, Pavement vs Skull pavement wins.
People are more concerned about fashion than their own safety. It is only “dorky” because we make it that way, its a self evoked stereotype. Hey get it airbrushed or something.
It is similar to the situation of condom use. Once it became more mainstream the number of users increased. – Not to say that people wouldn’t have sex it if was enforced by law… but a percentage of people are are now refraining if they don’t have one. Thank goodness shoppers is open late!
On a similar note of bike safety.
I have been disappointed in the number of cyclists that do not follow the rules of the road. i.e. Going through red lights, weaving in and out of traffic , not stopping for pedestrians after they have already started to cross, not using the appropriate hand signals and my most hated flying up the inside of a vehicle that is turning right.
I am all about sharing the road I have a bike myself – but sharing is the operative word here. There needs to be accommodations on both sides of the fence!
— Danni
To be clear, I am neither for, nor against helmet use; I am for the freedom to choose as an adult whether I need to wear a helmet. It would certainly be nice for the government to acknowledge that the public can be responsible for their own decisions.
It is not simply a matter of helmets being “dorky,” they are inconvenient baggage that must be looked after when not in use. Most helmets I have seen on riders are not worn properly, and would probably not provide much protection in an accident.
As far as bicyclists abusing road rules, I agree it is a problem. It is dangerous and irresponsible but wearing a helmet doesn’t improve driving skills.
Halifax is the kind of city where bicycling should be far more popular than it is now. I think the law is foolish and it is keeping people who are on the fence about cycling, in their cars.
This begs the question, do you wear your seatbelt? By law you are required to wear it. Obviously, this was not always the case. My fathers front teeth can contest to that.
At the time of seatbelt legislation the general public thought it inconvenient, a hassle- it was not part of the routine- Many were adverse to the idea.
Now, I don’t think you will find many who don’t automatically put on their seatbelt. It has become habitual. Sometimes our society needs to have a push to make something as simple as safety become a habit.
Motorcyclists have fit their helmets into their routine and don’t even think twice about it. With motorcycles and scooter sales increasing every year.
The last thing I would ever want to do is have an accident with a cyclist – let alone having that accident become fatal because they weren’t wearing a helmet, OR because I wasn’t wearing my seatbelt.
You do realize the helmet law is a provincial law, not munipcipal (Sec 170A MVA):
Headgear when riding motorcycle or motor scooter
170 (1) No person shall operate or ride as a passenger on a motorcycle or motor scooter on a highway unless he is wearing adequate protective headgear of a kind prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) may adopt by reference or otherwise standards or specifications established or approved by the Canadian Standards Association or other testing organization with or without modifications or variations or may require that any headgear conform to the standards or specifications established or approved by the Canadian Standards Association or other testing organization or bear the approval of the Canadian Standards Association or other testing organization. R.S., c. 293, s. 170.
Bicycle helmet
170A (1) In this Section, “bicycle” includes any device designated to transport passengers and to be drawn by a bicycle.
(2) No person shall ride on or operate a bicycle unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.
(3) No parent or guardian of a person under sixteen years of age shall authorize or knowingly permit that person to ride on or operate a bicycle unless the person is wearing a bicycle helmet as required by subsection (2).
(4) Every person who is sixteen years of age or older who violates a provision of this Section is guilty of an offence.
(5) A peace officer may seize and detain, for a period not to exceed thirty days, a bicycle that is being ridden on or operated by a person not wearing a helmet as required by subsection (2).
(6) The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing standards and specifications for helmets;
(b) providing for and requiring the identification and marking of helmets;
(c) exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this Section and prescribing conditions for exemptions.
(7) The exercise by the Governor in Council of the authority contained in subsection (6) is regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. 1996, c. 35, s. 1; 2002, c. 10, s. 12; 2006, c. 37, s.1.
Helmet for scooter, skate board, in-line skates, roller skates, etc.
170B (1) No person shall ride on or operate a scooter, skate board, in-line skates, roller skates or other device prescribed by the regulations unless the person is wearing a helmet that complies with the regulations and the chin strap of the helmet is securely fastened under the chin.
