If my helmet was stolen ...

[hedo2002]

So with NO evidence what so ever that the guy was going to get back on the bike, after you explained to him that riding with no helmet was illegal... you just decide to make his already lousy day worse by adding a $300-500 towing bill.
Can you see why we don't like cops.

Well first off we are talking EARLY 80's so tows, (in town), were more in the $30 - $50 range. Not today's rates.

Now to address your other concern, about NO evidence. that he would ride without a helmet. If I had pulled him over for riding without a helmet then he has already demonstrated his inability to follow the law, and that would be my "evidence" that he may indeed, despite being told not to ride without one. Not everyone who is told to do something by a police officer, follows those instructions, so yes, I would tow.

Now do YOU see why officers don't always accept what they are told? lmao

Also if getting his helmet stolen was "his lousy day" dying while not wearing a helmet would have made that day a WHOLE lot worse.

 

[hedo2002]

Any sort of sauce with this?
I am under the impression the only way a Canadian insurance Co. can deny coverage is if there is a conviction of CRIMINAL charges that directly affect the CAUSE of the collision, which not wearing a helmet ISN'T. They can't deny coverage if you're not wearing a seat belt, they can't deny coverage if you're an idiot and drive your car off a pier. They can deny coverage on an impaired, because you get charged (and convicted) of impaired operation of a motor vehicle, a HTA charge, AND Care and Control of a motor vehicle while over 0.08% blood alcohol, a CRIMINAL charge, and it's pretty easy to infer being pie-eyed had some bearing on whether or not you got into a collision
You may or may not get a lower payout in the tort portion, for pain and suffering (which in Canada ain't much), but I'm pretty sure you're still insured when not wearing a helmet... and the part about LEGALLY not wearing a helmet in a non helmet state, I bet that would depend on how good a lawyer you have, you're legally operating the bike...Canadian road rules aren't really applicable when you're not in Canada.

I hate to burst your bubble. Can you point me to the section of the HTA that covers impaired operation of a motor vehicle? It too is an offence under the CC of C.

Also they need not wait for a conviction to deny coverage. Otherwise, it could take months/years for your case to proceed through the courts. They aren't going to payout on the claim, then once a conviction is registered, try to get the policy owner to give their money back...lol I am sure if one were to push the issue they would simply deny coverage "pending the outcome of the criminal charges" But most people charged don't fight for coverage.

You are however, correct when stating Canadian rules of the road do NOT apply to roads which are located outside the jurisdiction where the policy is written. A policy written in Ontario isn't affected if your doing something which would be considered illegal in Ontario, but may not have a matching regulation in another province. But it also works the other way. Again, I stopped a rider, (bike was registered in Alta as was his licence), at the time there was no requirement to wear a helmet, as there was in Ontario. He therefore, felt he could ride here without a helmet. The judge quickly cleared up his "confusion" He even tried to argue forcing him to wear a helmet was a violation of his human rights.

Again the judge cleared it up for him..lol

 

[hedo2002]

Bitzz: I didn't reply sooner as I was on vacation in Cuba. I don't sit on this forum waiting for you to post.

At NO point did I say the bike would be towed to an impound yard. If the rider wished he/she could have it towed to their residence. That would accomplish 2 things.

1. The rider gets home.
2. The officer has mitigated his liability by ensuring the rider was less likely to ride again without an helmet.

Now, just because in YOUR world, you "don't think" the officer would be liable if he left the rider and the bike roadside without a helmet, doesn't make it so. I can assure you if that rider is severely injured or killed without a helmet, the family WOULD be looking for someone, (other than their kin), to blame.

Although a different scenario, it does demonstrate how people look, (after a tragedy), for someone else to blame. If a security guard stops a Person under 18 for shoplifting. They MUST not release that person, until they arrange for someone over the age of 18 to "take custody" of the accused.

This became a policy after a person who was 16, was charged and let leave. She was so distraught that she committed suicide before returning home. The parents sued, and won a multi million dollar award.

So, unfortunately it isn't just police officers, but ANYONE in authority, operates on the default premise of CYA. Cover Your Ass. It may not in your eyes be fair, but ti is reality to prevent liability even when none "should exist."

 

[bitzz]

Now to address your other concern, about NO evidence. that he would ride without a helmet. If I had pulled him over for riding without a helmet then he has already demonstrated his inability to follow the law, and that would be my "evidence" that he may indeed, despite being told not to ride without one. Not everyone who is told to do something by a police officer, follows those instructions, so ye

So, following this logic, you would tow every vehicle you pull over for any provincial offense... after all they were speeding, so they demonstrated their inability to follow the law.

Not everyone who is told to do something by a police officer, follows those instructions, so yes, I would tow.

