If my helmet was stolen ...

[Klaatu]

Your insurance is registered in Canada, right?
YOU NEED TO WEAR A HELMET. PERIOD. EVEN IN THE STATES WHERE IT IS NOT LAW.

If you get into an accident and end up with any sort of head trauma, your insurance policy is null and void. The company will simply deny your claim as you were not wearing a helmet, which is Canadian law.

But, you do you.

Ok, I said I would ride my bike home or to a store if my helmet was stolen. I'm not saying that I would ride my bike without a helmet even in Florida. I was just pointing out that it is very common in the US, in states that don't require helmet laws to be part of the norm. But you bring up a very good point. I never thought of that. I'm sure there are lots of Canadians that go to Florida and ride with no helmet, not even thinking about the insurance aspect of it.

 

[bitzz]

If you get into an accident and end up with any sort of head trauma, your insurance policy is null and void. The company will simply deny your claim as you were not wearing a helmet, which is Canadian law.

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.

 

[bitzz]

Did ya' know that in some "no helmet" states you have to have a separate insurance policy for your head... some as low as $10,000... which wouldn't get you a decent hair cut in a US hospital.
... and there's age restrictions, and you have to be licensed for a set amount of time, a couple of years, BEFORE you can ride without a helmet

 

[BigEvilDoer]

Ok, I said I would ride my bike home or to a store if my helmet was stolen. I'm not saying that I would ride my bike without a helmet even in Florida. I was just pointing out that it is very common in the US, in states that don't require helmet laws to be part of the norm. But you bring up a very good point. I never thought of that. I'm sure there are lots of Canadians that go to Florida and ride with no helmet, not even thinking about the insurance aspect of it.

Riding your bike home or to a store -- accidents can still happen.

Me, I'd rather be out a couple bucks instead of possibly screwing myself out of proper medical coverage.
Worst case, I call a buddy and say, "Hey, my bucket got stolen. Think you may be able to get one to me?" Pay them for their time.
Done deal.

 

[BigEvilDoer]

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.

The information I posted was directly from AllState insurance. I confirmed with 3 different brokers.
Your policy is written under Canadian law, which requires a helmet. The school I teach at also has an insurance broker on staff, which also confirms that is policy for every company she has ever sold a policy for.

As for Canadian road rules, yes they are different from the US in many ways. But, insurance policy is written in Canada and therefor follows Canadian law.

So, I think that's pretty solid evidence.

 

[Priller]

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.

From the above message, it sounds like liability is the driving force, not just a cop being a jerk. You might blame the cop, but I think a legal system that would allow one to be sued for not taking every possible precaution is the true culprit. Or to put it another way, just telling someone not to ride with a wagging finger is mostly a meaningless exercise in today's litigious society. Being lied to, day-in day-out, as a cop also isn't likely to build any faith that directions would be followed.

Don't get me wrong, I think there's lots broken about how we operate our police forces. Particularly in North America, where we allow (and heavily fund) them to be paramilitary forces and simultaneously expect them to be social workers and psychotherapists. Add in the closed-rank protection of obviously bad cops or good cops who've done bad things (by far the biggest problem with modern policing), and there's not much good faith going the other way, either.

But in this case, I don't see how you could expect any police officer to act differently. Telling a litigating lawyer that you didn't want to be a jerk by calling a tow truck isn't going to go far in any defense...

 

[TK4]

But in this case, I don't see how you could expect any police officer to act differently. Telling a litigating lawyer that you didn't want to be a jerk by calling a tow truck isn't going to go far in any defense...

Especially when the tow truck drivers are in cahoots with the cops and often part of the Russian mafia ?

 

[Priller]

Especially when the tow truck drivers are in cahoots with the cops and often part of the Russian mafia ?

Well, to be fair, a cop saying in court that they didn't want to call a tow truck because too many of their colleagues are happily lining their pockets with kickbacks isn't likely to endear them to their brothers and sisters in the union hall, either.