(2) No parent or guardian of a person under sixteen years of age shall authorize or knowingly permit that person to ride on or operate a scooter, a skate board, in-line skates, roller skates or other device prescribed by the regulations unless the person is wearing a helmet as required by subsection (1).
(3) For greater certainty, nothing in this Section authorizes any person to ride on or operate a scooter, a skate board, in-line skates, roller skates or other device prescribed by the regulations if otherwise prohibited by this Act or another enactment.
(4) Every person who is sixteen years of age or older who violates a provision of this Section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars.
(5) A peace officer may seize and detain, for a period not to exceed thirty days, a scooter, a skate board, in-line skates, roller skates or other device prescribed by the regulations that is being ridden on or operated by a person not wearing a helmet as required by subsection (1).
(6) The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing standards and specifications for helmets;
(b) providing for and requiring the identification and marking of helmets;
(c) prescribing devices for the purpose of this Section;
(d) exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this Section and prescribing conditions for exemptions.
(7) The exercise by the Governor in Council of the authority contained in subsection (6) is regulations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. 2002, c. 20, s
Go back to No Helmet Required Land. Problem solved.
half the bikers in this city don’t wear helmets so I wouldn’t really worry about it “discouraging” bicycle usage.
Although 90% of the assclowns I see riding with no helmet are riding on the sidewalks and….one of these days I’m going to put a stick in one of their fucking spokes because I’m sick and tired of being almost ran down by those stupid pricks.
I’ve owned and driven motorcycles since I was 16 and when I have the opportunity (in some Northern States) I generally drive sans helmet. So I have some qualms with the idea that motorcyclists don’t think twice about helmet use. However, that being said I understand and recognize that here if I smash my head and turn into a vegetable it’s on the governments tab and not my own – so I conform.
I wear a face mask and gloves when using a chain saw but not a carpenters saw, I feel competent enough to choose my own safety gear.
To Cranky, it’s but a mere inconvenience to me. If you have no concern for the environment and working towards a more sustainable city, then that is your own decision. In my opinion, I think benefits of increased ridership for the environment and the health of Haligonians, would outweigh the injuries resulting from not wearing a helmet. At least then you have the choice.
maaannn, you can get a helmet at walmart or canadian tire for 20 bucks. Whats the big deal? I mean seriously. Ooh, ‘the man’, gotta fight ‘the man’. fuck. find battles worth fighting.
ooh, BTW, I road a bicycle for 4 hours today. With a helmet, k?
Pretty Kitty,
I have to say I like your style!
Jeezus people wear a fucking helmet and get over yourselves. Safety equipment like seat belts and helmets are the law so my taxes don’t have to pay to mend your broken skull when it kisses the pavement.
What the fuck .. .is this person serious? Helmets. Save. Lives.
Same as seatbelts. Aside from the extremely rare case of a car driving into water, seatbelts have saved way more lives than not. Helmets are the same way. I have been riding my bike for more than 20 years, both in the city and in parks and mountains. The helmet is not a “choice” it is part of the equipment.
Bike? Check. Water? Check. Sneakers? Check. Helmet? Check. etc etc etc. Only idiots think that helmets are “dorky and stupid” come on. . . ugh.
Plus they keep the hair out of your eyes so you don’t swipe some dude’s mirror off while weaving in and out of traffic.
please don’t wear a helmet i may need your organs
Way to show The Man! Don’t wear helmet, get in accident, end up in vegetative state- boy, you reeaaaaallly taught him!!! Soldier on, Che!
Personally I am totally for all the rules against stupidity that we can enforce. If we constantly punish people for being stupid, maybe they’ll eventually learn and become smarter.
Let’s see what ones we can come up with…
If you choose not to wear a helmet while riding a bike, it’s perfectly legal for anyone walking/driving by you to push you off said bike, hopefully teaching you what it feels like when your head slams against pavement.
