|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ontario Anti-Law Campaign
There is a report on http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc concerning the launch
of a province-wide campaign to fight Ontario's helmet law. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news:dGhpc2lzbWU=.4a45307d4bd76de2a8d7ba7e338127b ...
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/B1398...05/E824062418/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Crazy Biker Chick wrote:
wrote in message news:dGhpc2lzbWU=.4a45307d4bd76de2a8d7ba7e338127b ... 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/B1398...05/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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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/down...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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ontario Anti-Law Campaign | JFJones | General | 12 | November 11th 04 10:57 AM |
Back on the A12 - Cycle safety campaign starts again | Peter Fox | UK | 4 | July 27th 04 09:11 AM |
open invite to a Sarnia Ontario trials demo | Sofa | Unicycling | 3 | July 13th 04 03:24 AM |
Southern Ontario 100KM Coker Ride Aug 21 | Sofa | Unicycling | 5 | June 30th 04 02:57 PM |
CTC / Cycle Campaign Network Autumn Conference | Simon Geller | UK | 0 | September 2nd 03 11:15 AM |