In Ontario all bicyclists under the age of 18 must wear a helmet. [And all operators of electrically-assisted bicycles must wear helmets in the province.]

No they don't. Not any more, a few decades + ago they did... Now it's all about getting their clients off, or getting their clients more money, it no longer has anything to do with "Justice", their whole reason for existing has been perverted to winning their case, right or wrong it's win, win, win, doesn't matter how... JMO as I see it.

People wearing glasses have been "touted" as being intellectuals, and women (especially with blond hair) have been "touted" as dim witted bimbos.
What other "public opinion" views can you "tout" as relevant to this case?

The only one pertinent to this thread is helmet use, and this thread is here for such comments. Which is why I posted it here rather than in the relevant A&S thread regarding this incident.

Why do you think the lawyer for the driver mentioned helmet use in public?

mcon
Gee I must be fantastic, I wear a helmet, and I also wear glasses. :)

Again as I have posted many times, aside from the safety aspect of a helmet, because of the legal aspects in case of an accident, wearing a helmet is legal protection. So many time we have read that even if a driver is drunk, hits a cyclist on a wide shoulder, the drivers lawyer will claim the cyclist is at fault if he is not wearing a helmet.

If a cyclist is fortunate enough to survive an accident caused by a drunk driver, or a driver using his damned cell phone, short circuit the ignorant ploy of the drivers lawyer claiming the cyclist was at fault because he wasnt wearing a helmet. For some ignorant reason courts and juries seem to have it in their mind that even if the accident was caused by bad driving if the cyclist didnt have a helmet on somehow it was the cyclist fault for getting hurt. So--------------even if you dont like or belive in helmets, wear one and protect yourself legally.

Got some case law references to that Rydabent?

Grasping at straws and hoping for a jury of know nothing morons, like a few of the irrational obtuse posters on this thread.

I don't understand why they say it will take months to change this city ordinance?

When this law was ruled unconstitutional, several years back, the mayor and the chief of police issued a statement that the law would not be enforced while it was appealed to a higher court. Unfortunately, the higher court overturned the ruling so enforcement resumed.

Push to repeal Dallas? helmet ordinance receives boost from some council members | Dallas Morning News

Unexpected Downside to an Expensive New Helmet
 

I finally got my high-dollar helmet in, (not to make anyone jealous, it was $28! :D) and attached my sound system and lady-bug mp3 player and headlight mount, but now I don't want to risk scratching it. So when I went to the store last night after the rain I left it safe at home. Pieces are falling off my old one, so it wasn't worth the bother either. So because of my nice new helmet, I was riding without protection. :innocent: I'm just glad I didn't pick a $150 helmet, because then I'd feel too guilty about not using it and probably just take the car.

Just a word of caution, if you're tempted to splurge on that new helmet.

:D :thumb:

Just trying to get discussion going:

Is not wearing a helmet deemed irresponsible by a majority of the public? A majority of cyclists?

If so, since it's obviously not irresponsible but not reasonably held as such, is public perception enough to warrant wearing a helmet? Do you want to be reported as "not wearing a helmet" in the case of a reported incident, either police or media report?

If it extends to legal arguments, is it worth having worn a helmet only to mitigate legal exposure? To look better in they media circus court of public opinion?

If so, negative public perception equally warrants never wearing so-called bicycling kit in public, especially tight fitting spandex shorts/bibs, doubly especially with bicycling shoes that force the cyclist to walk with a mincing clicky gait.
Sticking to helmet wear, if public perception ruled out looking like a dork/doofus where would the current stable of helmets find any customers?

After over 7500 replies, Im still waiting for a logical reasoned entry for not wearing a helmet.

Who brought lies into this?

lawyers dont lie, they create doubt and represent their client


as this is actually my job, most hate 'we' recieve is simply due to lack of understanding, forcing their own moral onto others and blaming the law to do the same, but the law is there and their moral stance change depending whether they sue or being sued ;)

I dont want one.



:thumb:

Everyone has there own individual "line in the sand" when it comes to safety vs. comfort/style/expense.

Many who smoke cigarettes STILL don't believe smoking causes health problems. Or the joy of drawing nicotine into their lungs outweighs the eventual, probable (but not certain) consequences.

Many who drink alcohol to excess STILL think they can handle driving a motor vehicle. They are willing to take the chance that they will get caught or cause an accident.

Many people have expensive hairstyles that they don't want crushed by a bike helmet. Or they think a helmet is just too geeky looking. Peer pressure can be a factor. And many people just CAN'T STAND something - anything - on their head. They are willing to take their chances. Others are just stubborn.

There you go.

i rest my case :lol::lol::lol::lol:

No one cares if you wear a helmet or not. That has been said many times and you insist on ignoring it, no one is trying to take away your right to wear one, why do you want to take away our right to not wear one?

Yea, I know how it is justified. Very sad.

+1

You've turned logic on it's head. We live the vast majority of our lives not wearing helmets. That includes many activities where there's a real risk of head injury, maybe greater ot less than when riding a bicycle.

So the logical question isn't why not wear a helmet, it's why wear one.

Your simple answer is that it's dangerous to ride without one, which is an opinion you're entitled to. But others may not feel the level of risk is high enough, and therefore don't . It's that simple, it's not about helmets, it's about the rik of head injury and how to manage it.

The risk assessment issue represents a spectrum, and some may feel that it's too risky to ride a bicycle without a helmet, others may feel that it's too risky altogether and not ride at all, especially on public roads.

I think the issue here is your understanding of the word "logical."

Styrofoam is bad for the environment.

CB

Point out anywhere that I am trying to force you or anyone to wear a helmet. I have in fact posted many times I am against MLHs. I am only saying that wearing a helmet is the intelligent thing to do.

I've picked up a lot of crap in shore cleanups. Lots of extruded polystyrene and expanded polystyrene.

Not one helmet - ever. Not even a piece of a helmet - ever.

-mr. bill