Why can’t we just let people be? Just let them live out their lives and you mind your own business while living out yours. I’m with cranky on this one but if the gov’t wants to address the concerns over a shared health care cost then, again, education education education!
Someone pointed out education with respect to condom use and STI prevention… did a great job of increased use! It’s not like we hand out fines or issue charges when you fail to heed the education and end up with the clap. Why should our government profit from such behavior? They shouldn’t! I don’t see why a lack of head injury should create a new revenue source government either. Call it child endangerment to let your kid do it but when the full grown adult does it, Hilter can kiss my very white ass.
This is yet another shining example of how YOU exchange YOUR freedom for safety.
I don’t think the seat belt analogy works well here. It addresses the manufacturing of vehicles and the behavior of drivers who are required to be licensed under a specific set of laws. There is no need for such a set of laws for adult use of non-motorized equipment that one does NOT require a permit nor formal training to operate.
For the record, I’m in favour of helmet use… of course! But I don’t like being told what to do. Who does?
It has nothing to do with being “told what to do”. As someone who dislikes authority, I can say honestly that this is not a case of “being told what to do”. The government is not your mother and father or your boss.
However, if and when something happens that we as citizens merely disagree with or even don’t like – oh my God, its my government’s job to fix it! Nope, I know I can probably work it out for myself, but its the governments job! That’s what they’re there for! That’s why we elected them!
The people who crash or wipe out and crack their heads would probably try and file claims against the HRM or NS government via Judge Judy. Its not their fault they weren’t wearing a helmet after all. You know, if its optional!
I’d sooner see a dumb skateboarder fall and bang his head over a biker. Or a kid on an ATV.
There are certain guidelines that come along with privilege folks. Not every single little thing is a right, y’know.
Hey Fat, if that were the case, every time someone caught a disease from another person, by your logic, we’d have a bunch of claims against the city for what? Failing to educate?
You tell me why there needs to be a law to punish the full grown adult for taking a risk that may or may not result in a new health care cost? And why is that different from a crushed leg as a result of bike riding in traffic?
I’m extra curious over your definition of “freedom”, Fat. Free to learn but never to make mistakes? I don’t need a daddy. Why do you?
And since when is riding a bike a “privilege”? Is that up there with the privilege of breathing, walking, talking, fucking and chewing gum too? OMG, people are so snowed by talk of “safety”
kay, again, you’re not as smart as you would like to think.
and chewing gum is a privilege. that’s why we’re fortunate enough to have manufacturers like Wrigley’s who can “sell” it to us.
if it were a right, we’d be able to walk into a federal building and get boxes of it.
I completely disagree with the statement of seat belts not working as an analogy simply because a bicycle is not a motorized vehicle. It is an extremely similar situation of the road safety legislation being introduced fought and eventually becoming accepted and even habitual. It is a safety precaution of being on the road.
As more and more people use a vehicle of transport there are always more and more innovative ways to protect them- seat belts, airbags, passenger side airbags, door side airbags, ABS breaks, back up cameras and the list grows with every new model. Driver and passenger side airbag are now mandatory in all vehicles and I am sure that more and more safety mechanism will also become mandatory.
The same thing will happen to bicycles, helmets are just a start.
As for the license: Cash grab or not as the numbers increase of cyclists on the road the “man” will implement a requirement for a road license. This is already the case for ATV that wish to be on the roads and recently scooters requiring a motorcycles license no matter the max speed they can travel. If you don’t know the rules of the road for a bicycle than you can’t be on the road. This is the case for all other vehicle of transportation that currently shares the road.
Bicycles are on the road WITH motorized vehicles. Just because you may not be moving at 50km doesn’t mean the guy that hit you wasn’t.
Freedom is important and anyone certainly has the freedom make the choice to pay the 25 dollar fine. We can just think of it as a down payment toward a bike related brain injury fund, which would also be helping out your fellow Haligonians.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness. 🙂
Thanx, Olivet 😉
The only thing a motorized vehicle and a bicycle have in common are tires and they’re like apples and oranges anyway. A motorized vehicle (ATV included) has the potential of becoming a deadly weapon. I suppose you could say that about a fork too but, again, there is no required permit nor training required to use a fork nor is it reasonable to require it (Hitler!). The same is true of a set of legs. The same is true of a bicycle.
