F'n Ontario nanny state!

Discussion in 'Canada' started by Drif10, Oct 28, 2008.

  1. configurationspace

    configurationspace delooper

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2003
    Oddometer:
    12,483
    Location:
    Kanadia
    I thought Western Ontario began somewhere around Kitchner-Waterloo, and Northern Ontario in North Bay. That makes your location in "off the map Ontario" :lol3

    I feel sorry for you. It's like Western Alienation with extra sauce. I still think you all would be better off part of Manitoba.

    BC is a pretty poorly governed provice. IMO for much the same reason as Ontario -- everyone lives in one tiny corner of a huge landmass. One culture dominates all the others. So cluelessness is the order of the day.
    #41
  2. Deuce

    Deuce Crazy Canuck

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Oddometer:
    3,562
    Location:
    Vancouver Island, Bitchin' Columbia, Canada
    You need a helmet everywhere in Canada. I think they need to look at the under age and helmetless kids riding ATV's out on the back 40.
    #42
  3. Icewalker

    Icewalker Conundrum

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Oddometer:
    52,759
    Location:
    New Hampshires Militant Hippy and proud socialist
    It would be interesting to figure out how many folks opposed to the law regarding no small children on the back of bikes are vocal about the gun laws in the US? And how guns should be restricted if not banned outright. :wink:
    #43
  4. ZZR_Ron

    ZZR_Ron Looking up

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Oddometer:
    8,542
    Location:
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    I have to disagree with you there. My motorcycle insurance would go up by 8X.

    Car insurance would double, and income tax would increase dramatically. Land taxes would increase exponentially.

    Yes I've lived in both provinces.

    Nope, we DON'T want to join Manitoba.

    I agree with your other assessment. Vancouver is making the rules for areas they know nothing about.

    Let's face it. Quebec isn't the only place in this country with a "unique culture".
    #44
  5. Thraan

    Thraan Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    36,843
    Location:
    Bayview Village
    A fourteen year old is not a small child and baiting gun nuts is a completely different thing.
    #45
  6. Icewalker

    Icewalker Conundrum

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Oddometer:
    52,759
    Location:
    New Hampshires Militant Hippy and proud socialist
    :rofl:rofl:rofl
    #46
  7. Plan B

    Plan B "Never Cry Shitwolf"

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Oddometer:
    1,018
    Location:
    Home of the Canucks
    Dude, give it a rest.
    #47
  8. FINNDIAN

    FINNDIAN Mine goes to 11

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Oddometer:
    1,888
    Location:
    Wawa, ont, Canada
    another completely stupid law... It's almost imposible to be completely legal these days no matter what you do. My kids will be crushed if this goes through, they love the bike rides.
    I think they should make a rule that only polititians with bike licences can vote on laws that concern bikes.
    #48
  9. ZZR_Ron

    ZZR_Ron Looking up

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2004
    Oddometer:
    8,542
    Location:
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Yep. my kids started riding with me when they were very young...of course, slow rides around the block, but they still talk about it.

    I'm getting sick and tired of useless politicians taking away things from us.
    #49
  10. Icewalker

    Icewalker Conundrum

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Oddometer:
    52,759
    Location:
    New Hampshires Militant Hippy and proud socialist
    What do you mean? A child under 14 may not be physically fit enough to hold onto a bike. Is there anything in the law that says having your child ride a bike is a right? Is there anything in the law that says even owning a bike let alone one that can far exceed the speed limit is a right?
    #50
  11. FINNDIAN

    FINNDIAN Mine goes to 11

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Oddometer:
    1,888
    Location:
    Wawa, ont, Canada
    Can't there be any common sense or judement used by a person with the proper licence??? There has to be a law for everything.
    I definately don't ride the same when my kids are on board and I wouldn't go in traffic with them on, but we don't have traffic
    Next they'll be telling me what time of day I can take a shit.
    #51
  12. MeterPig

    MeterPig Meh

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,106
    Location:
    Parker, Colorado...
    #52
  13. Icewalker

    Icewalker Conundrum

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Oddometer:
    52,759
    Location:
    New Hampshires Militant Hippy and proud socialist
    When does someones right to use common sense or judgment overweight the common good? And who should be the arbiter to decide exactly what sense is common sense?
    #53
  14. Sun Tzu

    Sun Tzu Adventure Commuter

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Oddometer:
    3,206
    Location:
    Rochester, MN
    No, it is the Ontario way.

    Obama couldn't ever hope to be a socialist as Ontario (no offense to my fellow inmates in Ontario.)

    -Sun
    #54
  15. Thraan

    Thraan Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    36,843
    Location:
    Bayview Village
    This squeaky wheel is getting a meeting with his MPP. Friday afternoon. :deal
    #55
  16. Thraan

    Thraan Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    36,843
    Location:
    Bayview Village
    No offense taken. You are spot on. :deal
    #56
  17. Drif10

    Drif10 Accredited Jackass

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Oddometer:
    51,385
    Location:
    Gates of Moscow
    I dunno. I've asked that it be returned to regionals as it's a local issue, and it makes it very hard to inform locals about what's going on and get them involved if it's in CSM. I never come here myself.

    Let you know what the PTBs decide.
    #57
  18. Lornce

    Lornce Lost In Place

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Oddometer:
    23,131
    Location:
    Way Out There.

    Yea, how's that going?

