P. McGee

I would give some consideration to mounting cameras on my bike to provide documentary evidence of my actions if needed. My contention is that if I exercise caution beyond the requirements of law, it's quite unlikely I'll injure someone in the first place. I would not make the same claim about driving a faster and heavier vehicle.

He may be right, but my impression was that only bicycles with wheels 20" or less can be legally operated on the sidewalk, and even in that case there was a maximum age mentioned. I'll try to find a quote on that. Edit: it may be Toronto specific, and the allowable wheel size seems to be higher than I thought: "The Toronto bylaw states that riding a bicycle with tire size over 61cm (24 inches) on sidewalks is prohibited, as is riding/operating a bicycle (or roller skates, in-line skates, skateboard, coaster, toy vehicle) on a sidewalk without due care and attention and reasonable consideration for others." http://www.toronto.ca/cycling/safety/sidewalk/sidewalk.htm So in the Star example the cyclist may not have broken the bylaw by riding on the sidewalk if his wheels were small enough, but if he wasn't exercising "due care and attention" then it would seem he wasn't following all applicable laws as I specified.

I think you may have misunderstood, I was talking about me following the rules, not them. My suspicion is that cases where the cyclist followed all applicable laws but was found legally responsible for injuries are not very common. The sidewalk riding cases you mention would not seem to be a counterexample since the cyclists apparently broke the law. Can you be more specific about what you thought I was claiming was impossible?

Outside of those already covered by OHIP of course. You may believe I'm being irresponsible but I'm following my obligations under the law as well as common courtesy. I don't ride at excessive speed (typically I ride a bike with 20" wheels) and I slow down to near walking speeds when passing pedestrians on shared paths or when visibility ahead is limited. If I rode irresponsibly and killed someone, all the insurance in the world wouldn't change that. Maybe you can give some examples of situations where a cyclist followed all applicable laws but still caused an injury that they were found legally responsible for, resulting in care not covered by OHIP?

That is a possibility, but fairly remote compared to the possibility of injuring someone else seriously with a car. Since such insurance is not mandatory, I don't feel I'm taking a huge risk by forgoing it and just trying to be aware and considerate when I'm on a bike. Apparently moped insurance was optional until into the McGuinty era, but no longer. I've seen anecdotal accounts that it can be difficult to find an insurer that deals with them. I'm still scratching my head over the rationale given for treating bikes with small gas motors so differently from those with comparably powered electric motors. Emissions from mopeds have nothing to do with issues of licensing and insurance in my mind.

I was one of a crew of about 12 or so. The trees ranged from seedling size to maybe 8' tall and included 3 or 4 species each of maple and oak, one or two species of hickory, probably some birch, plus trembling aspen, white pine, white cedar, white spruce and hemlock. The larger trees were mostly in clusters of 5 or so, with seedlings filling the remaining area. The shrubs I couldn't name offhand since I was working with the trees mostly, maybe some elderberry, serviceberry and similar?.

Forgive me if I don't take your word on it based only on the rationale you've provided. Guyser's argument that personal injury claims are a more significant factor does sound plausible though. Paying thousands over the years for coverage I don't want and may never use is not the way I like to spend my money, so I've opted for other means of transportation through the ages that insurance would have been most expensive for me. If a golf cart type vehicle was road legal and could be insured at minimal cost in line with its low destructive potential to others, I'd be all over it. But that doesn't seem to be an option right now.

Here's a link on that if anyone's interested: http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/440249--vastis-court-ordered-replanting-nears-completion $33k in fines and $122k replanting cost.

Enlighten me.

Just be careful when you see me going by in my balsa wood car, I wrote an IOU to the guy I bought it from for 100 kajillion dollars and I'd hate for you to be on the line for the replacement cost.

I agree that's the way it works currently. Don't forget the cases of priceless glass figurines you had in the trunk, those should help rack up the claim even more. All these inflated claims just add to the cost for everyone else who drives.

Not at all, I was suggesting a different method of assessing such damage to determine legal liability, and only in the limited context of damage to road vehicles themselves.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was talking about caps on legal liability only, not a limitation on what policies could be offered, and in the context that at least some drivers would not be required to have any insurance as some others have advocated here. Why exactly should someone else be liable for inflated repair and parts costs that are out of proportion to the actual damage, just because you overpaid for your particular car? You would still be free to purchase extra collision insurance on your own car to cover the difference. I don't believe this is penalizing the affluent (some of whom actually don't drive very expensive cars), but shifting more of the extra costs associated with such vehicles to those who choose to purchase and drive them.