What are you going to do about a license for your five year old Olivet? And who would insure them (as would be required to ride on a highway if you get your way)? Create a special charge for the parents idiot enough to want to teach their child how to ride a bike? WHY should the government profit at every move the Canadian citizen makes *insert major eye roll*
It’s easy to tell who the control FREAKS are around here.
Oh and Fat, I’d like you to back up your bullshit statements. Until then it’s just drivel, means nothing and adds zero to the post. I suppose you think hot water is a privilege too… why? Because your government bestowed enough education on you to build a fire?
kay i can build a fire and boil a kettle over it to make hot water.
and my statements are bs? you’re the one who attempts to pass herself off as God-like or even a philosopher king with your stupid statements.
you’re the control freak. when you don’t get your way – even on a message board – you attempt to undermind the others involved with lame insults and asking them to “back up their bullshit” when you cannot even do it yourself.
your narrow minded take on things shocks me as you’re pushing 50 and think you’re so full of knowledge and wisdom.
Are you fucking daft? I’m far from approaching 50. I’m not even 40 yet. Who’s the fuckin’ know-it-all here?
I’m gunning for your freedom to chose, Fat. I’m trying to put presumptuous control freaks (aka our own government) in their place… recognized by you! You should be grateful. Hopefully you learn something new. Presumption is at the root of MOST bullshit.
man do you ever shut up?
Kay’s like a Furby. You can beat the hell out of it as much as you want, but it’s still gonna keep talkin’ nonsense.
Marry me now, Dino. I’ll work night and day to get you citizenship!
kay is not so bad wtf is up w/ mcgayle
Apples and Oranges
There are many things that bikes and a motorized vehicles have in common.
They both travel on a common roadway
Transport a person from A to B
use exerted force to cause motion. Gas powered or peddle
use a friction force to slow down or stop
and yes have tires
in fact, you could take a perspective of the car being the lazy mans glorified bike. The first car was inspired by the bicycle.
You are right I do agree the anything can become a deadly weapon always have and probably always will. – My cat is definitely a deadly weapon! But who makes it a deadly weapon and when does it become a weapon “Guns don’t kill people people kill people” – that is why collisions are generally referred to as accidents there was not an intent to use the vehicle as a weapon.
Some people may not be great drivers but for the most part are not looking to make pancakes: to purposefully inflict injury. This may or may not fit into your definition of weapon but that is a personal point of view to which you are entitled.
I have however no argument that a car can inflict a lot more damage than a bicycle – a lot more.
Response to Licensing:
If the government did at some point think about licensing which I don’t know if they will and would take along time to implement – I don’t think that a 5 year old would be biking on the road with cars. Restriction would be taken into consideration at that time. Not something I think we would have all the answers to in a couple of days on The Coast ‘Love to bitch’ site.
I would hope that any licensing is to make sure that people know the rules surrounding bicycles on the road and also to determine right of ways and at faults ect. If one rides out into traffic and causes an accident that involved a vehicle damage (the bike may never have been hit) Who then should be held responsible. The current drivers test identifies if you know and can follow the rules of the road and test your ability operate a vehicle.
Response Training
You actually are trained to use a fork, it is a gradual learning from the time of birth, you learn what hand to hold it in and table etiquette. Otherwise we might still be eating with our hands. Same thing as a bike most of us starting off with training wheels and skinned knees
Even for a car you are taught by your parents not the government. You need to learn the rules of the road and be able to exhibit that knowledge for a test.
Freedoms Responsibility
With freedoms comes responsibility, would you step up and offer to pay for damages if you were at fault? Would you step up to say you were at fault? If hit and received a head injury would you be the first to say I should have had on a helmet? Can we rely on the code of honour?
We all look out for ourselves but the truth is not all of us look out for each other. This is why we have legislations in the first place.