But not leaving someone on the side of the road and far from home to figure out their own transport isn't quite the same as faking a 50+ stunt driving charge. In this case, a good cop is in a no-win situation, so can only go by the book. To be honest, if someone had alternate means to get back (e.g. a buddy with a truck or van), they shouldn't have gotten on the bike without a helmet in the first place. It sucks, but that's the law...

 

[bitzz]

it sounds like liability is the driving force

I don't see that.
In our discussion, somebody was riding without a helmet, because his/her helmet was stolen off their bike. Get's pulled over, and told they can't do that.
So you think it's OK to impound and tow his bike because he MIGHT ride it away at a later time?
I think the cop would have a hard time convincing his sergeant that the tow was needed. You're convicting the rider of a crime they haven't committed YET.
They tow when it is the public's interest/safety, because the rider/driver has shown to be obviously negligent, I don't see operating a vehicle without the proper safety equipment as reaching that level of negligence. Do you want them to tow the car when the driver gets a seatbelt ticket? Same thing, they MIGHT drive away and remove their seatbelt again... THE HORROR!
I see ZERO liability on the cop, he did his part: he pulled the rider over and cautioned. That's all he NEEDS to do. There would be even less than zero liability exposure if the cop gave the rider a ticket... and the GTA faithful be up in arms. If he let the rider drive away without a helmet? LOTS O' LIABILITY

 

[bitzz]

... cuz I like to play the devil's advocate: When ever the topic of riding with no helmet comes up, I'll remind y'all of Dale Earnhart. The mechanism of his demise is possible, on the average human, at the speed of 15 KPH, (you can kill yourself running (on foot), into a wall (Dale hit the wall at about 50KPH IIRC) and there is a VERY good chance Dale would have walked away from that with a sore neck if he wasn't wearing a helmet.
... BEFORE the arguments start: Dale was going DOWN the track at over 100mph (in the X axis) but he hit the wall doing around 30mph (in the Y axis)
And now we wear a HAAS brace, which may or may not have saved Dale... but his crash is why everybody wears one.

 

[Evoex]

I don't see that.
In our discussion, somebody was riding without a helmet, because his/her helmet was stolen off their bike. Get's pulled over, and told they can't do that.
So you think it's OK to impound and tow his bike because he MIGHT ride it away at a later time?
I think the cop would have a hard time convincing his sergeant that the tow was needed. You're convicting the rider of a crime they haven't committed YET.
They tow when it is the public's interest/safety, because the rider/driver has shown to be obviously negligent, I don't see operating a vehicle without the proper safety equipment as reaching that level of negligence. Do you want them to tow the car when the driver gets a seatbelt ticket? Same thing, they MIGHT drive away and remove their seatbelt again... THE HORROR!
I see ZERO liability on the cop, he did his part: he pulled the rider over and cautioned. That's all he NEEDS to do. There would be even less than zero liability exposure if the cop gave the rider a ticket... and the GTA faithful be up in arms. If he let the rider drive away without a helmet? LOTS O' LIABILITY

You can't leave vehicles on the side of the road.

If I was the cop I may have let the rider arrange his own tow or call a friend to come ride it for them, but i'm not leaving until the bike is gone and they are not getting back on the bike. Now, maybe the cop has time to let it all unwind as such, maybe not. Cop didn't write the laws and if the citizen isn't a dick then i don't think the cop needs to be one either but...sometimes it just is what it is.

 

[bitzz]

So, I think that's pretty solid evidence.

Wellll ya seeee
I know nothing of "helmet" cases, I have never heard of one, BUT I DO know seatbelts, and in the eyes of Ontario judicial, I betcha a decent lawyer could argue their equivalence, both HTA mandated safety equipment. Both HTA "moving violations"
I know for a fact that not wearing a seatbelt does not render your insurance null and void. That has been to the supreme court more than once. Try some of these. (I used to follow seatbelt laws. I have received lots and lots and lots of seatbelt tickets. I even argued at seatbelt ticket in Ontario Supreme Court... and lost on precedent. It was fun, everyone in the room agreed with me (including the judge and the prosecuter), except the law. I had stopped at a red light, pulled my seatbelt down so I could pull off my jumper, and I got done for improper seatbelt. My argument was "This is STUPID", enforcement of the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law)

 

[bitzz]

You can't leave vehicles on the side of the road.

