Ontario's Next Step to being a Nanny-State

[drewski]

This slid through quietly yesterday with no debate whatsoever The Safety Fanatics are hard at work.. All you you in Markham will have to thank your MPP Helena Jackek.

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the driving and operation of motorcycles with child passengers

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

1. The Highway Traffic Act is amended by adding the following section:

Prohibition of passengers under 14 years old on motorcycles

38.1 No person shall drive or operate a motorcycle on a highway if another person under the age of 14 years is a passenger on the motorcycle.

Commencement

2. This Act comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

Short title

3. The short title of this Act is the Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Child Passengers on Motorcycles), 2008.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

The Bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving or operating a motorcycle on a highway while a person under the age of 14 is a passenger on the motorcycle, with a view to promoting safety on Ontario's roads and protecting youth from preventable injuries.

Debates (Hansard) > Official Records for October 27, 2008

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(CHILD PASSENGERS

ON MOTORCYCLES), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENFANTS PASSAGERS

SUR DES MOTOCYCLETTES)

Ms. Jaczek moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 117, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit the driving and operation of motorcycles with child passengers / Projet de loi 117, Loi modifiant le Code de la route afin d'interdire la conduite et l'u tilisation de motocyclettes transportant des enfants comme passagers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for a short statement.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: The bill amends the Highway Traffic Act to prohibit driving or operating a motorcycle on a highway while a person under the age of 14 is a passenger on the motorcycle with a view to promoting safety on Ontario's roads and protecting youth from preventable injuries.

While I can understand this to be a non-issue to most non-motorcyclists, I feel that if this bill were to pass, it would be a stepping stone for the government to interfere with a parents right to raise their child as they see fit, which would effect almost all of us in some way or another. Today, its minors on motorcycles, tomorrow its activities that cause far more injuries per capita, like kids playing hockey skiing. Sure it seems a stretch now, but if the government keeps passing laws that inch by inch take away the choices of parents as to how they raise their children, then one day, what I mentioned won't be a stretch anymore, it'll be the next logical step.

While I can understand the intentions, which I believe to be good, the way this legislation has been brought about is wrong. It comes down to being an intrusion on our rights to raise our children as we wish (without exposing them to guaranteed harm, ie smoking in cars). If safety is truly the basis for this legislation, which I'm not against necessarily, then I feel there are more reasonable and more importantly, less arbitrary factors, ie increased minimum mandatory safety equipment laws (ie. jacket, boots that cover ankles, gloves, etc), physical standards to which you must meet before you can be on a motorcycle, ie your feet must touch the pegs, or perhaps a special license endorsement from the Ministry that says you have been specifically trained and passed tests that allow you to carry minors on motorcycles.

[M.Dancer]

Children are too young to be organ donors and can't give their consent anyway. Adults on the otherhand can be organ doners and can give consent.

That's why children must be put in booster seats until they are large enough to wear seat belts. That being said, letting them ride on the back of an organ donor carrier makes no sense at all.

[drewski]

I and many other riders still have our organs.

I'm sure many organ donors donated their organ's because of car accidents. Should we not allow children in those "carriers" as well?

[M.Dancer]

I and many other riders still have our organs.

I'm sure many organ donors donated their organ's because of car accidents. Should we not allow children in those "carriers" as well?

Thats what seat belts and booster chair/infant seats are for. And why there are laws preventing adults, kids and infants from becoming fleshy schrapnel.

[drewski]

Thats what seat belts and booster chair/infant seats are for. And why there are laws preventing adults, kids and infants from becoming fleshy schrapnel.

those are laws for the most part (and lack of a better term by me) laws of addition, you can do it but you have to add a seatbelt or a safety seat. Not laws of subtraction like you can't be in a car.

as I said in my original post, i'm not anti-safety. I think there are other ways to do this that would minimize the relatively few injuries for children that exist today, like minimum safety gear, phsyiccal standards or a special license.

[madmax]

those are laws for the most part (and lack of a better term by me) laws of addition, you can do it but you have to add a seatbelt or a safety seat. Not laws of subtraction like you can't be in a car.

as I said in my original post, i'm not anti-safety. I think there are other ways to do this that would minimize the relatively few injuries for children that exist today, like minimum safety gear, phsyiccal standards or a special license.

Thanks for the posting drewski. And the bill is only on first reading....

Edited October 30, 2008 by madmax

[drewski]

And the bill is only on first reading....

yup. which is why i'm posting now. because I hope to drum up enough support (see sig for more info) to have this bill killed before it goes too far.