I believe that people who are here endorsing helmet use and the legislation of helmet use are looking out for the best interests of others – whether those others like it or not, (no one says you have to like it) but you should be thankful that as a society we have that compassion to want safety for our fellow citizen – be it through the government or a neighbour who doesn’t want to see your or anyone else’s brains all over the road.
There are lots of freedoms in Canada that we should all be thankful for. The freedom to express your opinion on here for one. But sometimes to live as a society/community we must implement rules that will help protect us from well each other. Who would be the first to commit a crime if all the laws of this country were lifted? Would it be you, would it be your neighbour… If the freedom to choose what laws you would like to obey, including a legislation as small as wearing a helmet to protect you from injury, than I think you might be highly disappointed no matter where you look in the world.
Fighting for freedom if a always a very valiant and courage. Pick you battles and go for it! Just be prepared that there will be others who disagree with you and respect their opinions too.
We have spoken about the need for education on bike helmets – legislation or not – maybe a citizens and neighbours should get out there are start teaching awareness of bike safety and helmet use.
“Someone pointed out education with respect to condom use and STI prevention… did a great job of increased use! It’s not like we hand out fines or issue charges when you fail to heed the education and end up with the clap.”
Maybe not the clap, but if you end up with a child, you pay for it until that child is 18, and recently someone who had HIV was charged with reckless endangerment after knowingly having unprotected sex and tranferring the disease to others.
So the condom anaolgy is a perfect example, as is the seatbelt one.
What I love is, the ones complaining about helmet laws and how they infringe on their rights are the same ones who bitch and demonize smokers and applaud the government for butting in and making laws against smoking.
Wear a helmet or not, I really don’t care, it’s your body. Now give a little consideration back to us criminal smokers.
You don’t want to wear a helmet and I want to smoke. All the others can fuck off.
– People are Stupid –
That is a great reference!
It also gives me the opportunity to say something that I have wanted to say for years.
Even a dick can become a deadly weapon in the wrong hands.
😉
Sorry, Olivet here has me confused with somebody who thinks bikes belong on a highway (no tiny helmet is going to help you when you’re under my car tires). “Compassion” should not to be confused with “control” as they are FAR from the same thing. If there was no “law” there would also be no “crime”. Idiot… and longer winded than me. Wonders never cease.
Bro Tim, I owe you a coffee and paingirl too.
And the police discourage automobile use by enforcing those stupid seat belt laws! And they keep handing out all those speeding tickets too.
The nerve!
I propose a simple solution. People who smoke have to pay ridiculous taxes on their cigarettes because we will eventually have to pay for their chemo, right? People who bike without helmets should also have to pay taxes for when they become vegetables and need to be on life support. Easy, and you still get to “make your own life choices”. Hey! We all win!
nevermind, gov’t discourages automobile use by forcing an annual registration and by making it impossible to park it without loading their pockets. Sorta like a really expensive helmet you HAVE to replace every year.
tresorla, ever wonder what income tax and sales tax is for? Smarten up!
Kay – nonsmokers don’t have to pay tax on cigarettes. . . .
and yet they benefit from cancer research…
Amen!
and smoking accounts for about 30% of all cancer deaths. Not sure where you were going with that one Kay.
Dammit! I did not want to Amen what Kay said. Curse me for not refreshing before posting..
Where did my comment go?
And cigarette taxes are solely responsible for cancer research funding.
Recommended Stupidity Law #2
People who don’t believe in Global Warming shall be forced to spend their summers on an ice flow in the Artic.
I like that one PAS
I’m not arguing the facts about smoking. I’m arguing the facts about taxes.
Where’s the specialized taxes for child rearing? Oh, we give credit when the condom breaks. Never mind. Where’s the special tax on the diabetics who drink alcohol and knowingly fuck up their blood sugar? Where’s the special tax for catching yourself an STI? Take that a step further and ask where’s the specialized tax for gay men since they suffer the most often over lack of condom use? And where’s the extra tax that would pay for healthc are for the salt-snack junkie? How ’bout rich men suffering from gout? Maybe they should pay an extra tax since they too can afford to make themselves sick.
