In a free society where we all pay for our own medical treatment I agree. However that's not the case in Ontario. We like our medical tax dollars to go towards treating foreigners with sniffles in the ER.
|
|
|
Sihks must wear helmets in Ontario
- Thread starter CafeRay
- Start date
In a free society where we all pay for our own medical treatment I agree. However that's not the case in Ontario. We like our medical tax dollars to go towards treating foreigners with sniffles in the ER.
Nothing is free. Helmet laws have saved the healthcare and welfare system billions of dollars. The problem is not deaths, the much bigger problem is brain injuries resulting in lifelong disability, which means lifelong bills for taxpayers.
In the US, you can ride in many states without a helmet, but when you are in the hospital, YOU pay, and if you cannot work due to brain injury, tough, live under a bridge eating out of dumpsters.
Sikhs also fought years ago for the right to wear Kirpan daggers, which they argued were "ceremonial" and "religious", except these daggers have been used in fatal stabbings.
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...n_attack_renews_debate_over_sikh_daggers.html
They were banned (and have been banned in many countries), but now they are allowed in Canada thanks to the supreme Court. So, in Canada, no one can bring a weapon into a court room, or school, unless you are Sikh, then you can walk in with one of these:
Roadghost
Well-known member
In Canada they could simply require motorcyclists who want their choice to carry more insurance. That is what they do in some U.S. states. Don't fool yourself, safety laws in Ontario are about paternalism, or FORCING you to do the right thing. Just about every freedom could be eliminated using the "public burden" argument, including the privilege to ride a motorcycle (and there are lots of people who would like them outlawed). Neither do I agree that by exercising your "privilege" to ride a motorcycle on a public highway you are automatically surrendering all your constitutional rights. A person who rides without a helmet is not bothering anyone else, nor does he present a risk to anyone else, and he cannot be considered a public burden if he has paid enough insurance to cover injury or loss of life.
This is Ontario, and you should know that here the concept of individual freedoms is lost on them.
suzuki2000
Well-known member
But how do you identify if said rider has the correct insurance? Should something bad happen and the rider not have identified coverage, does the healthcare system choose to not treat them and push them out the door? With our "universal healthcare" model this doesn't work... I suppose healthcare could bill back afterwards, because that is going to work in 99% of the cases...
This is typical Conservative bullsh-t. If we let private insurance handle this, all premiums would be through the roof even worse than now. And, exactly what insurance company would be stupid enough to cover a helmetless rider? Death is not the problem, the problem is some guy in a diaper requiring medical care the rest of his life, which would cost upwards of $2M. In the US, you just push these people into the streets. That's freedom.
This is Canada, we take care of people.
But how do you identify if said rider has the correct insurance? Should something bad happen and the rider not have identified coverage, does the healthcare system choose to not treat them and push them out the door? With our "universal healthcare" model this doesn't work... I suppose healthcare could bill back afterwards, because that is going to work in 99% of the cases...
In the US, everyone is treated, insurance or not. Then, they hire recovery firms to go after the families for every penny. They lose everything. Freedom. For the losers that have no assets, they just increase costs to insured people, which is why they have the highest costs in the world.
The Republicans labelled the new universal system "Obamacare", but the reality is that this exact system was first proposed by Richard Nixon, it just took them 40 years to get it passed. Nixon's Republicans realized in 1970 that if they didn't get health care costs controlled, it would be a killer of US jobs and a huge economic burden. He was right, and the jobs are all gone, and not coming back.
Healthcare costs is a top reason why we have any auto industry left at all in Ontario.
Roadghost
Well-known member
But how do you identify if said rider has the correct insurance? Should something bad happen and the rider not have identified coverage, does the healthcare system choose to not treat them and push them out the door? With our "universal healthcare" model this doesn't work... I suppose healthcare could bill back afterwards, because that is going to work in 99% of the cases...
How do they know if you have insurance now? You can ride without it anytime and never get caught. A reasonable accommodation might include a red coloured licence plate or similar identifying feature. Or, if you prefer a guy riding without a helmet might simply be pulled over and checked for correct insurance. OHIP does not pay for everything anyway, you need palliative care coverage through your employer or auto insurance provider. I know someone who has been turned into a quad and it is the auto insurance company that foots the bill.
