HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath)
Subject: Re: Risks and Bicycle Helmets
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:32:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.114340.2564@geovision.gvc.com> pt@geovision.gvc.com writes:
>chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:
>
>>Excellent posting! The vanishing *small* risks associated with riding
>>without helmets are overblown. Good to see some even conservative
>>estimates that bear this out.
>
>Statistics be damned!  It's the likes of you (or your surviving
>relatives) who will sue the parks when you spill you brains out over my
>mountain bike trails, and then the parks will ban mountain biking
>because they can't afford the lawsuits.

Talk about red herrings...

And what would you do if the helmet was insufficient? When does
it become an 'accident' in your mind?
I suppose the likes of you would like to see everyone in armoured
suits, driving tanks? :-) (smiley)
(There are other reasons for the owners of trails to not want cyclists,btw)

The way to handle this issue is to 'clean' up the legal system, which means
changing peoples' attitudes about lawsuits. Juries tend to make large
settlements out of sympathy.. appeals courts (in Ontario, at least)
have tended to disregard 'sympathy' and go with justice.

I personally believe people should be held responsible for their actions.
The logical outcome of that philosophy is that they then take responsiblity
for protecting *themselves* when cycling -- a law is not needed, because
it is up to the individual, who *takes the risks upon themselves*.

>Your freedom to not wear a helmet stops when it will infringe on my freedom
>to ride.

What a perversion of individual rights!
What additional items of safety gear will you force us to buy tomorrow?
And will it *really* make us safer? And is it worth the cost?
You don't answer these questions -- red herrings about liability suits
notwithstanding.

	Chris Retterath


Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Risks and Bicycle Helmets
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 12:04:28 GMT

chris@mks.com (Chris Retterath) writes:

>>Your freedom to not wear a helmet stops when it will infringe on my freedom
>>to ride.

>What a perversion of individual rights!
Not a perversion, just a restatement of the usual statement, accepted by
libertarians and conservatives alike:
  Your individual freedom stops when it interfers with my individual freedom,
  and vice-versa.

>What additional items of safety gear will you force us to buy tomorrow?
>And will it *really* make us safer? And is it worth the cost?

My helmet cost $35, and is so light that I don't notice it usually, and so
well ventilated that I'm _still_ getting a sunburn on my scalp.  (It's last
years model Louis Garneau microshell, with Snell and Ansi certification)

>You don't answer these questions -- red herrings about liability suits
>notwithstanding.

It is not a red herring.  Until there is some universal, legal way for
someone to sign away their rights to sue when they participate in a 'risk'
sport, those of us who particpate and accept the risks will suffer at the
hands of people who think that someone else is to blame for everything.

Did you know that because of liability suits, tobogganing was banned in city
parks in Etobicoke, Ontario - because some idiot smashed into a tree and his
parent sued the city?  Did you know that we _almost_ lost the sport of
Orienteering in Ontario, because we couldn't get liability insurance at a
reasonable rate?  Did you know that they are probably going to ban employees
taking test jumps at bungy jumping in Ontario, because some idiot forgot to
tie himself off before taking his test jump?  I don't want Mountain Biking
to have the same problems, so I just wish people would take reasonable
precautions.

If you want to ride helmet-less, get a lawyer to draw up a document saying
you wont sue if you injure yourself, that your family wont sue if you kill
yourself or become so brain-damaged you can't speak for yourself, and carry
it with you on your bike, protected enough so that it will survive and be
recognizable after any concievable accident.

Those of us who wear helmets are at least wearing a visible sign that we
know what we are doing is risky, and we are taking a reasonable precaution
to reduce the risk by a reasonable amount.

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
Zen T-Shirt: Enlightenment Available - Enquire Within
 -- Paul Gillingwater (Paul.Gillingwater@actrix.gen.nz) on rec.humor.funny
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Highways/freeways (was sidebar re 401)
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:59:22 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.172726.7907@r-node.gts.org> marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.123154.3261@eci386.uucp> rstory@eci386.uucp (Robert Story) writes:
>>BTW, in the US multi-lane, limited access highways are called
>>freeways, in Britain motorways, in France Autoroutes, in Germany
>>Autobahns ... what do Canadians call 'em?
>>
> I think they are called highways...never been told otherwise.
>Its 'Trans-Canada Highway', which I know for the most part is limited
>access.  I think the 401 is the 'Macdonald-Cartier Highway', isn't it?
>And that is limited access.
>
Well, I would say otherwise.  The 401 is the "Macdonald-Cartier
Freeway."  And in Ontario, the series of roads numbered 2 to 1??,
which are generally 2-lane and non-limited-access, are called
"The King's Highways."

