more useless laws..... mandatory helmet laws.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/07/06/10035991-sun.html

Lameroux is once again trying to force helmets on everyone.

Hey Kevin
We get it, helmets save lives and prevent iinjuries... so what? If people dont want to wear helmets... its them that pays the price.

You want to wear a helmet... please do so.

What I dont want is some 3 or 6 or 16 year old being arrested by the police for not wearing a helmet. Oh let me guess you would fine the parents right? I dont think you quite understand kids if you think parents are 100% in control of them at all times. Hey what about the kid who is pissed off at his parents so he rides a bike without a helmet knowing full well they will be charged.. bet you never thought of that eh?

Kevin.. Drop it already.

I doubt that the 'helmet police' will arrest a kid...more likely just bring the kid home and talk to the parent(s).

Relax Dean, you're safe.

This law makes sense only if the parents who are taking their young children out riding are also wearing helmets. Being a good role model goes a long way in how your children will behave/act when they are not with you. If your young kids see that it is cool for the parents to wear a helmet they most likely will continue to do so even after the age of 18. But if you take your young children for a bike ride and make them wear a helmet yet you don't, what kind of message is that portraying, do as I say, not as I do?
A lot of the bike shops in Winnipeg now offer a free helmet with a purchase of a bike for a person under the age of 16 so at least they are trying to encourage safe riding. Makes perfect sense to me.

I see many riders wearing helmets. Now that it is an issue here I'll keep an eye out...

I've never worn a helmet to ride my bike. I grew up in the 70's and no one wore a helmet. We all survived!!!!

I think all these laws are ridiculous, if you are an adult then make your own choice.

A 73-year-old man is dead after he was hit by a vehicle in Garden City on Saturday.
Winnipeg police said he was riding a bicycle in the area of Jefferson Avenue and Airlies Street about 10:30 a.m. when he was struck by a vehicle turning onto Jefferson, causing him to fall and hit his head.
The victim was transported to hospital in critical condition and later died from his injuries.

I wonder what would have happened if he was wearing a helmet?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/07/05/10031321.html

Goth_chic wrote:I've never worn a helmet to ride my bike. I grew up in the 70's and no one wore a helmet. We all survived!!!!

I think all these laws are ridiculous, if you are an adult then make your own choice.

One can argue the same about wearing seat belts. Yet injuries sustained because I choose not to wear a seat belt are paid for through higher health care costs.

So if one does not wear a helmet and sustains a head injury that otherwise might have been prevented should Canadians be asked to pay?

Should Canadians be asked to pay health care costs because an ex-smoker gets cancer? Or should we be forced to pay for an obese person with diabetes and heart disease? Maybe we should make a law banning all fast foods, cigarettes, beer, wine etc.

Let's just ban bikes, playgrounds, swing sets, swimming pools....

I also grew up in the 70's where things were a lot different and drivers were a lot more courteous and observant. I also have been a commuter cyclist for the past 10 years and have seen the good, the bad and the ugly - helmets vs not. For the most part, if a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not and is hit by a car, injuries will be substantial and dealth may even result. BUT if a cyclist is wearing a helmet and is forced off the road by a car and falls, hitting the curb, sidewalk, hard surface, chances are if they are wearing a helmet they will not suffer as extensive head trauma as they would if they are not wearing a helmet. I know this first hand as I was struck by a truck on Waterfront Drive a few years ago and thank goodness I was wearing a helmet because my head struck a light pole. If I had not been wearing a helmet I may have suffered a serious brain injury but because I was wearing a helmet, it cushioned my head enough to only cause a concussion.
It is all about prevention. As an adult yes you have the right to make the choice but as a parent you are making these choices for your children and sometimes what you may think is right is not always the best choice. This type of law is trying to help prevent serious and sometimes deadly injuries before they happen. Just like the seatbelt law and child seat law, at first we didn't like it/agree with it but it has now become habit in our everyday life and we now realize how it does save lives.

Goth_chic wrote:Should Canadians be asked to pay health care costs because an ex-smoker gets cancer? Or should we be forced to pay for an obese person with diabetes and heart disease? Maybe we should make a law banning all fast foods, cigarettes, beer, wine etc.

Goth_chic! Let's compare apples to apples...

We haven't banned beer. We have banned drinking & driving. Including denying health care to a bozo that get's hurt while driving drunk is a direct comparison.

Slippery slope when we start discussing denying health care to the obese and cancer victims eh? Unless we can prove an obese person is obese because of their lifestyle choices or a cancer victim has cancer because of smoking...

Why even go there in this debate?

JTF wrote:

A 73-year-old man is dead after he was hit by a vehicle in Garden City on Saturday.
Winnipeg police said he was riding a bicycle in the area of Jefferson Avenue and Airlies Street about 10:30 a.m. when he was struck by a vehicle turning onto Jefferson, causing him to fall and hit his head.
The victim was transported to hospital in critical condition and later died from his injuries.

I wonder what would have happened if he was wearing a helmet?

[url=http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/07/05/10031321.html

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/07/05/10031321.html[/quote[/url]]

who cares it was his choice not to wear a helmet

grumpy old man wrote:

Goth_chic wrote:I've never worn a helmet to ride my bike. I grew up in the 70's and no one wore a helmet. We all survived!!!!

I think all these laws are ridiculous, if you are an adult then make your own choice.