The point is sales tax and income tax is more than enough. The government becomes dictatorial when there are penalties for simply living. If that’s not worth bitching about then what is?
I think it’s OK to bitch about it Kay, I just don’t agree with you. If income tax and sales taxes were enough to cover health care costs then we wouldn’t have the problems we do now AND the money we have now includes the taxes from cigs and other “vices.”
Cigarettes are being taxed because they are unpopular and the government can get away with it. Whatever line they try to sell us, it’s still just another revenue source. My problem with people complaining about the taxes is the assumption that it’s not going to something worth while. It’s not going into the pockets of our politicians, it’s going toward things that we all use (roads, schools, healthcare). I’m not in agreement that this is the best (ethical) way to generate revenue either.
While the tax may be dickish, it isn’t dictatorial. It is not an infringement on your freedom and if more than 20% of Canadians were smokers you might even have a chance of repealing the tax.
Kay,
I may write down more than you but I organize my thoughts, explain my points in detail and give examples before hitting send That isn’t being long winded. And I do this all without resorting to name calling or slander. If you have valid arguments to be considered you wont have to.
You don’t seem to have any answers to my questions or arguments to my points except that you think compassion by others is different from control in which I think you have misunderstood the point. You also pointed out the word -use for crime. Let me rephrase – cause harm to an other in which harm may or may not be physical.
Questions
1. If you cause an at fault accident while on a bicycle would you step up and take the responsibility? Pay for damages?
2. Would you take the responsibility for your injury if not wearing a helmet?
3. Would you expect the government who is trying to control you pay for it?
4. Do you think others would do the same?
5. When you play a board game or what ever game you do play, say poker, do you follow the rules or change them to suit your needs?
To Tersola’s point
Yes Kay, taxes that are collected go into a variety of things it is all pooled together so as a non smoker I am still paying for the health care of others who are smokers. As an anti war individual I still have to pay for the Troops to be in the middle east and even if I am going to vote for one party in an election I still have to pay for all parties to receive an elections fund.
So if you do want the freedom to pick what laws to obide by then we should only pay for the taxes that apply. So Tersola is correct; pay more taxes on your cigarettes to pay for your individual health care later in life. Pay more taxes on your bike if you choose not to wear the helmet.
Just because you pay your income tax doesn’t mean that we want to pay for stupidity, I wouldn’t mind that freedom but as it is now we have to. Correct me if i misunderstood but you want to choose your laws to follow but take advantage of all tax dollars at work. I don’t think it can work both ways. Can you clarify how this might work?
I think if you want to have complete freedom, as you depict it you will need to live in deep in the woods with no one else around to tell you want to do, evade the government’s laws. Might get awfully lonely.
And just to clarify – At no point did I say that a bicycle would be used on a highway. I did however say that restrictions would need to be looked at if anything was to be put in place.
“While the tax may be dickish, it isn’t dictatorial.”
Very nice.
I appear to have met my match just in terms of sheer volume… here goes.
Miles, did you hear how many of our tax dollars the losers of our recent election walk away with? Come on! It’s irresponsible spending and lack of education that has brought us where we are today… throw in the woes of prohibition, the “war” on drugs and the sponsorship scandal and you’ve got to wonder where the money goes. You and I both know there is redundancy in gov’t process as well as underutilized technology. Let’s see to that and see how far our tax dollars will go.
To be clear we’ll have to speak the same language. Please look up “highway”. It refers to ANY road that is not a driveway or a back ally. And you’re right, bicycles do not belong on the highway.
[1. If you cause an at fault accident while on a bicycle would you step up and take the responsibility? Pay for damages? ]
Bikes are not a motor vehicle and have no business being on a highway, in my opinion (if you want to talk about safety or beautification as well, here’s my position). Our tax dollars here should go to building paths appropriate for bikes, skateboards, scooters, roller blades and foot traffic. Case in point, Fish Creek Park in Calgary AB. Personally, I see a bike as a small step up from being a pedestrian or a skate boarder or a roller-blader. Put a combustion engine on any of these things and that’s something else.