Why not remove the requirement for drivers who haven't been in an accident for 3-10 years depending on severity? That would give a much greater incentive for driving safely than there seems to be currently. Oh, and maybe put limits on liability by vehicle, so that the driver of a $100k luxury vehicle might only be due the amount it would cost to fix the same damage on a $20,000 car. Any changes that might negatively impact the insurance industry seem unlikely under the Liberals or Conservatives, but is there anything stopping a non-profit insurance company from being formed in Ontario today?

No argument there. This would just be on a much larger scale than previous stupid moves.

Let me clarify, I'm not suggesting an invasion would be impossible, only that it would be an incredibly stupid move and would spell disaster for all involved. It's not too hard to find examples of American invasions of seemingly weaker enemies that didn't go as smoothly as one might assume.

OK, so you're just saying that America could single-handedly occupy any one country in today's Europe, at least if the neighboring countries stayed out of it for some reason. But why would the other countries do that? It seems like this would likely turn into a bigger problem for America than you may have first implied.

In an earlier post, you seemed to casually imply that America could invade or otherwise attack Europe to set them straight (unless you meant something else by "come over there"). What I'm wondering is whether you really believe that a unilateral American invasion of Europe would succeed, or were just making a joke.

I must have missed the part where America "came over there" and forced the Russians to abandon Communism. Are you certain they didn't just come to the decision themselves? Either way, a military invasion of Russia then or now would be a very stupid move, even for the country with the most expensive military in the world.

Luckily for us all that's not too likely, but do you seriously think it would go well for the US?

But not the "goodwill" of the Europeans apparently. Such is life.

An exaggeration I'll admit, but overall there is still a trade deficit, no? Goods coming in, paper going out. Do you disagree that WWII and Bretton Woods put the US in a very favourable position?

You seem to have missed the point of the post you were quoting. The poster was saying that American politicians make comparisons to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany, not Canada. This would probably meet the definition of hyperbole in most cases. It's true that American comparisons to Canadian policies are infrequent, although the recent health care discussions provided many counter-examples to this. It's not difficult to see why more Canadians would know a bit more about US politics than vice versa (hint, we all get US tv channels), so in most cases a reference to a specific Canadian politician in American politics would not be understood by many people. What's wrong with comparing Canadian policies to American ones anyway? Can you think of a more pertinent example when discussing the repercussions of a stricter drug policy? The inevitable comparison here with any policy further "left" than what we've tried would be the Scandinavian nations, but in the US the first thing that seems to come to mind is Soviet Russia. Which country uses the most hyperbolic comparisons?

I'm not so sure I like the idea of advertising my status as a tourist somewhere, but it seems that those who wear Canadian symbols may have an incentive to behave courteously so that goodwill towards Canadians continues. The notion that certain Americans wear Canadian flags to take advantage of this fact seems to be widely repeated, but there has been little evidence given here to support it, even anecdotally. Americans are not alone in being stereotyped for brash and ignorant behaviour as tourists. The stereotypes of rude American, German or Australian tourists, to give some examples I have seen repeated, seem to have more to do with obnoxious behaviour than they do with foreign policy. Get drunk and make an ass of yourself in a foreign land and some people will associate that behaviour with your country of origin. If you are friendly and considerate, most people will be able to see that the stereotype doesn't apply. To wade into the WWII debate from a few pages back, I think there may be a perception that Canada's participation was motivated more by goodwill than self-interest. There is no question that the US and American companies profited immensely both before and after involvement in the war. From the Bretton Woods arrangement follows the USD's continued status as an international reserve currency, which today enables the country to function as a net importer of almost everything but weapons. To go back to obnoxious tourists, the attitude of "you people should be grateful, we saved all your asses in WWII" is a sure way to make yourself unpopular in Europe, whether you're Canadian or American. Everyone knows it was the Russians who did that. (kidding)

I planted trees over a planned golf course near Milton where the developer decided to start cutting without having his permits in order. He was required to have it all replanted, to the tune of around $100k or so I believe.