[Drea]

It's about time!

Children cannot hang on properly to either the back of the rider or the lame "handles" on motorcycles.

Friend of mine's ex was going to pick up their daughter and ride 500 kms with her... friend say no way.

How can a child be expected to hang on for 6 hours? Ridiculous and irresponsible IMO.

If you want to kill yourself on a motorcycle, go ahead -- but you have no right to kill your children because you want to "ride with the wind in your face".

Hope this bill passes.

[SmellyBoxers]

Drewski you have any stats on fatalities, cars vs motorcycle?

By stats I mean stats that are actual, not the type that Julian pumps out with his PR blather!

Edited October 30, 2008 by SmellyBoxers

[AngusThermopyle]

How can a child be expected to hang on for 6 hours? Ridiculous and irresponsible IMO.

Bungee cords?

[kengs333]

The government wouldn't have to legislate such things if people weren't so stupid about certain things.

[madmax]

Drewski you have any stats on fatalities, cars vs motorcycle?

By stats I mean stats that are actual, not the type that Julian pumps out with his PR blather!

There is this from MTO.

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

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/orsar/

[madmax]

Bungee cords?

I guess you never watched Red Green.

[madmax]

The government wouldn't have to legislate such things if people weren't so stupid about certain things.

The young boys/Girls that I race with may be under the ages of 16. They are already on their way to established careers. And yet, I can't take my two accomplished sons up the road on my Goldwing?

The government is made up of people. People in government are stupid about certain things. They do not have a monopoly on brains or common sense.

That said, many families, and I mean many families travel across Canada the US and Mexico on Motorcycles. Many tourists families use motorcycles like North Americans use Winnebagos.

Motorcycling is a family activity. Like Skiing or Swimming.

Regardless, the bill is a Private Members. There isn't alot of flesh to it. Infact there isn't alot of anything to it yet.

[Drea]

so you would take your eight year old daughter behind you on a bike for 500kms? How will assure that she will be safe?

Seriously, a bungee cord LOL

[kengs333]

The government is made up of people. People in government are stupid about certain things. They do not have a monopoly on brains or common sense.

I think it's fair to say that the government acts with a whole lot more reason than you do. Your actions are subjective, selfish and emotionally and (not reason) based. Personally, I'm tired of repeatedly seeing people on motorcycles driving recklessly.

The statistics you post remind me of a teacher at my former high school that was killed on his motorcycle down in the States somewhere. He also happened to be a driving instructor.

Read the section under "Motorcycles":

http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Conte...n/Facts2006.pdf

Edited October 30, 2008 by kengs333

[guyser]

I think it's fair to say that the government acts with a whole lot more reason than you do.

No they dont.

Your actions are subjective, selfish and emotionally and (not reason) based. Personally, I'm tired of repeatedly seeing people on motorcycles driving recklessly.

His were backed up with stats. Were yours? Nope.

And now you make the great leap of logic with driving recklessly.

Simply put, your emotions and biases are on display.

[AngusThermopyle]

Simply put, your emotions and biases are on display.

So very very true.

Honestly I can't take one side or another on this question. I love to ride, doesn't matter what it is I love riding. It could be a street bike or a motocrosser or a mountain bike or even a horse, I love riding. Some of my most vivid memories are of my father taking me out on the back of his Triumph Trident when I was a little boy, I wouldn't trade the experience for the world. On the other hand now that I'm no longer a little boy I can see the potential danger of doing such things but you know what? I still wouldn't change anything, you have to skirt danger before you really know what it is to be alive.

Or maybe I'm just a natural born adrenalin junkie.

Seriously though, I would never take a kid onto one of our major highways on the back of a bike, its just way too dangerous.

It's not the skill of the rider that really counts but the stupidity of the other occupants of the road.

[drewski]

so you would take your eight year old daughter behind you on a bike for 500kms? How will assure that she will be safe?

Seriously, a bungee cord LOL

lets be clear, I'm not talking about some little kid who's physically unable to be a passenger.

as I stated in my original post, I wouldn't have a problem with some other, less arbitrary standard, ie some kind of physical standards

[drewski]

I think it's fair to say that the government acts with a whole lot more reason than you do. Your actions are subjective, selfish and emotionally and (not reason) based. Personally, I'm tired of repeatedly seeing people on motorcycles driving recklessly.

it seems so are your beliefs are subjective and emotionally and (not reason) based. you are equating all motorcycle riders with reckless one's when the majority of us aren't. I'm not against improving he safety of children, I just think there are better ways to do it that do not remove the choices of parents to do things with their kids as long as they are done in a reasonable safe manner.