Question: If you cause an at-fault accident while [crossing the street] would you step up and take the responsibility? Pay for damages?
Probably not. That’s why drivers are required to carry car insurance… to protect themselves and others THEY stand to harm with potential killing machines. Besides, exactly who causes whom damage in the case of motor vehicle meets several hundred horse power, huh? Stay off the road, follow the rules when it’s unavoidable but keep to bike paths and we’ll all get along much much better.
[2. Would you take the responsibility for your injury if not wearing a helmet?]
Uhm, I would be wearing a helmet. I have sufficient education to make a wise decision, our very own government saw to that in response to public complaint as they should have. I argue they take it too far.
Question: Should you go down for vehicular homicide should my helmet fail and you splatter my brains all over your hood?
[3. Would you expect the government who is trying to control you pay for it? ]
I think our government should not question who deserves health care. If I’m bleeding, fix me! And snap it up.
Question: Would you withhold treatment if a law breaker required it? How American are you?
this is getting silly now…
[4. Do you think others would do the same?]
not applicable
[5. When you play a board game or what ever game you do play, say poker, do you follow the rules or change them to suit your needs?]
No.
Question: Do you create a new law or a new tax every time a kid gets hit in a crosswalk or a citizen files a complaint? What a stupid question in a democratic environment. (and with that point I defeat myself)
[Can you clarify how this might work?]
Yeah,
A. Mind your own business and I’ll mind mine.
B. Pay your taxes and I’ll pay mine.
C. Follow the law regarding the protection of ignorant children (make them wear helmets)
Geeze, who knew you could post so many characters in one shot?
To clarify as used definition
Highway
–noun – a main road, esp. one between towns or cities: the highway between Los Angeles and Seattle.
Example the 102.
In town there are not bike paths so you are on the road or highway whether you like it or not due to that fact there are laws regarding that situation. But I am always in agreement with the creation of bike paths and lanes.
Question: 1. {If you cause an at-fault accident while [crossing the street] would you step up and take the responsibility? Pay for damages?}
Is the pedestrian jay walking or crossing at an allocated crosswalk? – Pedestrians are not actually travelling on the road but crossing.
If you do walk out into traffic and cause an accident where two cars hit (not you, or I am sure you will be in the hospital, later questioned) you will probably head into the police station with a possibility of being sued on top of that.
Who causes who damage, – A cyclist swerves to make a last minute left – causing a collision between two cars trying to avoid the bike who “cause the accident” ? Just because the car is bigger and can cause more damage doesn’t mean they are the cause of the accident that one is a responsibility. Why then should their insurance rates go up, pay that deductible too, while you just keep riding away. No one is trying to take away your freedoms by having you face the consequences of your actions.
Yes everyone should get along and follow the rules/law of travelling on the road. But not everyone out there is as intelligent as you or I so they may need that little push for the idea of safety helmets to become habitual.
3. Question: {Should you go down for vehicular homicide should my helmet fail and you splatter my brains all over your hood?}
The failure of a helmet was not the driver’s fault? The driver cannot control how your helmet will work. So, No: that would not be a homicide. No intent, no negligence and no recklessness on either side. That is an accidental and very unfortunate death.
Previous Question 3 – that was directed to you, was in the context of picking and choosing which laws you wanted to obied by. If you get to pick and choose should not the government get to pick and choose what accidents they want to cover? that is sounding American, which why we are in Canada, where we have the right to healthcare. It’s not about with holding it about the freedom to choose.
All for the sake of discussion. Without that, there would be no freedom.
Good debate! 🙂
Re: jaywalking
Yes, the jaywalker may be fined but it’s doubtful they’d be successfully sued. You show me a scenario where a stray dog running across the street (or person, for that matter) “causes” an accident and I’ll show you someone who’s paying up for following too close or driving without due care and attention. That’s why drivers are required to train and carry liability insurance and pedestrians/cyclists are not.