Got that, BUT in your example, you're not giving the rider a chance to follow your instruction, you're towing his bike. The ONLY evidence you have the rider may drive without a helmet after you cautioned is your own prejudices... which ain't EVIDENCE.
Can you see how your argument falls apart. Want to try again.

 

[bitzz]

I hate to burst your bubble. Can you point me to the section of the HTA that covers impaired operation of a motor vehicle? It too is an offence under the CC of C.

Yep, ya got me.
Impaired operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over .08 is a provincial offense, not a HTA offense. Sorry I mislead you.
Care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired is federal or criminal offense
When you get charged with "Impaired", which is a hybrid charge, you are charged with both, provincial AND federal charges. You are charged with BOTH impaired operation of a vehicle AND care and control. The crown USED to have the discretion to proceed on either or both. Federal guidelines now mandate the crown must go with criminal code 253, care and control, which results with a criminal record. We used to able to plea to the provincial offense, where you didn't get a criminal record... not anymore.

 

[bitzz]

At NO point did I say the bike would be towed to an impound yard. If the rider wished he/she could have it towed to their residence.

On what grounds are YOU towing his bike? The only way a peace office can tow, is to take care and control, and if a peace officer takes care and control it HAS to go to impound, so the care and control is continued.

At NO point did I say the bike would be towed to an impound yard. If the rider wished he/she could have it towed to their residence.

Then YOU aren't towing the bike, HE is.
You CAN strongly urge a rider to tow his bike in this circumstance, but it is in no way legally binding.
Go back and read my response to u/Priller post #79

Now, just because in YOUR world, you "don't think" the officer would be liable if he left the rider and the bike roadside without a helmet, doesn't make it so. I can assure you if that rider is severely injured or killed without a helmet, the family WOULD be looking for someone, (other than their kin), to blame.

Not "MY" world, I got it from RIBO, Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.
AGAIN I know of no cases involving helmets, but follow the link I provided earlier (#72), which deals with insurance claims when the claimant wasn't wearing a seatbelt, which is comparable, you'll see; NO insurance is NOT null and void, BUT the claimant MAY, as in "it is the realm of possibility" find their claim MAY be reduced, in seatbelt cases by 5-15%... MAYBE, NOT arbitrarily null and void.
My wife WANTED to blame every wrong, ever committed, in the world's history, on me, but it didn't make it so.

The entire idea of towing the guy's bike because he MIGHT ride away is SOLELY to CYA, because of your prejudices, NOT based on any sort of EVIDENCE, which you NEED to tow.

Hope you had a good time in Cuba, and I hope you spent lots of money (Cuba NEEDS our money). Is the internet any better in Cuba yet? I haven't been in Cuba since the latest internet "roll out". Does everybody have a smart phone now?

 

[hedo2002]

So, following this logic, you would tow every vehicle you pull over for any provincial offense... after all they were speeding, so they demonstrated their inability to follow the law.

Got that, BUT in your example, you're not giving the rider a chance to follow your instruction, you're towing his bike. The ONLY evidence you have the rider may drive without a helmet after you cautioned is your own prejudices... which ain't EVIDENCE.
Can you see how your argument falls apart. Want to try again.

I am done. Obviously you can't distinguish subtle differences. between a SAFETY issue riding without a helmet and the increased likelihood of death or serious injury that could result from that as opposed to speeding or as you put it "every provincial offence. There is NO danger to anyone if a driver decides to drive away after being ticketed for an expired registration,

I have made clear my position on the issue based upon the real world experience I have as opposed to your nonsensical examples with NO real world experience. I was also pointing out why in today's litigious environment an officer would be taking a HUGE gamble, by not towing, for a person with no helmet. You on the other hand are arguing merely for the sake of arguing with no logical reasoning. Therefore, I have wasted enough of my time on this subject with you. There is no fixing or legislating stupid....lol

 

[bitzz]

You make a lot of assumptions.
Can you point out some of my "nonsensical examples"
Way back when you said you'd have a guy's bike towed, I said you had no legal right nor grounds to tow the guys bike, citing why.
In response you call me names.
You are a cop aren't you? You're not very good at cogent discussion, you sound just like a cop; everyone ELSE is a criminal and/or an idiot. You're RIGHT and that's that.

... and just so we're all straight here, a very large percentage of collisions in Ontario have a "speeding" component to them, VERY few, if any, have a 'rider without helmet" component...
... and expired registration isn't a moving violation, so not really much of a comparison, how about seat belts? Helmets and seatbelts are both safety equipment... so I posted about seatbelts... you know ... for comparison
So, you wanna try again? Next time with more verifiable reasoning and less character assassination

 

[Pegassus]

This is the reason I carry a $140 cheap helmet, nobody steals it, I lock it up with a $20 bicycle cable just so it doesn't fall off the bike, no problems in many years. The only person that will steal your helmet is another rider who knows what's it worth.