OH NO
I park on the street often.
Should they tow my car?

IF the cop was to arrest the rider and take the rider away, the officer has now assumed care and control of the rider's vehicle, has responsibility and liability for that vehicle, and will justifiably tow it.
In our discussion the rider has kept care and control, so it's the rider's responsibility to deal with it... and if the rider wants to leave it at the side of the road where it's not impeding traffic and it's legally parked, that's on the rider.

 

[bitzz]

Shades of 1984 going down here... and the THOUGHT POLICE

 

[TK4]

Shades of 1984 going down here... and the THOUGHT POLICE

Skynet.

 

[bitzz]

... and just so we're all clear here: 1984 was meant as a WARNING, not a play book

 

[Priller]

I don't see that.
In our discussion, somebody was riding without a helmet, because his/her helmet was stolen off their bike. Get's pulled over, and told they can't do that.
So you think it's OK to impound and tow his bike because he MIGHT ride it away at a later time?

Who said anything about impounding the bike? It would be towed directly to the rider's home. Ticket for the lack of helmet, plus towing bill. Happened to me years ago when I was pulled over with an expired license (long story). Couldn't ride home, couldn't leave the bike on the highway, so a tow was the only option.

The post above didn't cover a scenario where the rider was pulled over in a legal street parking spot, they simply referred to a rider being too far from home to push. This could cover a backroad, a regional road, or any number of other situations where the bike isn't conveniently stopped in a legal parking space. In my case, I was on the side of a major highway in BC.

I think the cop would have a hard time convincing his sergeant that the tow was needed. You're convicting the rider of a crime they haven't committed YET.

They're not being convicted of a crime. The ticket is for riding without a helmet, which is a moving violation, not a criminal charge. The cost of the tow is the cost of removing the motorcycle from a place where it can't be left unattended. And if the rider is capable of moving it without a tow (e.g. with a friend and a pickup), again, that's what they should have done in the first place.

They tow when it is the public's interest/safety, because the rider/driver has shown to be obviously negligent, I don't see operating a vehicle without the proper safety equipment as reaching that level of negligence. Do you want them to tow the car when the driver gets a seatbelt ticket? Same thing, they MIGHT drive away and remove their seatbelt again... THE HORROR!

Riding without a seatbelt isn't a valid comparison. The seatbelt hasn't been removed from the car. The only way that compares is if someone is riding with a helmet but not wearing it, which is a whole different discussion. (PS - the Dale Earnhart situation has minimal relevance to motorcycling, as his body was strapped into a car. When motorcyclists hit things, the body tends to go with the head, so you don't get the same whiplash scenario. Even if you did in an unusual circumstance, study after study after study shows that the odds of that happening are infinitesimally small compared to other risks that the helmet massively reduces)

I see ZERO liability on the cop, he did his part: he pulled the rider over and cautioned. That's all he NEEDS to do. There would be even less than zero liability exposure if the cop gave the rider a ticket... and the GTA faithful be up in arms. If he let the rider drive away without a helmet? LOTS O' LIABILITY

We had an actual cop chime in with their rationale regarding liability, including a scenario where they help a rider push a bike home if that's a reasonable solution. Just because you don't agree that there could be any situation where a police officer could be held liable for leaving a rider who then proceeds to ignore direction and die or seriously injure themselves with the lack of helmet being a contributing factor, doesn't mean that every court will agree. If that is the legal guidance that police officers are being given, then my point was that it's not reasonable to expect them to act differently. You can disagree with the rationale all you like, but it doesn't make the cop a jerk for avoiding liability. And I 100% guarantee they're not interested in your legal advice.

 

[Evoex]

OH NO
I park on the street often.
Should they tow my car?

So you knew exactly what I meant, but you're trying to be glib. Have a conversation with yourself then.

 

[bitzz]

Who said anything about impounding the bike? It would be towed directly to the rider's home.