Re: Brains on Car Hood
The failure of the helmet was the result of a few hundred horse power, not a manufacturer’s defect. A bike helmet is simply not designed to protect from the force of a moving 3000lb+ killing machine. Whose responsibility is the death in that case? That’s why bikes should not be allowed on a highway. Simple math. Simple liability chain. Wearing a bike helmet does not make the cyclist safe on a highway.
re: picking and choosing facts/laws/rules
highway
–noun
1. a main road, esp. one between towns or cities: the highway between Los Angeles and Seattle.
2. any public road or waterway.
3. any main or ordinary route, track, or course.
*clears throat* Your turn.
ok, didn’t read most of that Kay, but I agree there is a lot of government wastage and inefficiency. But I am not convinced that individual politicians are getting rich on the taxpayers dime. I may be naive about this point, so show me I am wrong if I am. Tell me how much tax payer money the mayor takes home a year between his salary and his less obvious sources of income. Provide the same for the premier and the prime minister. I’ll bet that many of our political leaders make more through their business investments or as lawyers or doctors or whatever they do when they are not politicking. Again, no doubt that there are examples of corruption, but a tax hike does not translate into a wealthier politician, but a wealthier government.
OK you are no longer trying to have a discussion about your freedoms and the control of the government or road safety for that matter you are only looking to hear yourself speak or read yourself type in this case guess that is why you are a top commenter have to have your opinion on every single thing –
I am looking for intelligent conversations regarding issues of interest. Not for people just looking for a fight.
– A dog doesn’t make a conscious desision to run out into traffic.
All the best with the “man” keeping you down.
Miles, I’m not sure what they’re paid when they’re in office but over and above separation money’s the losers get $57k/year for pension. That’s just one example of wasteful spending that goes on and on and on
Olivet, get a coping skill. You’re just pissed that I corrected your selective definition and that your bike helmet will crack on impact with a car. Take your ball and go home, I don’t really care. You’ve done nothing to persuade me the government aught to be telling and taxing adults who are simply living. Sorry you’re disappointed to the point of becoming insulting. Fitting, considering your opening line.
Olivet, for the record, I don’t bother posting if the topic doesn’t interest me and I certainly don’t throw passion or forethought into topics of no interest… duh!
One more thing, Miles… if they’re lawyers, doctors and what have you when they’re not politicking then what do they need another $57k/yr of tax payer dollars for (not working anymore)? What? CPP and their own personal insurance benefits not enough for them? It’s enough for the average Canadian who works for a living. More waste.
Sadly I don’t have the debating prowess nor desire to expend my energy convincing people of my point of view; but I would like to thank kay for her clearly articulated arguments. This bitch generated more activity and much more opposition than I expected. I think a look a major international cities with high percentage of bicycle use would provide pretty good insight into the the effectiveness of helmets and the effect on public bicycle use.
********
kay i can build a fire and boil a kettle over it to make hot water.
and my statements are bs? you’re the one who attempts to pass herself off as God-like or even a philosopher king with your stupid statements.
you’re the control freak. when you don’t get your way – even on a message board – you attempt to undermind the others involved with lame insults and asking them to “back up their bullshit” when you cannot even do it yourself.
your narrow minded take on things shocks me as you’re pushing 50 and think you’re so full of knowledge and wisdom.
Posted by Nice Goin’ Fat on June 28, 2009 at 3:41 PM
***********
Personal Attack #18. STILL KAY!!!! A long winded one too. Fuck this shit is boring, there are hundreds of these posts by this spammer. I guess if he is not banned within 24 hours then he has to be on staff. If he remains these forums will degrade into a vitriolic monologue of bile and hate that NGF can have all to himself.
Vitriolic hatred and bile are Kay’s specialties. Anyone here, bitchers, staff and former staff will readily concur. NGF ain’t got nuthin’ on the Queen Of The Barbed Tongue Lash! And they let her stay, though not without reprimand.