HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gwalker@lily04.waterloo.edu (Greg Walker)
Subject: Re: public transit
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.718.2897@dosgate>, steve.hartwell@canrem.com (steve hartwell) writes:
>  There's been a lot of talk about bicycles, so, I would assume that a
>  lot of you are environmentally concerned people. Very noble.
> 
>  I would have expected that you would have a lot to say on the
>  Proposed Draft Legislation to legalize House Apartments in Ontario.
> 
>  Particularly ( if not anything else ) your concerns that it might
>  result in heavier car traffic as a result of having more people
>  living in your communities in house apartments.
> 
>  Comments anyone ? anyone at all will do.
> 
>  Negative comments against the legislation are welcome.

Do you seriously think everybody and his neighbour will get into the
House Apartment business as soon as it becomes legal?  There may be a
slight increase, I predict, but almost anyone who would want to do this IS 
ALREADY DOING IT!  And to balance the fact that there might be a slight
increase of House Apartments, I'd bet that the regulations would reduce
the average number of occupants per apartment.

Positve comments for the legislation are welcome.
-- 
Greg Walker           "It's hard to work in groups when you're omnipotent" -- Q
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
gwalker@descartes.waterloo.edu
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: a110@sunlife.uucp (Terry Lung)
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Organization: SunLife of Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 13:43:32 GMT

>As for putting a damper on leisurely rides, I was worried about that
>when I first considered buying a helmet.  I thought it would be
>hot and uncomfortable, and that I'd look ridiculous.  But comfort
>was no problem at all, and new helmets are even lighter and more
>comfortable than my 1984 model. 
>
>Tom Box
>CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

I have a light and well-vented bicycle helmet, but on hot and windless days,
it really heats my head up fast.  I've read in magazines some studies showing
helmets are no hotter than going bareheaded, but I find this very difficult 
to believe.

When I go on long rides, I force myself to wear it for safety, even though
I really hate it.

Wearing a helmet should only be mandatory when riding on the road.  There
are no safety problems when people are just taking a leisurely ride in the
park or a short trip to the corner store.

Besides, a helmet law will only result in police officers harrassing    
helmetless riders.  They must have more important things to do, don't they?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
**The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect those
  of my employer.**
						 -- Terry Lung

Newsgroups: ut.general,uw.general,uwo.general,ont.general,can.general
From: ricegm@ecf.toronto.edu (George Matthew Rice)
Subject: Re: OSAP question- help if you can
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:05:08 GMT

In article <Bs4ItK.7DM@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper) writes:
>When the government evaluates your ability to pay, they do take into 
>account the income and assets of your parents or your spouse (your 
>parents only if you graduated from high school less than four years ago.)
>.
If you get married before that four years are up they do not
take your parents income into account.(I should know)
Your parents aren't accounted for if:
	1 You are married
	2 You have a kid
	3 You have worked 2 or 3 years fulltime (unsure about the timespan)

And I think that there are 1 or 2 other qualifications.
Note : You only have to have one of these qualifications
	for them to ignore your parents.

Matthew


Newsgroups: ont.general
From: pjyamamo@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Organization: Data Structures Group, C.S. Dept., U. of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:53:23 GMT

>This seems to be a popular philosophy today -- everything should be done
>to maximize our lifespan which means that any activity that could cause
>premature death should be strongly discouraged or banned.

No I think the point was the expense incurred by others because of
one person's actions.

>I prefer to maximize my enjoyment of life.  I fully intend to continue
>eating foods that are loaded with saturated fat, going on wilderness canoe
>trips, going outside without a layer of SPF 30 lotion and occasionally
>cycling without a helmet if I forget to put it on or simply don't feel
>like wearing it.

The previous psoter said nothing about that.
In order to "continue" your life though, the poster asks, are you
willing to cover the costs incurred by ignoring the available
protection?

Or do you feel that everybody else should pay for your enjoyment?

Peter
Xref: sparky ont.general:1226 rec.bicycles:18699 can.general:3498 soc.culture.canada:5303 ott.general:529
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: ont.general,rec.bicycles,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general,kingston.general
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Summary: Not a typo
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:56:21 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <9080@ember.UUCP> pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:

>If it's a medical emergency, you'll have the fire department there
           ^^^^^^^                            ^^^^
>in an everage of three minutes, with better equipment and better
>training to relieve the police.

I'd just like to forestall more questions, and point out that was
*not* a typo; average response times for ambulances in Toronto were
considerably longer than three minutes, and the fire department
does carry oxygen and other first-aid supplies, as well as people
who are well-trained in first-aid.

