Ontario Bill C-117: No child passengers on motorcycles
I'm posting this (in this new fancy law-specific forum) to inform Ontario residents, and potential travelers and tourists thinking about taking a motorcycle trip through or in Ontario with their family.
Bill C-117 is a private members bill (a law proposed by a single representative, not as a representation of a political party's view) that would out-law all children under the age of 14 from riding as passengers on motorcycles on Ontario roads.
The bill is based on, what I personally consider incomplete statistics that point out that over the period of 1995-2005 199 riders aged 0-15 have been injured on motorcycles. The statistics presented by the bill's proponents does not make any connection to age or experience of riders (Hence my concern that these are incomplete and misleading statistics). Those statistics also point out that in that time frame no child has died.
I will not go into detail and point out how many children have been injured and even killed over the same period riding in cars, participating in after school sports, swimming in back yards pools, tobogganing, or any of the other millions of things kids do that can possibly result in injury.
For more indepth discussion on this, please visit the thread on ADVRider:
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=400837
Page 19 ( http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=400837&page=19 ) includes the transcript of the second reading of the bill in the house. Complete with arguments for and against. Unfortunately, the arguments for are exceedingly poor from a critical thinking perspective, but far better said and more persuasive than the arguments against. And as we've seen over the years, policy is less made by proper critical thought than it is by compelling emotional appeals...
The bill has passed two readings and has gone to committee. If recommend by the committee it will go to a third and final vote.
If you are an Ontario resident, I suggest you contact your provincial member of parliament and find out where they stand on this, and offer your perspective.
If you live outside of Ontario, but plan to, or are thinking of, traveling through Ontario (and spending tourist money in the process) on a Motorcycle with your child, I suggest you contact a Member of the Committee charged with this (The Committee of Justice, http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committees_detail.do?lo... )
Slightly more information, and useful links can be found here:
http://cmgonline.com/content/view/1102/51/
I am certainly not against making the roads safer. But this bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist by limiting our freedoms (I'm sure Elwood would have some things to say about this bill). The best way to improve road safety is not by banning actions or things, but by driver education. I have no problems with preventing children from riding as passengers on motorcycles of people who hold a graduated license (M2). This would ensure that children only ride on the back of bikes of people who have at least 18 months of experience.
Some have argued that children are to small to ride on the back of a motorcycle, and Ontario already has laws requiring the passenger to be able to firmly touch the foot pegs. I find it hard to believe a 10 year old should be barred from riding as a passenger because there exist 10 year olds who are too small to ride a bike safely.
Also, interestingly enough, All motorcyclists in Ontario are required to wear a helmet, but the law does not specify that the helmet must fit properly. I would have no issue with this being revisited (No point in making someone wear a helmet if you aren't going to make them wear one that fits).
Simply put, the best way to increase road safety is increased driver education. As we've seen time and time again, one of (if not the) biggest dangers to any road user is other road users. Careless, inattentive, in a hurry, racing, drunk; dangerous drivers take on many forms, rarely malicious, but always potentially deadly to all other road users. We as motorcyclists pay a bigger price for their mistakes, and we lack the sympathy of the masses who (ironically) view us as dangerous and troublesome.
If this bill had been passed 15 years ago, it would not have saved any child’s life. If the time and energy being put into this bill had been put into advancing driver education, it might have.
Formulas . .it "for the
Formulas . .it "for the children". (-:
I would be interested is a simple counter set of facts. How many kids under the age of 15 have been injured ridding there bicycle.
I would bet hard cold cash that this law began with some elite jerk wad "seeing" a kid out for a ride with dad and thinking "that looks dangerous". Of coarse as an elite jerk wad who knows best for us all, a bill was born.
Funny . .my first GF family was heavy into MC's. Her brother at like 10 was a top ten player in the 80cc class of motor-cross, riding professionally! (Had his own sponsors) The kid had wings! He caught more air on that track than half the adults did on larger bikes . . I would love to know what he and many kids like him that were "born" into the game have to say about this.
