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

Doer needs to focus on eliminating himself...

(From office. Life. Whatever.)

Good point GOM.

If "common sense" existed...then there would be no need for forum...cause everyone would agree on which opinion is best.

However...creating laws to "protect" people from their own stupidity...would be an exercise in futility.

People DO and always WILL make mistakes. And different people have different opinions of what they can handle (and it's usually alot more than they really can).

How often have you eaten too much because you were "starving"...and then regretted it?

So what? we make a law that says you can only eat xxx amount of food so that you don't get a stomach ache?

General laws are there to protect the "other guy". So that should you do something that hurts someone ELSE...there is a law in place which allows some sort of punishment/retribution.

Laws about bikes riding on sidewalks are not there to protect the cyclists...they are there to protect the pedestrians.

Laws about how cars are to react around bicycles are not to protect the car drivers...they are to protect the cyclists.

But making stupid laws (like helmet, seat belt, cell phone) laws are not there to protect anyone...they are just there to steal money...and provide the appearance of protecting people.

Triniman wrote:When people die because they were not wearing their seatbelt, there's a term for it that Darwin invented. It's called "natural selection."

And they get an award for it too

Darwin Awards

AGEsAces wrote:How often have you eaten too much because you were "starving"...and then regretted it?

Every day.

I happen to have personal knowledge of the accident on Airlies & Jefferson as I was riding to the Wellness and came upon the scene about 10 minutes after it happened and right after the EMS arrived. One of the firefighters attending is a friend of mine. The gentleman died because of massive head trauma caused by striking his head on the pavement after being struck by a motor vehicle. If he would have been wearing a helmet he may have survived, no one can tell, but his chances would have been far greater than the horrible outcome that has transpired. And here is another little tidbit, he was a visitor to Winnipeg, staying with family friends.

were you able to tell if he was riding on the sidewalk or not?

not to degrade the tragedy...but more for information purposes.

i actually complained about the biking map released a couple weeks ago. it indicates the area around the forks and the sidewalks on the dink bridge as "cyclist sidewalks"...but there are no signs posted indicating such.

I e-mailed the city to ask why the map was wrong...and received a reply indicating the map was not wrong...that those sidewalks are, in fact, "shared".

I replied with: but there are no signs posted anywhere in that area to indicate this...and according to the Traffic Act, unless signs are posted...cyclists are not allowed on the sidewalk.

I haven't received a response on that yet.

So my question of him being on (or not) the sidewalk stems for information. To indicate whether he was following the "rules of the road" or not...and whether there is blame to lay, or if it was just a tragic accident.

The EMT wasn't sure if he was on the road or sidewalk and the way the accident laid out, it was very difficult to tell. The accident happened in the middle of the intersection so............ until more is released.
As for the ped bridge/walkways at the Forks I believe that there are signs that state "cyclists yield to pedestrians" and that indicates that these are shared. I also know that the ramp that takes you from the Forks Historic site to the river walk is pedestrian only as there is a sign that indicates cyclist are to walk their bikes up/down. But once you get to the river walk, it is also shared with "cyclists yield to pedestrians". The paved section in front of the Forks is aslo a place where cyclists are to walk their bikes. Both situations are for safety of both the cyclist and the pedestrian.

"If "common sense" existed...then there would be no need for forum...cause everyone would agree on which opinion is best."

pretty sure some people would still disagree just for the fun of it.

for those of you saying goer should ignore this stuff.

he is... or has so far in the first three Liberal attempts to get this law passed... hopefully he continues to just say no

Deank wrote:"If "common sense" existed...then there would be no need for forum...cause everyone would agree on which opinion is best."

pretty sure some people would still disagree just for the fun of it.

I disagree.

IMHO, We dont need yet another law on the books. What ever happened to common sense and taking responsibility for one's decisions? Government is too involved in our daily lives as it is. it is time to take some responsibility for ourselves and the decisions we make.

Everyone knows that if you fall off a bike you could get hurt. Everyone knows that you should look both ways when crossing a street, even if you are on a bicycle you should look before you cross an intersection or street. I've seen far too many people on bikes in a hurry they don't even look, They just expect cars to stop for them. Look at the end result for this poor 73 year old guy.