As a rider...eventually something goes wrong. Sometimes it's something simple like a dead battery, a flat tire or even running out of gas. Sometimes it's far worse like a crash. So what do you do? Who do you call?
When I purchased my F650GS, it came with the BMW Roadside Assistance program, which at the time I thought was great. How nice, I thought, of them to include that even though it was a used bike. Well...that's what I thought at the time until I actually had to use it. I remember my frustration quite vividly the night that my bike wouldn't start. It was in the middle of winter and despite the sub-zero temperatures, I was still riding since the roads were clear of snow and ice. At 2am, I was leaving work, got suited up with many layers to protect me from the cold, only to discover that my bike wouldn't start. Sigh.
Again and again I tried to start my bike but nothing happened. I figured the engine and battery was just too cold from the -15c (5F) temps that the bike had been sitting in for several hours. No worries I thought...I have Roadside Assistance. I'll just call them for help. I figured I just needed a boost.
The agent on the phone was nice enough but explained that my bike would have to be towed to the nearest BMW Dealership nearly 20km (12.5 miles) away. This was annoying...I only lived 10min away but they refused to bring me and my bike home. I had a battery booster at home and was certain that was all I needed. Oh ya...I was also told I would have to wait about two hours for someone to show up (apparently this is the standard response time).
Ok...fine. Tow me to the dealership. I'll take a taxi home. Well...that was until I found out that at 2am they didn't have any flatbed tow trucks available and my bike would have to be slung from the back of a standard tow truck. I don't think so! "Look lady...just give me a boost. I'm sure that's all I need". It was then that I found out that they didn't have the proper connections for my model of bike and planned on using a regular car battery booster, which would require me taking much of the fairings off my bike. Once again...I don't think so! Boosting a motorcycle like that can cause a fair amount of damage to the electronics, never mind the fact that in those freezing temps, I was going to have a hell of a time taking the bike apart enough to access the battery anyway. Forget this nonesense.
I called them back and told them to cancel the tow truck. I was going to take a taxi home and return the next day with a proper booster. Sigh...ok...lets try starting the bike again before I call a cab and after two attempts....VRRROOOMM...followed by a huge sigh of relief. I hopped on my bike and headed home.
As luck would have it, later in the year I threw my chain but I luckily had the tools on hand to deal with the situation (tools not included with the bike but ones that I brought with me...just in case). 10 minutes later I was up and riding again but what if I hadn't packed those extra tools? I would of been stuck on the side of some road waiting for some other roadside assistance program to respond in two hours time.
So this left me wondering about Roadside assistance programs. It turns out that most dealers offer some sort of service but all of them insist on towing your bike to the nearest dealership or "authorized" repair centre. Even CAA has similar restrictions and if you need help in the USA, you have to submit your receipts and hope for the best.
However this year I came across MotoLimo.com. They provide all sorts of motorcycle transportation services with specialized trucks. They even joined all the RoadAwareness Events that I held in support of the cause. Although I never personally needed their services, we developed a strong relationship and I've given their contact info to pretty much every rider I've met in case they ever found themselves stranded. They are even affiliated with CAA. The limitation was that they only serviced the Greater Toronto Area. This may be fine for local riders but what about those who do a lot of touring?
Well, they answered that call too and launced MotoRescue, which is part of North America's largest towing service provider with over 20,000 units in service. This means riders are covered across Canada with coverage in the United States too and they only deal with companies who understand the needs of motorcyclists. Not bad and the real bonus is the price! Talk about reasonable!
Ok...I'm not trying to sound like a commercial but when you find a good product or service, it should be shared and this is one of those times.
TourByTwo.com is looking for new amateur writers to become contributors to the site. Have you ever dreamed of having your motorcycle travel stories published? Now is your chance to enter the world of motorcycle and travel journalism.
TourByTwo's Founder and Chief Editor, will review and judge potential candidates. Submit your 300-word (or 5min video) travel piece by January 31st, 2010 to be one of five new motorcycle travel journalists.
We're looking for inspired riders with a desire to write about their adventures, who can mix multimedia savvy with an engaging writing style. Our emphasis is on riding related stories and adventures. Video documentaries will also be acceptable for online story submissions.
