PDA

View Full Version : Ontario Anti-Law Campaign


JFJones
November 9th 04, 05:01 AM
There is a report on http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc concerning the launch
of a province-wide campaign to fight Ontario's helmet law.

November 9th 04, 07:53 PM
JFJones wrote:

> There is a report on http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc concerning the launch
> of a province-wide campaign to fight Ontario's helmet law.

wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
can claim contributory neglegence (*)
on the part of the bicyclist, and
thus reduce the amount the motorist
has to pay. That is the real reason
for this law. It has nothing to do
with concern for bicyclists' safety.

(*) Or whatever Ontario has instead,
but I assume it's similar to here
since Canada and the US are both based
on English common law.

I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.

AustinMN
November 9th 04, 08:50 PM
wrote:

> JFJones wrote:
>
> wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
> can claim contributory neglegence (*)
> on the part of the bicyclist, and
> thus reduce the amount the motorist
> has to pay. That is the real reason
> for this law. It has nothing to do
> with concern for bicyclists' safety.

In the U.S., all the helmet laws I have seen have explicit exclusions for
using helmet use or non-use as a contributing factor (good or bad) to an
accident.

Please don't interpret this to mean I support MHL's, just that I rather they
be defeated on their merits, not made-up "facts".

Austin
--
I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
There are no X characters in my address

November 9th 04, 09:40 PM
AustinMN wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > JFJones wrote:
> >
> > wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
> > can claim contributory neglegence (*)
> > on the part of the bicyclist, and
> > thus reduce the amount the motorist
> > has to pay. That is the real reason
> > for this law. It has nothing to do
> > with concern for bicyclists' safety.
>
> In the U.S., all the helmet laws I have seen have explicit exclusions for
> using helmet use or non-use as a contributing factor (good or bad) to an
> accident.

True enough, but I don't know how it will
go in Ontario. Another thing is that people
can be stopped and (often) searched for
not wearing a helment, if there is a helmet
law in place. If the stop is (barely) legal,
the search is often not challenged at trial
so there can be no appeal. Bad PD. Happens
all the time.

> Please don't interpret this to mean I support MHL's, just that I rather
they
> be defeated on their merits, not made-up "facts".
>
> Austin
> --
> I'm pedaling as fast as I durn well please!
> There are no X characters in my address


I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.

Crazy Biker Chick
November 10th 04, 02:32 AM
> wrote in message news:<[email protected] 030006.nulluser.com>...
> JFJones wrote:
>
> > There is a report on http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc concerning the launch
> > of a province-wide campaign to fight Ontario's helmet law.
>
> wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
> can claim contributory neglegence (*)
> on the part of the bicyclist, and
> thus reduce the amount the motorist
> has to pay. That is the real reason
> for this law. It has nothing to do
> with concern for bicyclists' safety.

Ah but it doesn't even appear that they need a helmet law to claim
this. In a case of a cyclist vs. the city of Toronto where the cyclist
was doored, the judge found the cyclist 25% at fault for not wearing a
helmet, although no helmet law yet exists for adults.

Here is a copy of the article that appeared in the globe and mail (I
would send the direct link but now the Globe and Mail requires a paid
subscription to read archived articles)
http://www.web.net/~lukmar/BLD/B1398152979/C53356005/E824062418/

Mitch Haley
November 10th 04, 11:46 AM
Crazy Biker Chick wrote:
> Ah but it doesn't even appear that they need a helmet law to claim
> this. In a case of a cyclist vs. the city of Toronto where the cyclist
> was doored, the judge found the cyclist 25% at fault for not wearing a
> helmet, although no helmet law yet exists for adults.

Well, when you ask a judge to impose artificial legislation, that's what
you get.
"Regardless, Deputy Judge Morris Winer evidently disagreed, although he
placed most of the blame on the driver (50 per cent), with the rest
divided between the city (25 per cent) and Ms. Evans (25 per cent) for
not wearing a helmet."

I might feel a little more in favor of the judge if he'd found the
cyclist responsible for some action, like riding in the door zone,
but the city? If the street was too dangerous to ride on, WTF was
the cyclist riding on it? If it wasn't too dangerous to ride on,
WTF did she sue the city?

Mitch.

Brian Huntley
November 10th 04, 03:53 PM
Mitch Haley > wrote in message >...
>
> I might feel a little more in favor of the judge if he'd found the
> cyclist responsible for some action, like riding in the door zone,
> but the city? If the street was too dangerous to ride on, WTF was
> the cyclist riding on it? If it wasn't too dangerous to ride on,
> WTF did she sue the city?