Again arguments are a good excuse to outlaw motorcycles, or hockey, or football, or skydiving because they all involve risk. You are arguing against yourself, because you take risks every day. Don't you believe you have that right? Or are you the property of society?
Yea there are any number of solutions to this problem. OHIP Would treat the person without question the extra insurance issue would have to be addressed later.
suzuki2000
Well-known member
Waking up everyday contains levels of risk, you are being obtuse...
Minor hockey mandates that participants are to wear approved helmets including facial protection, same with football. Should any faction that feels this is undesirable be able to seek the "rule" to be over turned in their favour based on a belief religious or otherwise, would it be successful? Would you like to argue that kids/participants would incur no increased risk?
Motorcyclists are a minority in our society, yet an even smaller minority is seeking special accommodation due to a belief system that requirement. Seems to be a tail trying to wag the tail of a very small dog...
Roadghost
Well-known member
LMAO! "Private" insurance companies are already handling it, and premiums are higher in Ontario than they are in U.S. states with NO HELMET LAW and no OHIP. Insurance companies are creatures of profit, and I can assure you they will provide coverage as a command of the market. They also charge what the market will bear, which is why you pay $1000 for 6 months of riding a large bike, while my friends in Michigan pay $700 for full coverage even though they have more fatalities.
If you go down Yonge St. and see all the mentally disturbed homeless people you will see that is not always true. In a society as wealthy as ours there is no reason why anyone should be robbed of their freedom if they can pay to keep it. Neither should we design a health care system that dictates to us what our constitutional rights are.
Roadghost
Well-known member
Waking up everyday contains levels of risk, you are being obtuse...
Minor hockey mandates that participants are to wear approved helmets including facial protection, same with football. Should any faction that feels this is undesirable be able to seek the "rule" to be over turned in their favour based on a belief religious or otherwise, would it be successful? Would you like to argue that kids/participants would incur no increased risk?
Motorcyclists are a minority in our society, yet an even smaller minority is seeking special accommodation due to a belief system that requirement. Seems to be a tail trying to wag the tail of a very small dog...
If they decided to outlaw motorcycles because they are too risky, would you agree?
Matthew.Tremayne
Well-known member
They shouldn't be allowed to carry ****ing weapons either in OUR courts. Go back to wherever the **** you've come from if you want to carry that crap. Helmets are the law, **** off.
RedDogDarren
Well-known member
I agree. And I especially believe anyone religous should be allowed to go to their god as soon as possible. I would love to see a turbanator on a high speed Hyabusa run.
suzuki2000
Well-known member
apples and oranges...
I have no inalienable right to ride a motorcycle. i do however choose to ride, based on personal choice, yet I am aware that local laws require me to don certain safety equipment. it is part of the package.
kiwi
Well-known member
What do you mean by your last statement re: auto industry?
DanteGuelph
Well-known member
I truly believe that riding is a choice and with that choice come rules and regulations. If you don't like the rules, don't ride!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Roadghost
Well-known member
All choices are freedoms. You can call them "rights" or you can call them "privileges" but they are always freedoms. Lose those freedoms and you are no longer free. Do not let the someone else dictate your choices, for soon the choices and the freedom will all be theirs and you will do as you're told.
Last edited:
CanadianBiker
Well-known member
Those so-called "freedoms" are most often lost because a small but loud minority refuse to act responsibly for their own and the greater good. Personally, I'm sick of the crowing about rights; when will those same people take as ardent a stand for their responsibilities? Want to ride a motorcycle? Then wear a ****ing helmet, at a minimum. I don't want to pay for the upkeeep of some drooling vegetable who was too much of a "man" to take the most basic precautions. Or pay for their fatherless children, penniless wife, or their failed business. If any rider thinks they have any worth as a human being, then why wouldn't they protect themselves?
If we ever lose the privilege of riding bikes on public roads, it won't be because of those who ride responsibly, it will be because of those who don't.
Tripletrouble
Well-known member
+1 on this.
I do not consider it a privilege to use a vehicle of my choice.I believe that I do have a right to ride a motorcycle. I do not exist merely to serve a government. Surely it is supposed to be the other way around!
|
|
|
|
|