The right candidates will know how to recognize and tell a story, write or record and edit it, clean and get it up on our site fast. You will of course be credited for your contributions and will have an online profile established on the site.
Please send a brief cover letter, clips or writing samples and a resume to info@tourbytwo.com. Links to your stories are acceptable as well as video submissions.
Not too long ago, Stella The Riding Princess and I were visiting BMW Toronto. She was there to place an order for some goodies for her F650GS for an upcoming trip to Montana and I took the opportunity to introduce myself to the Motorcycle Sales Manager, Tim Sarch.
Recently Stella had mentioned to Tim that she had joined the BMW Motorrad exclusively female test ride event and commented on how much she enjoyed the new F800GS. Due to the relationship she has with the dealership, he offered to let her take one for a day. He and I talked for a while and after discussing this website and other associations, he in turn offered a motorcycle for me to take for a day also.
With much anticipation, Stella and I returned a few days later, on a Friday morning, to take out a couple of Ultimate Riding Machines - Stella on the F800GS and me on a R1200GS. I was as giddy as a kid to finally try this bike. Thoughts Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman came to mind since this is the base model of the GS Adventure machines that they rode around the world on for months on end. Of course this ride was only going to be for one day...unfortunately.
To get a really good feel for the bikes, we needed to ride a variety of roads. We began with a stretch of highway that quickly took us well north of the hustle and bustle of the big city to some quiet country roads, which were far more enjoyable to ride on without all the road congestion. At this moment, I wished that I was fully loaded and headed off for several days of blissful riding.
Both bikes were very stable at highway speeds, despite the crosswinds and we found both bikes were very comfortable. Personally I got a sense that huge distances could be chewed up rather easily without experiencing much discomfort to my backside. Stella was of course eager to take the F800GS for a long haul and to compare it to its smaller sibling, the F650GS.
The F650GS has long being known for its go-anywhere capability and although it is fire-road friendly, the single cylinder version isn't quite up to par for high-speed distances. Could the F800GS fill in that gap with it's more nimble twin parallel engine, without loosing the dual-sport aspect? She was immediately impressed with the F800GS' stability, balance and lightweight. The steering is quick and just right and the overall impression was that the bike is quite joyful to plod along at idle speed or react instantly with abundant torque when the throttle is rolled on. Not to mention the doubtful rigid seat that supported well throughout the ride with no discomfort at all.
Once we got a couple hours out of the city, we found some nice twisty back roads and I was very impressed at how sure footed the R1200GS actually was. I thought for sure that it would feel more like some lumbering hippo but instead I found it was very nimble in the corners. Despite being a big, heavy Enduro bike and quite capable of riding on rutted dirt roads, the suspension was rather stiff and linear making it very easy to flick it from one tight corner to the next with total confidence. My smile was ever growing in my helmet as I leaned through corner after corner at a comfortable, yet spirited pace through Mohawk Territory.
After stopping in Bala for lunch, we assessed our route - and the time of day - and realized that we would have to cut our route short in order to get the bikes back to the dealership on time. With that in mind, we headed back and picked up the pace even further. It was during this brisk pace on the highway that I noticed the total lack of wind buffeting of my helmet. The large, adjustable windscreen ploughed nicely through the air resulting in virtually no helmet shake at all. It was also around this time that my fuel light came on and not knowing how far the bike could go at this point, I started thinking about nearby gas stations. I selected the closest station on my GPS, even though it was out of our way - of course the first one we pulled into isn't a gas station anymore. Selecting the next nearest station (even further off the highway), we finally found what we needed. Great...now we are both fuelled up but running very late. It would have been useful had I known to look at the information display options on the bike to find out exactly how far I could of gone before running dry. Live and learn I suppose. Back on the road, we kept to our spirited pace and selected a series of back roads to avoid major rush hour gridlock at known problem points on the highway.
In the end we returned to the dealership 500km later and 30 minutes late with huge grins on our faces. It was an amazing day despite the chilly, damp weather and we both thoroughly enjoyed our loaner bikes and ourselves.
Roundel wearing bikes really are the Ultimate Riding Machines in each of their styles. Though perfectly capable of long dirt road detours, the GS motorcycles also make excellent street bikes. With their upright sitting position, cornering confidence and dual sport suspension, the GS's are ready for the real world and they are sure to bring many great experiences that leave you grinning from ear to ear and yearning for more.