- Paul Colley
University:  colley@qucis.queensu.ca
Home:        pacolley@ember.uucp   watmath!ember!pacolley  +1 613 545 3807
"Quantum Mechanics:  The dreams stuff is made of"    - Ken Burnside

Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:08:56 GMT

Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>Personally I'm sick of motorists trying to excuse their own bad driving
>habits by blaming cyclists.  Your the one avoid the real issue dangerous
>driving on the roads.  Canada has about most dangerous roads in the
>world (according to UN's Human Development Report 1992), and it's not
>because of bicyclists.

dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs) writes:
>Here we have another one of those wonderful statistics -- Canada has
>the most dangerous roads in the world.  No explanation of how the
>comparison is done or anything -- is this most dangerous per linear
>kilometre, per capita, or per person-kilometre travelled?  

Hey, I gave my source, if you want more information, or you want to argue
that they are unfair or inaccurate you know where to go.

>Also, no reasons why -- Canada also has some of the nastiest winters
>of any country around, has this been factored in?  Not to speak
>of what our frequent freeze/thaw weather does to the surface of
>the roads themselves.

So?  It's still not because of bicyclists.  Licencing bicyclists or
mandority bike inspections is not going to help.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: ZOOiD BBS
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:14:52 GMT

Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> One driver going 120km/h on the 401 is more dangerous than legions
> of cyclists riding on the sidewalk.

kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman) writes:
>The 401 is designed for high volume traffic going at high speeds. It
>can easily carry hundreds or thousands of vehicles per hour at 120kmh
>without posing any significant risk to the motorists. It does this
>every day.

Sorry but there are serious accidents on the 401 every day, accidents
made much more deadlier when the drivers are speeding.

							Ross Ridge

-- 
Ross Ridge - The Great HTMU					     l/	 //
								    [OO][oo]
ross@zooid.guild.org						    /()\/()/
uunet.ca!zooid!ross						     db	 //
Newsgroups: ut.general,uw.general,uwo.general,ont.general,can.general
From: perwaiz@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (Jim Perwaiz)
Subject: OSAP question- help if you can
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:43:21 GMT


How does OSAP evaluate a person who is
married to a graduate student ?

Assume that the Graduate student gets 
about $13000 a year. Then how much can the
graduate student's spouse expect to get
from OSAP ?


Any information will be highly appreciated.



THANKS A LOT

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamshed Perwaiz                      |perwaiz@engrg.uwo.ca
Department of Mechanical Engineering |perwaiz@gfx.engga.uwo.ca  
The University of Western Ontario    |
Newsgroups: ut.general,uw.general,uwo.general,ont.general,can.general
From: imprint@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (IMPRINT -- UW's Student Newspaper)
Subject: Re: OSAP question- help if you can
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.204321.7769@julian.uwo.ca> perwaiz@gfx.engga.uwo.ca (Jim Perwaiz) writes:
>
>How does OSAP evaluate a person who is
>married to a graduate student ?
>
>Assume that the Graduate student gets 
>about $13000 a year. Then how much can the
>graduate student's spouse expect to get
>from OSAP ?
>
>Any information will be highly appreciated.
>THANKS A LOT
>Jamshed Perwaiz                      |perwaiz@engrg.uwo.ca
>Department of Mechanical Engineering |perwaiz@gfx.engga.uwo.ca  
>The University of Western Ontario    |
When the government evaluates your ability to pay, they do take into 
account the income and assets of your parents or your spouse (your 
parents only if you graduated from high school less than four years ago.)
.
But $13000 a year is far below the level at which they will want that
person to start contributing to your education.

Peter Brown
-- 

Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: marc@fozzi.ocunix.on.ca (Marc Donovan)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:26:28 GMT
Organization: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


>>  Instead of venting off about "loss of civil liberties", how about the
>>following:  all those vehemently against mandatory helmets please pay
>>ALL your own medical bills if you suffer any head injuries.  Any volunteers?
>
>This seems to be a popular philosophy today -- everything should be done
>to maximize our lifespan which means that any activity that could cause
>premature death should be strongly discouraged or banned.
>

Apart from quoting me and then not addressing a single point I made...

I'm not arguing that dangerous activties should be strongly discouraged,
I AM arguing that if someone wants to take unnecessary risks the rest of us
shouldn't be forced to pay for their stupidity.