One can argue the same about wearing seat belts. Yet injuries sustained because I choose not to wear a seat belt are paid for through higher health care costs.

So if one does not wear a helmet and sustains a head injury that otherwise might have been prevented should Canadians be asked to pay?

They have actually covered seat belt laws off quite nicely in some states. The insurer can refuse certain types of insurance reward. I will see if I can find it.

I am personally on the fence about seat belt laws sorta. Seat belts help to keep the driver in control of the vehicle so seat belts not only save your life they have the potential to save the lives of whomever else you might be crashing into....

A good friend of mine was the only one injured in a car while wearing a seatbelt. Everyone else walked away and he is paralyzed. I think the government should worry about bigger issues then who is wearing a seatbelt or helmet.

grumpy old man wrote:

Goth_chic wrote:Should Canadians be asked to pay health care costs because an ex-smoker gets cancer? Or should we be forced to pay for an obese person with diabetes and heart disease? Maybe we should make a law banning all fast foods, cigarettes, beer, wine etc.

Goth_chic! Let's compare apples to apples...

We haven't banned beer. We have banned drinking & driving. Including denying health care to a bozo that get's hurt while driving drunk is a direct comparison.

Slippery slope when we start discussing denying health care to the obese and cancer victims eh? Unless we can prove an obese person is obese because of their lifestyle choices or a cancer victim has cancer because of smoking...

Why even go there in this debate?

It's called choices. The smoker chose to smoke and ends up with lung cancer. Why should tax payers pay for his/her bad decision? It's the same sh1t different pile. In all of my years riding a bike I have never worn a helmet, no one I know did either....not one person I know was hurt from a head injury or died from one. Alot of scraped knees, bruises and the odd broken bone.

Because we don't personally know anyone that died or was hurt we shouldn't care about enacting such laws?

Trouble is sometimes we have to be protected from ourselves... I don't always agree with such a philosophy but maybe in this case (seatbelts and helmets) I do.

I've read about so many people that were killed because they were thrown out of a vehicle because they were not wearing a seat belt. I'd even bet BIG BUCKS more people are hurt or killed by not wearing a seat belt than those hurt or killed because they did.

I think most people have some common sense. I do not need a law telling me that I should wear a seatbelt nor do I require one stating I need to wear a helmet. I think there are more important issues for the government to be concerned with.

"I'd even bet BIG BUCKS more people are hurt or killed by not wearing a seat belt than those hurt or killed because they did"

and that should be the reason people wear seatbelts. NOT some government money making rule.

JTF wrote:

A 73-year-old man is dead after he was hit by a vehicle in Garden City on Saturday.
Winnipeg police said he was riding a bicycle in the area of Jefferson Avenue and Airlies Street about 10:30 a.m. when he was struck by a vehicle turning onto Jefferson, causing him to fall and hit his head.
The victim was transported to hospital in critical condition and later died from his injuries.

I wonder what would have happened if he was wearing a helmet?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/winnipeg/2009/07/05/10031321.html

Cause of death hasn't been determined.
And wearing a helmet doesn't mean he wouldn't hit his head...and break his neck.

or not ride and have died from a heart attack sooner by not riding.

whats next mandatory sunscreen laws and bug spray laws?

Deank wrote:I am personally on the fence about seat belt laws sorta. Seat belts help to keep the driver in control of the vehicle so seat belts not only save your life they have the potential to save the lives of whomever else you might be crashing into....

Seatbelts do not help keep a driver in control...they keep a driver in their seat...doesn't mean they are in control...just that they are sitting.

In older cars...where you had a bench seat across the front...it could make a real difference...as you wouldn't slide across the seat making a quick turn (I've done it...so I know it can happen)...but in modern cars...there's some sort of console/armrest that's in place to help contain the driver from moving.

Seatbelts actually can give drivers a false sense of security...and encourage them to drive more recklessly. Think of it like the difference between bare feet and putting on some flipflops...you're much more likely to take a risk of a step or walk because you have the sandals on...doesn't necessarily mean it's safer...just that you think it is.

"Seatbelts do not help keep a driver in control...they keep a driver in their seat...doesn't mean they are in control...just that they are sitting."

yeah thats what I meant.

I have had the driver slam into me in an accident because he was not wearing his seatbelts and then less then 2 seconds later we rolled... because he was trying to regain control of the vehicle by pulling on the steering wheel to get back to his side...
not fun.

Goth_chic wrote:I think most people have some common sense. I do not need a law telling me that I should wear a seatbelt nor do I require one stating I need to wear a helmet. I think there are more important issues for the government to be concerned with.

I get what you are saying. I actually agree, to a point. But...

If we use that logic do we need speed limits on our streets? I think the issue is more are we introducing niggling new laws when existing laws exist? Or are we introducing (or enforcing) existing laws because the make good sense?

Deank wrote:"I'd even bet BIG BUCKS more people are hurt or killed by not wearing a seat belt than those hurt or killed because they did"

and that should be the reason people wear seatbelts. NOT some government money making rule.

When people die because they were not wearing their seatbelt, there's a term for it that Darwin invented. It's called "natural selection."
As far as I am concerned, the more stupid people who die, the fewer stupid people will be able to pass on their genes. And we don't need the NDP making laws about having to wear helmets or seatbels. Doer should instead focus on how to eliminate all business taxes and pass them onto the public.

Doer needs to focus on eliminating himself...

(From office. Life. Whatever.)