*A special thanks to Tim Sarch at BMW Toronto for loaning us the motorcycles. Of course we are now both thinking of upgrading from our current Beemers to the models we rode on the ride.
March 19, 2009 10:42 PM - About 50 motorcyclists from across the Greater Toronto Area gathered for a rally tonight near the intersection of Hurontario St. and Eglinton Ave. - the scene of an horrific crash - to remind drivers to be cautious when sharing the road with motorcycles.
With their bikes lined between the road and the sidewalk, the bikers waved signs that read: "Look twice! Save a life!" The rally ran from 7:30-9 p.m.
Shaun de Jager, a Toronto motorcyclist who heard about the accident on an online social forum, said many members of the group are outraged by the accident and sorry for the motorcyclist and his passenger, who suffered serious injuries but are expected to live.
"Unfortunately we've all had close calls," said de Jager, who organized the rally. "Riding a motorcycle does have its inherent dangers, but so does everything in life and these are risks that we take as cautiously as we can."
Mississauga resident Majid Hashemi was at the nearby Second Cup when the crash occurred yesterday. He had just ben out on his motorcycle and the incident really hit home.
"It's right by my house and this patch of pavement, I ride on it everyday." said the 27-year-old, pointing to the spot where the crash happened.
Police are looking into the possibility that the driver of the SUV may have illegally entered the busy Mississauga intersection during rush-hour yesterday.
March 19, 2009 12:20 PM - Police are looking into witness accounts that the driver of an SUV illegally entered a busy Mississauga intersection yesterday before crashing into a motorcycle, sending the driver and his passenger to hospital with life-threatening injuries.
Peel Regional Police said today that the motorcyclist, 30, and his female passenger, 22, are expected to live following the rush-hour collision at Hurontario St. and Eglinton Ave.
Motorcyclists from across the GTA are outraged. Several will be at a rally tonight at the intersection because they believe there needs to be increased awareness among drivers of larger vehicles to be cautious sharing the road with motorcyclists. Police will also be at the rally.
"The weather is warming and more and more riders are on the roads. This tragic incident should be a reminder to all that cars share the roads with bikes and that we must all be aware of each other," said Shaun de Jager, an avid motorcyclist who organized the rally. "There is no excuse for paying anything less than 100 per cent attention to the road and our surroundings."
The motorcyclist was airlifted to Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto after his Suzuki collided with a Honda CRV at about 5 p.m.
Peel Cst. J.P. Valade said the man's condition has improved. He has serious leg injuries, but is expected to survive.
The passenger was initially taken to Credit Valley Hospital. She was also transferred to Sunnybrook. She, too, is expected to live.
The 62-year-old female driver of the SUV was not injured.
Officers with the Major Collision Bureau are investigating whether the woman entered the intersection improperly, believing she had an advanced green light to make a left turn.
The accident brought traffic to a halt, as police closed off a large area surrounding the intersection. Lane closures lasted well into the night.
Sorry about the last minute notice but I only found out this morning.
I have been invited back to join Joey Martin on 94.5FM "The Bull" during their "Get In The Ring" talk radio program this evening. This will be a followup show to the one I did with them back in Dec about Bill 117.
The program will air live on tonight (Monday Feb. 2nd) from 7pm to 9pm, I will be on the program for the last half from 8pm onward following the Amazing Kreskin. You can listen live via their webcast found at www.945thebull.ca
With all due respect for your well-meaning intent to protect the children of the motorcycle community from injury we know that what we believed from the beginning is true, that your concern is misguided and your 'alarming statistics' are bogus.
You have been relying most heavily on statistics from an organization called Smartrisk. Have you, since presenting Bill 117, continued your research and discovered that you are misrepresenting the Smartrisk data?
As recently of January 14 of this year you have continued to forward that same standard email response stating those same false statistics to all who send you a letter voicing their concern for Bill 117.
A research associate from Smartrisk has provided us with the data files where you got your numbers. First of all, what we see is that the 'motorcycle related injuries' from Smartrisk include mopeds, motor scooters and motorized bicycles. This explains to some extent, why your numbers are so much higher than the statistics from the Ministry of Transportation's Annual Safety Reports on motorcycle injuries.