These laws are very bad because they in fact remove the "parents" rights because of the arbitrary knee jerk reactions of a few in a position of power. .
Argue that feet need to reach the pegs . .ok, common since. The point of this law is to keep you off bikes period till you are essentially on the verge of being an adult. Family traditions be dammed. It is baseless and again infringes on liberty in a horrible way.
Yep . .I always have thoughts. I was born a free man . .and it scares me to see folks give there freedom away one small stupid law at a time . just like this one. This needs an outcry! (-: It is no body's business if I want to share the enjoyment of a ride with MY children providing I am operating my machine in a safe and responsible way.
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
2006 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide
Sales, Peterson's North Miami Store
Hmmm...not sure I agree with
Hmmm...not sure I agree with this law but let me play devil's advocate (because I like a good argument
).
Look at the following picture and tell me if you think this is ok.
That kid is 3 years old and went for a 2 hour ride standing up. Is that "safe and responsible"?
Who defines "safe and responsible"? Would you regard an 8 year old (who can reach the pegs) riding pillion wearing a t-shirt and flip flops in a no helmet state as safe and responsible? It might be legal and if as an adult you choose to ride like that then that is your right, but can you honestly say a child is capable of making the same informed choice?
I am wary about blanket laws like this as they all too easily catch up unintended victims, but where do you draw the line?
The pic . .no, not safe.
The pic . .no, not safe. Ride a dog on the tank and they will write you for reckless endangerment. (-: And I can indeed live with a gear law for under age kids. (You hit the nail on the head, THEY are not making the choice yet.) See, easy lines. Don't even care if the kid can get to the pegs if you find a safe way to keep them in the proper pylon seat securely. (As I plan to do with my dog.)
I just watched the movie "Faster", got on to post about it. (-: One of the common threads of the top level guys is the very young age they start riding. Can you imagine a world without guys like the world class Moto GP riders? This stuff where some government wimp is going to protect us is just BS. (-: Great things happen at the expense of safety quite often in life. If fools die along the way, so what? I don't frankly care as long as they are not taking others with them. The idea that government can make life "safe" is just silly. A rock can fall from space and kill us all tomorrow. LoL Life is indeed not a safe place. All they can do is make life boring.
Still say it's obvious this is a busy body law and it needs a swift kick in the ass.
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
2006 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide
Sales, Peterson's North Miami Store
Sorry Eon, but that isn't Devil's Advocate
Sorry Eon, but that isn't Devil's Advocate, that is a straw man (a logical fallacy).
You are presenting something that is already blatantly illegal in Ontario and asking if it is responsible.
Under Ontario Law (as I pointed out in the first post) the child must be able to reach rear pegs (and not said, but is law, passenger must be on designeated passenger seat, not the tank).
Helmet, though it doesn't have to fit (seriously? that part of the higway code does need to be revisited) does have to meet DOT which I'm guessing that kid's doesn't.
And I'm not saying the kid is responsible enough to chose what is safe- it isn't his job to. It is the driver's. The driver must enusre the safe operation of the vehicle and all passengers, if not it is reckless endangerment, and throw the book at them.
My point is, that we already have laws to protect children from these sorts of things. If politicians want to ensure all the children are being cared for on Motorcycles, the enforce the current laws, don't make new overly broad ones that take away the rights of thousands of people because you imagine that someone could be doing something dangerous. Better yet, look at WHY being a passenger on a motorcycle is dangerous (hint: other road users) and do something about that.
I want to point out two of the arguments made in favour of this law:
Ms. Helena Jaczek (MPP who proposed the bill):
As a family physician working in the emergency room, one of the most tragic cases I ever saw was a boy of about 10 who had been run over by a car. He was conscious and in extreme pain as we removed his clothes to examine his torso, where the tire marks were clearly visible and had done severe damage to his internal organs. Happily, he survived after emergency surgery, but it is an image I will never forget.