>I prefer to maximize my enjoyment of life.  I fully intend to continue
>eating foods that are loaded with saturated fat, going on wilderness canoe
>trips, going outside without a layer of SPF 30 lotion and occasionally

I assume you don't wear a life-jacket in your canoe then?  And if you 
don't wear a life-jacket, does your partner?  (In the wilderness, taking
unnecessary risks can not only kill you, but your partner as well, who
all of a sudden doesn't have a backup.  This is known as being "reckless".)
You don't leave a route plan for search parties?  Or check in at the warden's
office in a large national park you'll be hiking in?  If you rock climb, you 
don't wear a helmet or use ropes then?  Your "philosophy" would make all those
precautions a limit to your "enjoyment of life".    As I see it, wearing
a helmet does not limit my enjoyment of life, it simply allows me to continue
to enjoy it.

Again, if you don't want to wear a helmet, would you be willing to accept
the CONSEQUENCES of your actions and have to pay for any extra medical
costs incurred because you were being foolish?

<marc>

(Standard disclaimers apply)
From: jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart)
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:33:15 GMT

In <Bs7tt0.9vC@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> pjyamamo@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca writes:
>No I think the point was the expense incurred by others because of
>one person's actions.

I find it very odd that this argument is commonly used to to justify 
compulsory use of helmets when other forms of behaviour result in a much
higher cost to society.  For example

   -smoking greatly increases risk of lung cancer and other problems
   -insufficient exercise, a poor diet and being overweight increase the
      risk of heart disease.

To be fair, it would be necessary to do a complete evaluation of each
persons lifestyle to calculate their probability of a premature death or
injury and charge accordingly for medical coverage.

-- 
John Stewart -- Computing and Communications Services, Carleton University
Internet: jstewart@ccs.carleton.ca or Mr.Canoehead@algonquin.carleton.ca  
"Why can't we just forget about our constitutional problems and go canoeing?"
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Organization: York University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:53:20 GMT

|In <1992Jul28.162826.21340@fozzi.ocunix.on.ca> marc@fozzi.ocunix.on.ca (Marc Donovan) writes:
| I wonder - would all the people who are against mandatory helments for bikes
| also be against mandatory helments for motorcycles?  [...]
|  Instead of venting off about "loss of civil liberties", how about the
| following:  all those vehemently against mandatory helmets please pay
| ALL your own medical bills if you suffer any head injuries.  Any volunteers?

  Odd, that's what my insurer was saying at the time the motorcycle-helmet 
laws were being brought in: failing to wear a helmet would be against the
law, and therefor was contributory negligence.  Of course, the same company
was a major financial contributor to the lobbying efforts to pass the safety
laws.

  Mere coincidence, I assume.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: Mother Nature <gaea@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 23:16:46 GMT

evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.010451.911@zooid.guild.org>
>	Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>>Unlike cars, bikes don't kill, mutalate and injure thousands of people
>>every year.  
>
>Then why the push for helmets? The only reason bike don't injure as many
>as cars is because there are fewer bikes on the major roads.

I would think that bicyclists in accidents usually injure themselves only, and
perhaps cause some property damage (cars, etc). A bike running into a car will
usually only hurt the cyclist. Where as with a car, it almost always hurts (if
not kills) whoever it runs into. If a cyclist doesn't wear a helmet, he's only
hurting himself.

>>Again why should they be?  An unlicenced cyclist is less of a danger
>>to society than a licenced motorist.  
>
>That someone believes this is really dangerous. A licence can be revoked
>from a bad motorist. There is no such manner with which to keep a bad
>cyclist off the road.
>
>Or are you really suggesting that there are no bad cyclists?

I only wish there wasn't. However there are a number of cyclists out there who
are jerks and ride irresponsibly, giving the rest of us a bad name (yes, I
consider myself a responsible cyclist, I don't ride on the sidewalk, run red
lights, etc). But then, the same goes for cars and other motor vehicles. A
few cars that refuse to give bicyclists room on the road give all drivers
a bad name.

>Such is the mind of the cyclist apologist, to whom cyclists can do no
>wrong and motorists can do no right. Saying that motorists ignore the
>HTA dances around the issue that cyclists aren't even required to know
>the basics of it.

If they are going to be declared vehicles on the road and treated as such,
they should. But then maybe they should improve the quality of the roads,
fixing such things as 4" deep potholes, and sewers which a bicycle wheel can
easily get stuck in. Cars pass over these things every day without noticing
them, but they are dangerous hazards to bicyclists.



Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: sidebar re 401
Organization: York University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:08:59 GMT

|| kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman) writes:
|| >The 401 is designed for high volume traffic going at high speeds. It
|| >can easily carry hundreds or thousands of vehicles per hour at 120kmh
|| >without posing any significant risk to the motorists. It does this
|| >every day.

  It should: the design speed for the 401 in south-western ontario was 70mph
back before our american cousins lowered our genberal seepd limit to 50
mph from 60 and pulled the 401 down to 60 thereby (:-)).