More importantly though, is that this data contains figures of 'motorcycle-related' injuries to riders only. The Smartrisk document is indeed titled 'Motorcycle Rider Hospitalizations'. Did the title elude your attention? Did you overlook that one small yet extremely significant piece of information? That the Smartrisk figures pertain to riders only and the question is, did Smartrisk inform you that their data includes riders of mopeds, scooters and motorized bicycles?
It was not very difficult to acquire this information yet it would appear to have been a much more difficult task for you or your assistants to take on. Nothing more than a shame considering the implications of such a restrictive, controlling Bill becoming law in Ontario.
To the Ontario Legislature last month, in the same paragraph you stated that since the 2005 MTO figures of 21 children injured as passengers, Smartrisk has noted for the fiscal year 2005/06, 556 emergency department visits from children 14 and under and that these numbers seem to indicate that injuries are increasing.
Is it common for our elected officials to use implied statements by adding such words as 'seem to indicate'? Is that how you get away with misrepresenting true sources and avoid responsibility for your statements in the future? The MTO separated motorcycles from mopeds, 50 year olds from 10 year olds, riders from passengers. You did not. Smartrisk did not but they make no such false claims.
We, in the motorcycle community knew something was terribly wrong with your figures but the general public would immediately believe this as truth, not thinking that an elected official would embellish the truth to this extent on a subject for which they know nothing about. We can understand why our well-meaning members of the Ontario Legislature would feel intimidated to vote 'no' as this may indicate they are unsympathetic to the issue of child safety. We believe you were counting on this.
You and they, can feel comfort knowing that there is no problem to solve. You did not discover some hidden, alarming matter that needed immediate attention to create a law to protect our children. We are responsible adults who treat our most precious cargo with the utmost care, we always have and the numbers are there to prove it.
As to your statement that 'It is important to know that riding on a motorcycle is more dangerous than driving in a car', are you aware that in 2005 1.6% of motorcycles, 6.0 % of cars, vans and pick-up trucks, 2.0% of commercial trucks, 14.6% of buses, and 16.2% of school buses were involved in reportable accidents? In other words, motorcycles are the least likely of all forms of powered transport to be involved in a road accident in any given year in Ontario.
We believe too, that if you have indeed looked at the statistics in the Ministry of Transportaion's Annual Safety Reports, that you would be aware that they counted 111,587 motorcycles in Ontario in 1993 and 18 injuries to passengers 15 and under. In 2005, 145,194 motorcycles, 21 injuries. Obviously no increase exists nor can it be understood as anything close to 'alarming'. Surely it is a record that we, in the motorcycling community can be proud of.
Now that we know the truth we will do our best to get the word out. Not only to you but to everyone in the motorcycle community, the general public and all MPP's who are willing to listen to the truth.
It is just as important for them to know that the statistics you give out are false as it is for them to know that you are misrepresenting data because you simply did not have the numbers to garner support for your 'cause'. Children are not being hurt on the back of motorcycles. You can continue to spew false claims of 'alarming statistics' but we will continue to get the word out that your numbers are bogus.
If you were not clear what the figures from Smartrisk represent why did you begin a campaign for Bill 117 before doing the proper research? Is it better for you to knowingly spread untrue facts or to be unsure and declare them anyway?
It seems the time has come for us to research what course of action we, the citizens of Ontario, have at our disposal should we discover an elected member of the Legislature has knowingly passed on false information.
Bill 117 as you know, has been referred to the Justice Committee after passing 2nd reading on December 4th however it is not written in stone that it will get that far. The Ontario Legislature resumes on February 18, if it prorogues the house all Bills that aren't on their exemption list will be dead including those referred to the Justice Committee and that includes of course, Bill 117.
This will not however, keep MPP Helena Jaczek from presenting it again. I think it's important that we continue to put pressure on our MPPs. It may help too, to let MPP Jaczek know that we have the information below and perhaps we can persuade her to give it up.
What everyone needs to know is that the numbers she has been putting forward to beget fear and rally support for her cause are false. I also believe that she knows it and that is even more damning and infuriating to the motorcycle community.
