A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ontario Anti-Law Campaign



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th 04, 06:01 AM
JFJones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
Ads
  #2  
Old November 9th 04, 08:53 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #5  
Old November 10th 04, 03:32 AM
Crazy Biker Chick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 10th 04, 12:46 PM
Mitch Haley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 10th 04, 04:53 PM
Brian Huntley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 10th 04, 05:04 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #9  
Old November 10th 04, 10:45 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #10  
Old November 10th 04, 10:57 PM
Just zis Guy, you know?
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ontario Anti-Law Campaign JFJones General 12 November 11th 04 11:57 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.