It was signed (might still be) as a recommended bike route, a
designation the city has taken back.

It's not really too dangerous to ride on, though. I use it virtually
every morning in rush hour. Granted, people fling their car doors
open, and there are streetcar tracks running up the middle, so it
takes a bit of attention. (By the way, in rush hour, there aren't even
supposed to be cars parked there, not to mention cars dooring people.)

Personally, I think the judge and the lawyers watch too much American
TV.

Just zis Guy, you know?
November 10th 04, 04:04 PM
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:55:28 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> wrote:

>Why oh why do these sites only take fatalities into account.

Because the shroud-wavers are leading the compulsion campaign?

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

November 10th 04, 09:45 PM
Crazy Biker Chick wrote:

> > wrote in message
news:<[email protected] 030006.nulluser.com
>...
> > JFJones wrote:
> >
> > > There is a report on http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc concerning the launch
> > > of a province-wide campaign to fight Ontario's helmet law.
> >
> > wiwth a helmet law in place, the motorist
> > can claim contributory neglegence (*)
> > on the part of the bicyclist, and
> > thus reduce the amount the motorist
> > has to pay. That is the real reason
> > for this law. It has nothing to do
> > with concern for bicyclists' safety.
>
> Ah but it doesn't even appear that they need a helmet law to claim
> this. In a case of a cyclist vs. the city of Toronto where the cyclist
> was doored, the judge found the cyclist 25% at fault for not wearing a
> helmet, although no helmet law yet exists for adults.
>
> Here is a copy of the article that appeared in the globe and mail (I
> would send the direct link but now the Globe and Mail requires a paid
> subscription to read archived articles)
> http://www.web.net/~lukmar/BLD/B1398152979/C53356005/E824062418/

That is shocking. Apparently Ontario is somewhat
different than the US. But I don't think the city
should be blamed, either, that just lets the
motorist get off more lightly.


I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.

Just zis Guy, you know?
November 10th 04, 09:57 PM
On 9 Nov 2004 18:32:44 -0800, (Crazy Biker
Chick) wrote in message
>:

>Ah but it doesn't even appear that they need a helmet law to claim
>this. In a case of a cyclist vs. the city of Toronto where the cyclist
>was doored, the judge found the cyclist 25% at fault for not wearing a
>helmet, although no helmet law yet exists for adults.

Not unique to Toronto.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/download/helmets-contributory-negligence.pdf

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

Frank Krygowski
November 11th 04, 02:50 AM
Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
>
> Why oh why do these sites only take fatalities into account.

There are good reasons. Here are a couple:

First, those who promote MHLs always seem to focus on saving lives.
It's useful to show that idea's false.

Second, there's little doubt when a person is dead. The definition of
"Dead" is pretty water tight. By contrast, the definition of "head
injury" is amazingly vague - in fact there is no official definition.

More detail on that: the Thompson & Rivara study that calculated the
ridiculous "85%" benefit from helmets literally counted scratched chins
and cut ears as "head injuries," as in "injuries above the neck." Of
course, helmet promoters know that most people hear the words "head
injuries" and think of human vegetables. The fuzzy definition works to
the helmet promoters' advantage.

The FACT
> is, if an accident is severe enough to kill you then it's going to kill
> you with or without a Styrofoam hat on your head. The value of helmets
> is injury prevention.

It would be good if you'd repeat that, loudly and often. If legislators
understood how truly limited helmets are, they wouldn't be trying to
pass inane laws.


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

Claire Petersky
November 11th 04, 03:13 AM
Would you PLEASE put "helmet" back in the thread title so my newsreader will
properly disregard these messages?

Many thanks.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
please substitute yahoo for mousepotato to reply
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Personal page: http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Just zis Guy, you know?
November 11th 04, 10:57 AM
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:50:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>More detail on that: the Thompson & Rivara study that calculated the
>ridiculous "85%" benefit from helmets literally counted scratched chins
>and cut ears as "head injuries," as in "injuries above the neck." Of
>course, helmet promoters know that most people hear the words "head
>injuries" and think of human vegetables. The fuzzy definition works to
>the helmet promoters' advantage.

They also claimed a higher efficacy for brain injury, which is
inherently implausible until you realise that headaches were counted
as brain injuries.

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

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home