I'm also not sure it's accurate to say that the Trans-Canada is
mostly limited access.  This *is* true here in Quebec, but surely
Highway 17 isn't limited access all the way across northern Ontario,
nor is Highway 2 in New Brunswick.  I'm not sure about further east
or west.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA

Newsgroups: ont.general
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX System (416-249-5366) 24hrs.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:22:52 GMT

In article <3709@ecicrl.ocunix.on.ca> clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis) writes:
>Nothing's impossible to the assholes that treat rush hour traffic as
>a slalom course.  They're easy to spot.  Usually driving Camaros
>or Trans-ams.

	And don't forget the...er..ah...motorcycles *blush* *weak smile*

Marc
-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell/feed accounts available   1800+ newsgroups
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit T3000/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400  FREE
Xref: sparky ont.general:1613 can.general:4039 soc.culture.canada:5817
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:31:08 GMT
Distribution: can

buckland@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland) writes:
>  It's about time I got back to the original scenario I posited
>  for being passed on the right, which was traffic heavy enough
>  to offer only minimal opportunities for moving right and heavy
>  enough to ensure that I wouldn't likely be able to get back
>  out of the slow lane if I got into it

This is perfectly acceptable:  if you are, in fact, passing traffic
to the right than you have every right to be in that lane.
Providing, of course, that you're not driving 100kph while they
are driving 99.9kph (this is not an accusation!).

However the article I was responding to went as follows:

#When I'm driving at the limit, I'll be buggered if
#I'll inconvenience myself to accomodate somebody else's demand
#that he be allowed to drive at whatever speed suits him.

Which is very much opposed in execution, if not intent, to your
paragraph above.  

>  I get steamed [...] not at all people who expect me to
>  move over, but at people who demand (with - illegal - tailgating,
>  or with lights or horn) that I get out of their way, at my own
>  inconvenience and possibly, due to the inadequacy of the space
>  available, at my own danger, so that - and this can't be
>  emphasized enough - they can break the law.

I've seen very few people tailgate or flash lights at people
in the situation you describe and, as a person who drives up the
400 at under 120kph, I've been in this situation many times.

Given this and the following paragraph:

>  [...] if you come up behind me,
>  and I'm going slower than you, and you look down and see you're
>  speeding, say to yourself, "Oh gosh, I'm speeding; and oh my,
>  if I keep this up I'll also be following too close," and then
>                      slow
>                      down.
>  If you reach the limit, and I'm still in your way, _then_ you
>  have the right to expect me to get out of your way

I will be so bold as to suggest that you need an attitude adjustment
and that maybe, just maybe,  it is not as hard for you to get
into the left lane as you judge it to be.

>  But while you're breaking the law, you have zero right to demand that
>  other people make it easy for you to do so; you have only the
>  power of your engine, and the threat - which I admit often
>  intimidates me into doing what you want, principles and annoyance
>  notwithstanding - of the venting of your instant anger at being
>  thwarted.

This principle works both ways;  you are also a law breaker and,
in my opinion, the more dangerous one.  You are interrupting traffic
flow.   Morons are weaving in an attempt to get around you.

You keep repeating the fact that the people coming up behind you
are speeding and using that to justify your breaking of the law
and annoying behaviour.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Xref: sparky ont.general:1616 can.general:4040 soc.culture.canada:5820 ott.general:865
From: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:04:03 GMT
Reply-To: pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley)
Followup-To: ont.general
Distribution: can
Organization: Ember---private system

In article <1992Aug13.152942.639@r-node.gts.org> marc@r-node.gts.org
(Marc Fournier - Sys Admin) writes:

>Things Montreal drivers need to know: don't signal a lane change, or
>you will be cut off.  Just merge right in and you are considered one
>of the family (from experience *smile*)

Toronto also.

Last time we were in Toronto, my wife was driving and became VERY
frustrated when she was trapped in the left lane of Kingston
road---every time there was an opening to get into the right lane,
she signaled, and the nearest car behind her (either lane) promptly
made a supreme effort to occupy the empty spot.

We escaped the road (many blocks beyond our destination) by making
the lane change without signalling it in advance.

For the life of me, what motivates Toronto drivers?  Some deep,
pathological fear of another driver getting where they want to go?

Anyways, at least I now know why so few drivers signal their
intentions.

- 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: kennyy@bnr.ca (Kenny Yan)
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Reply-To: kennyy@bnr.ca (Kenny Yan)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:55:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.152401.9206@bwdls61.bnr.ca>, pww@bnr.ca (Peter Whittaker) writes:
 [ Hilarious description of drivers in Montreal, Toronto & Ottawa, with no :-> ]

Another thing about Ottawa drivers is that if they know they'll be making
a right turn from the street they're on, sometime in the (far) future, they'll
put themselves into the right lane.  So in the mornings, on Merivale road
northbound, in front of a red light (1 of 50 million), you find the left
lane all clear, and the right lane backed up to the previous red light.