As a former medical officer of health in this province, I took my responsibility to administer the injury prevention program of the Health Protection and Promotion Act very seriously. Now, as an elected member of this Legislative Assembly, I believe one of our prime duties is to enact legislation that protects the most vulnerable members of our society. This, of course, includes our children, who, through lack of physical development or mature judgment, are exposed to harm.
While I have no doubt that this event deeply affected Ms Jaczek, it has no relation to this bill. The child was HIT BY A CAR. She does not in any way mention the situation the child was in. Did he fall off the back of a motorcycle, or was he hit by a car while crossing the road? Her emotional appeal to "protect the most vulnerable memebers of our society" is much like Eon's picture. It is very compelling, but utterly unrelated to the bill at hand.
Ms. Helena Jaczek:
According to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario's road safety reports, from 1995 to 2005, a total of 199 motorcycle passengers aged zero to 15 years of age sustained injuries. Since then, however, SmartRisk, an organization that compiles injury data, has noted that in the fiscal year 2005-06, of those hospitalized in Ontario due to serious motorcycle-related injuries, eight were aged five to nine and 38 were between the ages of 10 and 14, for a total of 46. Furthermore, of the emergency department visits in 2005-06 for motorcycle-related injury, eight were aged zero to four years of age, 106 were between five and nine and 442 were aged 10 to 14. That is a total of 556 injured children in one year in Ontario.
These numbers would also seem to indicate that injuries are increasing.
This is a perfect case of lying with statistics. The first grouping is from the Ministry of Transportation, thus the injuries described are limited to children who are injured on Ontario roads. The second grouping is from children entering a hospital. There is no way of knowing whether those injuries occured on the road, on a moto-cross track, on a mini-bike go-kart track, or out in the trails on a dirt bike. Because you have two seperate numbers describing two very seperate groups with different qualifications, there is no way to compare the first group with the second and claim that those injuries are in fact increasing.
Similarly, I would love to see SmartRisk's number for how many children visited the hospital for after school sports related injuries. I expect that number would absolutely dwarf the 556 motorcycle related injuries. (Simply going from my own experience, every year through grade school at least one child in my class would have had to visit the hospital for a football, hockey, or skiing related injury).
---
"The two seconds between 'Oh S**!' and the crash isn't a lot of practice time."
---
"The two seconds between 'Oh S**!' and the crash isn't a lot of practice time."
The point of the picture was
The point of the picture was to show we need some laws to protect children, but at what point do we draw the line? You seem happy with the current law but I am sure there are people out there who regard it as an infringement of their rights. If you were trying to draft the peg law just now, how would you justify it? Would you find any better statistics than those being used for this law?
Not really. Feet planted on
Not really. Feet planted on pegs is kind of necessary to be securely seated on a motorcycle in motion. If you have a shorter / smaller rider, just move the pegs. (-: No rights infringed on, just requires you to use a bit of initiative and common since. It does not "prevent" anyone from riding, it only lays out one simple mechanical requirement of the machine that needs to be met.
Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
Thomas Jefferson
3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)
2006 Harley Davidson Dyna Wide Glide
Sales, Peterson's North Miami Store
"Would you find any better
"Would you find any better statistics than those being used for this law?"
As someone who spends his 9-5 compiling and preparing statics specifically for the purposes of increased safety, yes, I would look for better statistics than what they use. The numbers they haul out are incomplete. The Ministry of transportation numbers (the initial 199 injured that are used to justify the introduction of the bill) have no mention of cause. You cannot solve a problem without first identifying a problem.
Things I would want to know (at bare minimum):
Injury types and causes of the specific injuries (would proper fitting gear have solved the majority of the issues?)
Situation of incident (time of day, single vehicle accident, multi-vehicle accident, if so what other parties involved and how, what was the cause of the accident)
Experience of rider (How are the children's injuries related to the experience of the driver? If the vast majority of injuries are related to inexperienced drivers, then you can limit the law to new drivers, if the spread is wider, then full bans begin to make more sense.
---
"The two seconds between 'Oh S**!' and the crash isn't a lot of practice time."
---
"The two seconds between 'Oh S**!' and the crash isn't a lot of practice time."