I have finally been able to get in touch with a research associate from Smartrisk. You may recognize it as the organization where MPP Jaczek claims to have collected her "alarming statistics". Driven by her well meaning yet misguided desire to protect our children from injury she has spewed these figures again and again to any who will listen.
What I've discovered first of all is that 'motorcycle related injuries' in the Smartrisk data sheets includes mopeds, motor scooters and motorized bicycles. This explains to some extent, why Jaczek's numbers are so much higher than the statistics from the Ministry of Transportation's Annual Safety Reports on motorcycle injuries.
More importantly is that the data compiled by Smartrisk contains figures of motorcycle-related injuries to riders only. The document is in fact titled "Motorcycle Rider Hospitalizations". MPP Jaczek must have overlooked that small yet significant piece of information. She clearly stated to the Ontario Legislature that since the 2005 MTO figures of 21 children being injured as motorcycle passengers, Smartrisk has noted 556 emergency department visits of children 14 and under for the fiscal year 2005/06 and that these numbers seem to indicate that injuries are increasing.
The 46 child passengers hospitalized for serious "motorcycle-related" injuries claimed by MPP Jaczek were in fact not passengers at all, they were riders and they were riders of mopeds, scooters and motorized bicycles as well. MPP Jaczek has put forth a completely dishonest representation of Smartrisk's figures.
Since the law requires you to be 16 years of age to ride a "motorcycle-related" vehicle on the roadways of Ontario we can only conclude that the 46 hospitalizations and the 556 emergency department visits were children riding off the roadways of Ontario. Clearly not what MPP Jaczek implied to anyone.
Smartrisk suggested that I research into police reports for more details yet that would be redundant as that is where the Ministry of Transportation gets their figures for their Annual Safety Reports. They show an average of 17.5 children injured yearly on motorcycles on the roadways of Ontario. These figures include minimal, minor and major injuries, true government statistics we, in the motorcycling community can be very proud of. Especially considering there were more than 140,000 motorcycles on the roads in Ontario last year.
I have below a quote from a letter of support from the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, one of the organizations supporting Bill 117 and of which MPP Jaczek mentioned in her address to the Ontario Legislature.
"The statistics in your letter suggest that the incidence of motorcycle-related injuries to children is increasing significantly. From 1995 to 2005, an average of about 20 injuries per year was reported for this age group, whereas in 2005-2006 alone, there were 46 hospitalizations."
I read this as proof that MPP Jaczek is using her manipulated and misrepresented statistics to garner support for her cause. Even still, how could anyone believe that practically in the same year child injuries increased from 21 to 46 hospitalizations? Well we now know that this is a false statement altogether. Simply put, Jaczek did not have the numbers to garner support for her 'cause' because children are not being hurt on the back of motorcycles.
All in all it astounds me how she can embellish statistics so significantly without question or further investigation and gain support for a Bill that would essentially make it illegal for a certain percentage of the population to use a legal mode of transportation on the streets of Ontario. She has in truth, convinced many that the average injury to children has, in one year risen from 21 to 556 and has done so by manipulating, or shall I say down right misrepresenting Smartrisk figures.
In the fiscal year of 2002/03 Smartrisk did an actual report on motorcycle injuries alone which claims that 5% of 736 hospitalizations in that year were passengers of all age groups. This we can believe. How many of those 36 then, were children under the age of 14? According to that same report, 47% of what MPP Jaczek would interpret as "serious hospitalizations" include broken arms and legs.
In an interview on Show 55 at www.bikerradiomagazine.com MPP Jaczek admitted she does not fully understand, more specifically is "not clear" about what the numbers from Smartrisk represent.
Was she aware then that the figures she used were completely false or did she simply begin a campaign for Bill 117 before doing the proper research? Is it better for her to knowingly spread untrue facts or to be unsure and declare them anyway? Make up your own mind.
Fellow riding advocate "IronMaiden", continues her vigilant efforts to shed more light on Bill 117 and gather opposition against this ridiculous Bill.
As you all know Bill 117 has gone to the Justice Policy Committee for consideration, however there is still a chance it will not be carried further. Should the legislature 'prorogue' when they go to recess, all Bills not on their 'very important' list, for lack of a better term, will be wiped out including Bill 117...it is NOT on that list. However, this does not keep Jaczek from presenting it again though so we need to continue our efforts should we need to stand in opposition of a similar Bill in the future.