So, being a former citizen of Toronto, I naturally change to left lane,
pass everyone, and cut in front of the 1st car in the right lane when
the light turns green.

Kenny Y.
BNR does not share my view.
BNR has no offices in Toronto.  (last I heard)
Coincidence?
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: kratz@bnr.ca (Geoff Kratz)
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:57:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.232621.4155@bmerh85.bnr.ca> jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:
> The HTA (Ontario) does not refer to lines anywhere. I have the latest copy
> and I searched in vain. With respect to passing, it is only stated that
> it is forbidden within 50 m (or whatever) of a hill/curve/intersection on
> single lane highways. The lines are there for our convenience as already
> pointed out; I cross lines when I need to. I assume the pOLICE could fine
> you for dangerous driving however; but that would be hard to prove in court.
>
> When I told my coworkers about the line 'no-rule', they did not believe me till
> I brought in the HTA copy !! You would be amazed what else is in there....

This depends on the province.  In Alberta (unless its changed
recently), the lines are *the law*: you cross a solid yellow line, you
get a ticket for crossing a solid yellow line.  There are signs on the
highway to warn people about this.  This may also apply in
Sasksatchewan and Manitoba, but I haven't driven there in a while.



--
Geoff Kratz             Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.           kratz@bnr.ca
Messaging and E-mail       Ottawa Ontario Canada
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: Risks and Bicycle Helmets
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:33:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.114340.2564@geovision.gvc.com> pt@geovision.gvc.com writes:
>
>Your freedom to not wear a helmet stops when it will infringe on my freedom
>to ride.
>

I like to take this to one level more simpler:

You are free to do ANYTHING you like provided it does not infringe on
anyone else.

You ride without a helmet, and only you suffer the seriousness of the
injury, therefore you should have this freedom.

Unfortunately your injury costs *ME* tax dollars because naturally
you would expect the health care system to take care of you.  Therefore
*I* have the right to insist on a law making the helmet manditory.

HOWEVER!

I do have a solution that leaves you with the freedom to choose.

You either wear a helmet or carry a permit that allows you to go
helmetless.  The permit costs $50 per year (or whatever is deemed
proper given the odds of frequency and severity of injuries).  The
proceeds of this permit will help offset the health care costs as
they pertain to your choice of a dangerous activity.

Yes, I know that tax dollars are pooled together, but they have to
come from somewhere (this is why many people forget to include UIC,
CPP, licence renewal fees, etc when they try to figure how much tax
they paid as a percentage of their income last year).  And perhaps this
should be extended to other areas (sky diving, green fees on days when
the forecast calls for thunderstorms, etc).  Heck, this is already being
done on tobacco and alcohol, although many might argue that the tax on
these products falls short of the costs to society.

Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE            |    MY CANADA INCLUDES CANADIANS!
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute      | I would really like this to include
Toronto, Ontario, Canada             | Quebec - but I won't hold my breath.
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: nordgraf@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (John Dorn)
Subject: traffic etiquette
Keywords: Sorry 
Organization: UTCS Public Access
Distribution: ont
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:07:00 GMT

While we seem to be on the subject of traffic rules and
etiquette, we have all from time to time made a driving
mistake and have probably received a blast and/or rude
gesture from the offended driver.

I have often wondered if there is an accepted gesture
that indicates that "yes I realize I screwed up big-time
and I am sorry".

Just Wondering.

Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,ott.general
From: jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto)
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Reply-To: jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 01:21:21 GMT

In article <rsm.713624990@sybok>, rsm@doe.carleton.ca (Raul San Martin) writes:
|> In <1992Aug11.232621.4155@bmerh85.bnr.ca> jnetto@bnr.ca (John Netto) writes:
|> 
|> >When I told my coworkers about the line 'no-rule',they did not believe me till
|> > I brought in the HTA copy !! You would be amazed what else is in there....
|> > John
|> 
|> What else? Please give some examples...
|> 
|> rsm.

 I'll post info later, when I get some time to look at the HTA OK.

 Cheers,
 John
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.general
From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:58:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.152401.9206@bwdls61.bnr.ca> pww@bnr.ca (Peter Whittaker) writes:
[ ... great schtuff ... ]
>Things Ottawa drivers know how to do: .  Sad, isn't it?
>
>Accidents in Ottawa are caused by:  boneheads.  For purposes of this
>discussion, boneheads are all Ottawa drivers who do realize how bad
>driving in Ottawa really is.