As a motorcyclist, I've seen far more reckless driver's then I've seen reckless motorcyclists but you don't see me calling for a ban on children in cars do you?

There are also other laws on the books that could be amended to punish those who ride/drive recklessly with children. For example, amend it so that if you have a child in the car and are nailed for dangerous/reckless driving, you can also be charged with child endangerment.

if wanting the right to be able to rear a child as I want is selfish, then so bit it. but I don't feel that the government should have a say in something like this as the action itself does not directly harm the child, unlike smoking in cars for child abuse.

As I've said, I'm not against the principle of this legislation, I'm against the way its put into practice. If the logic that was used in this law is extended, in a few short years we could see other "dangerous" activities banned. I can almost guarantee there are other activities children take part in that cause FAR MORE injuries then being a passenger on the back of a motorcycle

[madmax]

so you would take your eight year old daughter behind you on a bike for 500kms? How will assure that she will be safe?

Seriously, a bungee cord LOL

A parenting decision was made. I have no problem with that.

[kengs333]

No they dont.

His were backed up with stats. Were yours? Nope.

And now you make the great leap of logic with driving recklessly.

Simply put, your emotions and biases are on display.

Yeah, I just provided a link that states that motorcyclists are more likely to drive drunk, reckless etc...

[kengs333]

it seems so are your beliefs are subjective and emotionally and (not reason) based. you are equating all motorcycle riders with reckless one's when the majority of us aren't. I'm not against improving he safety of children, I just think there are better ways to do it that do not remove the choices of parents to do things with their kids as long as they are done in a reasonable safe manner.

It's not emotion-based at all. My conclusion is based on reason, having come to the conclusion from observing reckless behaviour by motorcyclists.

As a motorcyclist, I've seen far more reckless driver's then I've seen reckless motorcyclists but you don't see me calling for a ban on children in cars do you?

Perhaps because there are more cars than motorcycles on the road. I've certainly seen reckless car/truck drivers as well, was a passanger in a car that was involved in an accident with one, and have almost been struck down on a number of occasions by people driving cars. But I still think that motorcycles are more dangerous, and the the drivers more reckless.

[Oleg Bach]

There is no nanny state - just an incrimental creeping liberal facism. This phenomena is the collective stupidiy verses the freedom of the individual - I am old school and believe that once the rights of the individual are trampled on then the rights of the collective are caused to eventually rot. NOW - to explain anciet democratic socialism with a capitalist freedom " I have not come to save the whold flock but to find the one lost sheep that has fallen into the pit" - that sheep is you the individual - and far as ancient Christian charity that civlized the west - it was voluntary giving not forced taxation - It was so-called Saint Peter that threatened and coerced propertry owners into selling and handing the money over to Judas the treasurer. Christian doctrine is voluntary and is to be done in secret so as not to brand the poor as inferiours publically - as we do now - this branding keeps them poor for ever.....I would like a nanny state - but there are no real loving nannies available - just control freaks that can barely control themselves - so they attack us..when the problem is the liberal mind of enslavement.

[drewski]

Yeah, I just provided a link that states that motorcyclists are more likely to drive drunk, reckless etc...

and how many of those drunk riders had kids on their bikes? just because they rode drunk (which I have NEVER done and don't believe in whatsoever) doesn't mean they will do it with kids

It's not emotion-based at all. My conclusion is based on reason, having come to the conclusion from observing reckless behaviour by motorcyclists.

Perhaps because there are more cars than motorcycles on the road. I've certainly seen reckless car/truck drivers as well, was a passenger in a car that was involved in an accident with one, and have almost been struck down on a number of occasions by people driving cars. But I still think that motorcycles are more dangerous, and the the drivers more reckless.

I disagree. There typically an emotional responsible to reckless behaviours and that response helps to shape our views & memories. do you remember all the cars that drive normally? I bet you don't. Because we have a certain capacity for memory, we remember things that extraordinary, not the ordinary . So your gonna to remember the reckless driver's/riders far more often then you will the one's that are obeying the law.

I feel we need to focus on the types of riders that we are considering, which are different but you seem to be grouping together unfairly. The majority the reckless riders are younger, and in general, don't have kids, or if they do they are EXTREMELY young children. The people who ride with young adults (I'm not going to use kids because that implies riding with any sized child, which I don't agree with necessarily), more often then not, are older and from years of personal observation, not reckless.