Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:28:26 -0500, Chris B.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

"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."

Amazing, isn't it, how people read what they want to read into the
statement "Helmets cannot always protect against injury. Even a very
low speed impact can result in serious injury or death. Any helmet
subjected to a sever impact should be discarded and destroyed, even
though damage may not be outwardly visible. Since this helmet is made
of polystyrene foam, there is a chance it may be penetrated by sharp
objects" (instructions from a Bell helmet)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:28:26 -0500, Chris B.

[email protected] said:

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.

Oops, I was mistaken. This law will apply to cyclists of all ages as
well.

Quoted message said:

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."

<Crosspost re-inserted>

Micheal Artindale said:

Are you for or against it? I am FOR it.

Micheal

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)?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html

http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1023.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

Helmets are already mandatory for children in Ontario (not that the
law is enforced). If reducing the rates of injury and death to
cyclists is such a priority, time, money and energy would be far, far
better spent on teaching cyclists to ride lawfully and skillfully on
the road. Children nowadays don't have any idea of how to ride safely
because their parents, who themselves haven't cycled in years if at
all, also have no clue. When one looks at how cycling is portrayed by
the safety zealots, the media and even many cyclists who should know
better, it's no wonder that so many refuse to ride a bike stating
'it's too dangerous'.

Don't you think that it's at all possible that adults are capable of
informing themselves sufficiently to evaluate the risks of the
activities they are engaging in and deciding for themselves what
safety equipment is necessary, if any?

Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

Chris B. said:

<Crosspost re-inserted>

Micheal Artindale said:

Are you for or against it? I am FOR it.

Micheal

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)?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada_helmets.html

http://www.imt.ie/displayarticle.asp?AID=5724&NS=1&SID=1

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/nytimes.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1023.html

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html

Helmets are already mandatory for children in Ontario (not that the
law is enforced). If reducing the rates of injury and death to
cyclists is such a priority, time, money and energy would be far, far
better spent on teaching cyclists to ride lawfully and skillfully on
the road. Children nowadays don't have any idea of how to ride safely
because their parents, who themselves haven't cycled in years if at
all, also have no clue. When one looks at how cycling is portrayed by
the safety zealots, the media and even many cyclists who should know
better, it's no wonder that so many refuse to ride a bike stating
'it's too dangerous'.

Don't you think that it's at all possible that adults are capable of
informing themselves sufficiently to evaluate the risks of the
activities they are engaging in and deciding for themselves what
safety equipment is necessary, if any?

Does cycling without a helmet really need to be be criminal?

I always wear a helmet. I destroyed one a month ago in a crash- and walked
away. it will not prevent all injuries, but it improves your odds of
walking away. That said, not sure I want a law mandating helmets. Here in
PA they just repealed the motorcycle helmet law.

--
Bob Burns
Mill Hall PA
[email hidden]

Chris Phillipo said:

In article <[email hidden]>, bikerider@-no-
spam-thanks-rogers.com says...

Quoted message said:

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?

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

Chris B. said:

Apparently they have decided to leave adult cyclists alone for
now.

Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

Ticketing irresponsible riders might...

maxo said:

Helmet laws do nothing to stop people from riding like idiots.

They do! They do!

Oh, riding /like idiots/. As you were then.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Chris Phillipo said:

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.

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

you know? said:

Quoted message said:

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...but address the cause--why
are bikes & riders hitting the pavement--not the symptom--purple owies.

I've lived in places in the world where people are much more bike
savvy than in the US and Canada and follow the rules of the road
better--they don't seem to wear a lot of helmets, though they're catching
on for kids, but they don't seem to fall down as much either. 😉

Chris Phillipo said:

When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked by it but when I see
soemone riding towards me on the wrong side of the road I can only think
that Darwinism sure takes a long time to kick in.

When I see someone else riding without a helmet I think :Good, one
less to be counted as a stealth vote for compulsion. The only reason
we don't have a id law now is that wearing rates are so low it would
be unenforceable.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Chris Phillipo said:

When I see soemone without a helmet I an urked [sic] by it...

Why on earth?

When I see someone riding without a helmet, I think "Cool - there's
someone riding!"

Your post indicates the anti-bicyclist mindset of the helmet promoters.
You must actually feel that riding a bicycle does more harm than good!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Chris Phillipo wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

Austin

AustinMN said:

Chris Phillipo wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

> 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 Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

"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

Wayne

Frank Krygowski said:

AustinMN said:

Chris Phillipo wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] 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.

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.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Evelyn the dog, having undergone further modification, pondered the
significance of short-person behavior in pedal-depressed panchromatic
resonance and other highly ambient domains... "Arf", she said.

Quoted message said:

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 rode on the back of a
motorcycle without a helmet. The laws were not enforced back then, but
I am glad my son wears one when he goes out on his motorcycle. It was
a choice. Stupid or not, it was our choice not to wear helmets. My son
must have one on or he will be pulled over. I am glad its not a choice
for him.

Chris Phillipo said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through
From: "AustinMN" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc, rec.bicycles.soc, ont.bicycle

Chris Phillipo wrote

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] 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.

Austin

Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is
flawed in it's collection methods.

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

Chris Phillipo said:

Are you listening? I said ridership is UP not DOWN. His study is
flawed in it's collection methods.

IIRC, ridership is finally "up" in some other jurisdictions that
instituted helmet laws. But wait! It's "up" compared to what it was 10
years ago, when the laws were introduced. Does that mean the effect of
MHLs is to increase riding?

Hardly! The immediate effect of MHLs has been to reduce riding
significantly. Enforced MHLs have been shown to reduce riding by about
30%, and even more among certain age groups. Given enough time, other
changes _may_ lead to a recovery. For example, population growth may
eventually allow one to say "there are now more riders than before" -
but that doesn't mean there are more riders than there _would_ have been!

I'm curious how someone can believe a MHL increases ridership. In fact,
I'm curious how someone can believe it's neutral. Certainly, there will
be _some_ people who will say "If I'm forced to wear a helmet, I'm not
riding." Certainly there will be those who say "Damn, if it's so
dangerous they require a helmet, I don't want to do it at all!"

Where do you find people who say "Oh, I'm not allowed to ride without a
helmet, eh? Great! That makes me want to take up cycling!"

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Maggie said:

Quoted message said:

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]