    :lol2
    #58
  19. Lornce

    Lornce Lost In Place

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Oddometer:
    23,131
    Location:
    Way Out There.
    Hey. What's that troublesome noise?

    Hmmn... I dunno. But it sounds like it's coming from north of highway #89, so who cares?

    :lol3

    :wave Ron

    :lol3
    #59
  20. oomis

    oomis What's a noob?

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2006
    Oddometer:
    353
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    My letter to my MPP

    ____
    I am writing to you to express my disappointment at the Bill 117,
    Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Child Passengers on Motorcycles).

    I am a parent of two children, ages 3 and 5. I am 35 years old, and
    have had my motorcycle license since I was 18 years old. I am a
    passionate about motorcycling, and was very much looking forward to
    passing on that passion to my children.

    I was looking forward to spending time with them on the bike, taking
    them places and letting them experience the world in a way that cannot
    be replicated in a car. I was looking forward to showing them them
    the open road, open skies, and generally speaking the road less
    traveled.

    To me, you see, motorcycling is more than a very economical and
    environmentally responsible mode of transportation. It's freedom.
    Freedom to unglue my mind from life in an office, from life in front
    of a television, and yes - from life behind the glass windscreen of a
    car, designed to isolate me from the world around me.

    And before you ask, I'm not a leather-clad "biker" wannabe that rides
    on sunny weekends to a coffee shop to hang out and rev my engine. I
    currently own 4 motorcycles, and spend the most time on my 2006 Suzuki
    D:650 V-Strom, putting about 20,000 to 30,000 kms on two wheels every
    year. I'm an experienced motorcyclist, having ridden from one end of
    this country to the other.

    This bill has, at its' heart, one presumption, in two parts. Firstly,
    that motorcycles are so dangerous that children must be protected from
    them and secondly that because of this, parents should not be able to
    make the choice to ride with their children.

    I would like to say, before I go any further, that any child hurt or
    killed is clearly a tragedy. And with any child hurt or killed on the
    back of a motorcycle, it's very easy to say "If they had only not been
    on the motorcycle, they would have been fine." However, this is
    absolutely and without question a logical fallacy.

    Any child killed in a car accident would have been fine had they not
    been in the car. Any child killed in a skiing accident would have
    been fine if they had not gone skiing. Any child killed by the family
    dog would have been fine with no dog in the house.

    The heavy-handed, reactionary legislation of Bill 117 takes away my
    right as a parent to make decisions about exposing my children to the
    world I want them to see, in a manner that is unfair, prejudicial and
    to be frank, discriminatory. It assumes that I am not smart enough to
    make decisions about the risks I'm prepared to expose my children to
    and the rewards associated with those risks.

    And it's a slippery slope to saying I can't take my kids alpine
    skiing. Or on a trip to Africa. Or on a vacation to the sea. Or
    that I can't install a pool in my backyard until my children are 14,
    because many children regrettably drown in backyard pools.

    No, motorcycling seems to be an easy target for those that don't ride
    and don't care to understand our passion. They see idiots on cruisers
    wearing leather chaps with their loud pipes pretending to be gang
    members (who are actually more likely to be lawyers or doctors playing
    dress-up) or alternately the "Power Ranger" sportbike riders who
    slalom in and out of traffic, and assume that these are the images
    that representative riders in general.

    I can assure you, it's not. And even if it was, the Ontario
    Government should not be meddling in the rights of parents when the
    statistics do not bear out this kind of measure. The best statistics
    I could find on motorcycle passenger deaths, by the way, is as
    follows:
    Figures for 2004 / 2005
    Licensed Motorcycles: 135,028 / 145,194
    Motorcycle drivers killed: 44 / 68
    Motorcycle passengers killed: 3 / 6
    Motorcycle drivers hospitalized: 800 / 866
    Motorcycle drivers in accidents: 1214 / 1351

    Fatality factors
    No motorcycle license: 0% / 3%
    Under 25 years of age: 26% / 24%
    Over 44 years of age: 16% / 50%
    Legally impaired 13% / 16%
    No safety helmet: 13% / 14%
    Driving too fast/lost control: 49% / 53%
    Single vehicle accident: 40% / 41%
    Day time: 79% / 70%
    Weekend: 47% / 55%
    SOURCE: 2005 ORSAR

    There were 3 motorcycle passengers killed in 2004 and 6 killed in
    2005. Not a mention of how old those victims might have been. All
    regrettable, but hardly justification for this kind of draconian
    measure.

    For the record, my children have never been on the back of my
    motorcycle. Nor will they be until I'm certain - absolutely certain -
    that they are old enough. As a father, like most fathers, who love
    their children dearly and would NEVER put them deliberately in harm's
    way, I will make a well-considered decision when that is the right
    time to ride behind me, if they choose to do so. They will be tall
    enough to reach the passenger pegs, strong enough to hold on, and
    smart enough to keep their wits about them.

    This legislation is inappropriate, sensationalist, one-sided and
    opportunistic. As a voter, I can promise that it will affect my
    behaviour at the polling station. This "save the children at any
    price" nonsense has gone on quite far enough. If you really want to
    save the children, ban backyard pools in any household where the
    children don't know how to swim. Ban dogs in households with infants.
    Ban children from ski slopes. Ban them from playing organized
    sports.

    Don't have the stomach for that? Then get rid of this bill.

    I look forward to your response.

    Sincerely,
    #60