Lighten up, dude. I drive in Ottawa too.

I ain't no Alain Prost, but at least I don't do most of the
objectionable things you've mentioned above (deleted for brevity).
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: sdebar re passing or right (was sidebar re 401 (: -))
Organization: R-node Public Access UNIX System (416-249-5366) 24hrs.
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:01:14 GMT

In article <3078@isgtec.isgtec.com> robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) writes:
>Well the arguments you will hear are:
>
>    "I'm driving the speed limit so nobody should be passing me"
>
	Kinda lame arguement, isn't it?  That is the point of 
the left lanes...so that those that do travel over the speed limit
(most people travel some over the speed limit, if not much) can
drive a consistent speed without having to switch to the right
lanes to pass.

>    "I was taught to stay to the left:  it's the safest lane"
>     (It seems there are idiotic driving instructers teaching this!!)
>
	Are you serious??  Hmmm...don't these guys have to be licensed
by someone? Don't they have to have some knowledge?
 
>    "School buses, airport limos, taxis, shuttle buses, and cops all
>     do it so it must be okay."
>
	I've never seen any of these driving slow in the left lanes
though.
 
>    "Hmmm, I never really thought about it.  Then again I don't
>     give a shit about anybody but myself anyways."
>
	Could you imagine if everyone had that attitude?  Hmmm???

Marc
-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell/feed accounts available   1800+ newsgroups
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit T3000/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400  FREE
Newsgroups: ont.general
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown)
Subject: Re: sidebar re 401
Organization: York University
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:49:34 GMT

pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:
|Last time we were in Toronto, my wife was driving and became VERY
|frustrated when she was trapped in the left lane of Kingston
|road---every time there was an opening to get into the right lane,
|she signaled, and the nearest car behind her (either lane) promptly
|made a supreme effort to occupy the empty spot.

  You've struck on a cultural assumption of a significant minority around
here... that the 401 in Toronto is macho-land.

  I signal, and then change lanes when there is clearly sufficient space at
the time I turn on the signal.  People who try to close up in the safety-
period may or may not suceed.  
  Those who actively appear to be trying to cut me off get a flash of
brakelight as they charge at my rear bumper. This means ``carefull, you're
too close''.  They seem, mysteriously, to think it means ``you're about to
have to pay to fix my car''.

  The message lies as much in the mind of the reciever as in the sender.
Fortunately this cross-cultural message works **just** the way it should.

--dave (honi soit qui mal y pense?) c-b
-- 
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:1529 can.general:3947 soc.culture.canada:5690 ott.general:787
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: 11 Aug 92 12:07:50 GMT
	<2A7DB94D.F43@telly.on.ca> <1992Aug7.131427.2190@chance.gts.org>
Organization: MITEL Public Switching, Kanata, Ontario, Canada
In-reply-to: john@chance.gts.org's message of 7 Aug 92 13:14:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug7.131427.2190@chance.gts.org> john@chance.gts.org (John R MacMillan) writes:

| In an emergency situation, ie. immediately prior to many accidents,
| the bike is more maneuoverable, and therefore has a better chance of
| avoiding the accident.

This is the second time someone has posted that bikes are
manoeverable. The thing I don't get is that, in traffic, a bike is
either pinned in by a curb, or is next to a soft shoulder (in Ontario)
where manoevering is impossible. Also, at the speeds cyclist talk
about (say 25kmh for commuting) I don't see how a bike can be turned
suddenly without throwing the rider.

Is my perception incorrect? Or are cyclists able to slow down to
manoever in fractions of seconds?
--
Kim Letkeman	kim@Software.Mitel.COM
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Steve Frampton)
Newsgroups: ont.general
Subject: Re: traffic etiquette
Keywords: Sorry
Date: 14 Aug 92 02:54:41 GMT
Reply-To: frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca
Distribution: ont
Organization: Vicuna Systems, Kingston, ON (613) 547-5066

nordgraf@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (John Dorn) writes:

> While we seem to be on the subject of traffic rules and
> etiquette, we have all from time to time made a driving
> mistake and have probably received a blast and/or rude
> gesture from the offended driver.
> 
> I have often wondered if there is an accepted gesture
> that indicates that "yes I realize I screwed up big-time
> and I am sorry".

There *is* such a gesture, and I use it all the time.  You hold out your 
fist with back of hand facing other driver, and extend your middle finger 
as straight up as you can.  Either hand will do.

> Just Wondering.

Glad to be of help.

----------------------------------------------------
frampton@vicuna.ocunix.on.ca (Steve Frampton)
Vicuna Systems BBS - 613/547-5066 [9600 v.32/.42bis]
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,soc.culture.canada,ott.followup