That's what cops DO. If the police have a car towed, it goes to police contracted impound. End of story.
In your example, you were on the side of a limited access highway, you can't legally park there, you can't legally be there as a pedestrian, so the cop insisted YOU had the bike/car towed, YOU were responsible to remove the car/bike from the side of the road, and YOU can tow it anywhere you want. You had care and control. If you refused, the cop would take care and control, tow the car/bike, and it would be towed to impound.
Do you see the difference?
... and the cop is gonna tell you, particularity in Toronto, that you have have to take HIS tow truck, or the first truck that happens along. Not so, if you have care and control it's up to you what tow truck you use AND where it goes. IIRC the flat rate for a tow off the highway in Toronto IF the police call the tow truck is $400. IIRC the truck I use is $85 + $1.90/km (I haven't called a tow truck in years... is probably a LOT more now, but a LOT less than the flat rate).
If you're blocking two live lanes on the QEW at 8:30AM, you can sympathize with the cop and understand that WE (the rest of us on the road) don't want to wait an hour and a half for CAA, take the first truck and pay him the king's ransom he wants. The rest of us will thank you

We had an actual cop chime in with their rationale regarding liability

We did (or at least someone that represents himself as a cop)... that's where I joined in and called him on it, and said I thought he was overstepping his bounds... for the reasons I have gone on and on and on about.
We haven't heard back from him. I'm waiting.
My brother was a long time Metro cop, and he also worked at the police college. I used to drive a cab. A buddy of mine used to own Peel towing. I been in lots of "Tag and Tow" discussion.
Cops will tell you all kinds of lies to get you to do things they want you to do... That's another thing cops DO.

 

[Relax]

The information I posted was directly from AllState insurance. I confirmed with 3 different brokers.
Your policy is written under Canadian law, which requires a helmet. The school I teach at also has an insurance broker on staff, which also confirms that is policy for every company she has ever sold a policy for.

As for Canadian road rules, yes they are different from the US in many ways. But, insurance policy is written in Canada and therefor follows Canadian law.

So, I think that's pretty solid evidence.

I was curious and asked my Desjardins agent about this today. Here's the email correspondence:

Me:
"Can you please clarify if my motorcycle insurance policy requires me to wear a helmet if I am riding in a US State where wearing a helmet is optional?"

Agent:
"I don't have the answer to your question. Are you using your motorcycle in the US? If so, please advise how may days annually?

Since you have an Ontario Auto policy, then you should probably follow the rules of not only US state law, but also of Ontario law. Not wearing a helmet is against the law which could result in a conviction. If it were me, I'd be wearing a helmet regardless of the state law.

Also, accident benefit premiums factor severity of injuries; injuries which are lowered by use of helmets.

I would recommend getting advice from a lawyer."

Me:
"Of course I would follow Ontario law when in Ontario, and the local law when there. But I don't see how a lawyer can help. Ontario law only applies within Ontario, and if the US state has no helmet law, then there is no law to break. So I see this as a policy clarification. Is there a way yet to download my policy from the Desjardins site so I can search myself? Or can you forward this question to underwriting?"

Agent:
"I did speak to an underwriter. There is nothing in our resources that addresses this exact question. I would think accident benefits would pay out in Ontario if you are not wearing a helmet just like they pay out if you are injured in a car accident if you speed or run a stop or light. If they pay out in Ontario and coverage extends in the US then they should pay out in the US.

You won’t find it in your policy wordings. The full Ontario auto insurance policy includes your policy wordings and the Ontario Automobile Policy Owner's Policy (OAF1).

The best resource is FSRA (Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario). The full OAF1 can be found there. https://www.fsrao.ca/oap-1-ontario-automobile-policy-owners-policy.

The underwriter will reach out to claims and see if they can provide more information. They would be the ones to handle the situation should an accident occur.

There is an increase in exposure when a vehicle is driven to the United States for an extensive period of time because of the differences between the American and Canadian judicial awards in the event that a claim occurs while driving in the United States."


Agent:
"I heard back from one of the underwriters. They believe that where the accident occurs, that state's law would apply. But even if the helmet is not required, because the driver did not mitigate his/her loss by wearing a helmet, then accident benefits may reduce some of the coverages."