  I'm not sure that this is necessarily true of recent additions in the
Toront area, though...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | davecb@Nexus.YorkU.CA | lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave.,      | 
Willowdale, Ontario,  | Stupidity is evil waiting to happen.
CANADA. 416-223-8968  |               -- Clay Bond
Xref: sparky ont.general:1311 can.general:3645 soc.culture.canada:5391 ott.general:599
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Date: 29 Jul 92 14:51:34 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

In article <2A754DBB.3A7B@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.010451.911@zooid.guild.org>
>>Unlike cars, bikes don't kill, mutalate and injure thousands of people
>>every year.  
>Then why the push for helmets? The only reason bike don't injure as many
>as cars is because there are fewer bikes on the major roads.

If you really believe that the only reason that bikes don't injure as many
people as cars is because there are less bikes on the major roads then I
SERIOUSLY suggest that you get professional help for you are totally out of
tune with reality.

Some "minor" factors why cars get involved in a disproportionate number of
accidents causing injuries as compared to bikes :
a) People spend more time in them than on bikes
b) They go just a little bit faster
c) They are less maneouverable
d) They have more failure modes
Xref: sparky ont.general:1279 can.general:3596 soc.culture.canada:5361 ott.general:581
From: kim@Software.Mitel.COM (Kim Letkeman)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:37:34 GMT
	<2A73255D.3B80@telly.on.ca> <1992Jul28.010451.911@zooid.guild.org>
	<2A754DBB.3A7B@telly.on.ca>
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
In-reply-to: evan@telly.on.ca's message of 28 Jul 92 13:38:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.010451.911@zooid.guild.org> Ross Ridge <ross@zooid.guild.org> writes:

| One driver going 120km/h on the 401 is more dangerous than legions
| of cyclists riding on the sidewalk.

Well, now I've read everything ....

The 401 is designed for high volume traffic going at high speeds. It
can easily carry hundreds or thousands of vehicles per hour at 120kmh
without posing any significant risk to the motorists. It does this
every day.

But even one cyclist riding on a sidewalk with equivalent levels of
pedestrian traffic is an extremely dangerous situation. A bad accident
is inevitable.
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: snark@nrcbsa.bio.nrc.ca (S. Chisholm)
Subject: Re: Bicycle helmets (was Re: Ontario government ...)
Organization: National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 20:15:31 GMT

In article <jstewart.712524795@cunews> jstewart@alfred.carleton.ca (John Stewart) writes:
>
>I find it very odd that this argument is commonly used to to justify 
>compulsory use of helmets when other forms of behaviour result in a much
>higher cost to society.  For example
>
>   -smoking greatly increases risk of lung cancer and other problems
>
 [stuff deleted]

>To be fair, it would be necessary to do a complete evaluation of each
>persons lifestyle to calculate their probability of a premature death or
>injury and charge accordingly for medical coverage.


An evaluation of each person's lifestyle is not necessary for this sort of 
system.  Heavy taxes on cigarettes, alcohol and other unhealthy products 
will have to same effect.

I for one love it whenever an increase in taxes on cigarettes is announced :-)

chiz


-- 
/***************************************************************************/
/* Sharon Chisholm  \  chisholm@ug.cs.dal.ca| Disclaimer: Any misspellings */ 
/* Biological Inst.   \  dept of Comp Sci   | are intentional and are meant*/
/* National Research   \     Dalhousie      | to test and challenge the    */
From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: house apartments
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:22:30 EST
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Distribution: ont
Organization: Canada Remote Systems




 Hi Bob, thanks for the inquiries. Watch for the further info messages
 I'll post on the subject.

UG>       From: RBUSCH
UG>    Subject: house apartments
UG>
UG>OK, I'm a bit fuzzy on this whole thing.
UG>
UG>Can't unrelated people live in the same household already? They
UG>certainly can in Kitchener-Waterloo: the buildings are called
UG>"lodging houses". Lodging houses are basically normal houses that
UG>must meet municipal fire regulations and must be located on land
UG>that has a certain zoning (i.e., not "pure" residential zoning).
UG>
UG>So what's the deal? Does the proposed legislation suggest that
UG>zoning no longer matters? Perhaps if you sent me a copy of the
UG>actual proposal, I'd understand better.
UG>
UG>Please reply -- I'm very interested in this issue because I just
UG>bought a house that I'm renovating into a 6-person lodging house.
UG>
UG>Thanks for the post!
UG>
UG>Bob.
UG><rbusch@watarts.uwaterloo.ca>
UG>Organization: University of Waterloo

---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  CANBUILD - THE Construction Conference
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario/Detroit, MI
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044