IronMaiden has forwarded me some information which comes from her dealings with SmartRisk directly. SmartRisk is the organization where Jaczek claims to have collected her "alarming statistics". Needless to say her numbers are bogus. What we have learned is that "motorcycle related injuries" include mopeds, motor scooters and motorized bicycles but that is just the beginning.
There could not have been 46 serious motorcycle-related child passenger hospitalizations in Ontario when, according to Smartrisk, all "motorcycle related hospitalizations" totalled 858 including rider and passenger in the fiscal year of 2005/06. Are we to believe that 5% (46) of 858 "motorcycle-related" hospitalizations in Ontario were children riding as passengers?
Far more likely is the Ontario injury report numbers done by Smartrisk on motorcycles alone in 2002/03 which claims that 5% (36) of 736 hospitalizations were passengers of all age groups. How many of that 5% were children? We do not know because Smartrisk does not break down their numbers by age groups. They do know by way of that report, that 47% of "serious" motorcycle-related hospitalizations include broken arms and legs. Perhaps now we can go back to the MTO safety reports.
When you include the fact that mopeds and motor scooter injuries are in those figures and that child injuries make up a small percentage of the 5% of 858 who were passengers on motorcycles for the fiscal year of 2005/06 we now get a pretty good idea of the true numbers of child motorcycle passenger injuries and they are likely to be pretty close to what the MTO safety reports say, as we have always known in our hearts. The MTO safety reports for 2006 and 2007 will be available early this year.
Jaczek claimed there were 556 injuries to children in 2005/06 as well. It's unclear where Jaczek got her numbers but Smartrisk suggested we research into police reports to get that much detail as they do not....perhaps Jaczek asked for ATV injury reports and added them together?
It would appear that she has been embellishing the numbers to garner support for her "cause". What a shocker.
Here are some data sheets provided by SmartRisk, showing more realistic numbers. As you can see, Jaczek figures don't support her claims.
Bill 117 Petition signings scheduled at SUPERSHOW 2009
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
posted by The Lonely Rider
Ken Venus, host of bikerradiomagazine.com, will be spearheading a petition signing in response to the proposed Bill 117 making it illegal for anyone to operate a motorcycle with a passenger who is under the age of 14. There will be petitions available throughout the Show in various booths such as the Chrome Divas in Hall 2 and the Bonneville Streamliner display in Hall 4A.
On Saturday, January 3rd and Sunday, January 4th at 11am, Ken will take the stage in Hall 5 to initiate a mass signing that will take place in the Hall 5 Restaurant for as long as people are wanting to sign the petition.
The MCC (Motorcyclists Confederation of Canada) will have postcards available in their booth all weekend that you can mail in individually. These will also be available at various club booths throughout the Show. The MCC booth in Hall 4A in the "Century of Motorcycles" display is a great place to ask questions about this issue.
The North American International Motorcycle SUPERSHOW takes place January 2, 3, & 4 at the International Centre, 6900 Airport Road in Mississauga. Parking is free!
Lonely Rider invited to speak on 94.5FM "The Bull"
Friday, December 19, 2008
posted by The Lonely Rider
It is with great pleasure to announce that I have been invited to discuss Bill 117 as a guest speaker on 94.5FM "The Bull" during their "Get In The Ring" talk radio program. The station covers Midwestern Ontario.
The program will air live on Monday Dec. 22nd starting at 7pm EST. You can listen live via their webcast found at http://www.945thebull.ca
Well, well, well...turns out Wheels columnist Allan Johnson was mistaken about the root origins of Bill 117. After all the finger pointing and questions about motives, further investigation was required. Interestingly enough...this is a question of what came first? The chicken or the egg?
It turns out that MPP Jaczek, submitted Bill 117 as a result of encouragement by another citizen but the motivations are unknown. It was only after it passed the first reading when Mellor's letter was passed along Jaczek. Jaczek and Mellor didn't know about each other until after the first reading.
Calls to Jaczek's office can confirm it.
Further investigation revealed that back in May, Mellor wrote her local MPP, and her letter was forwarded to Minister Bradley. She heard back from Bradley's office in July and was basically blown off. Neither Bradley or her own MPP were prepared to do anything with it. Mellor then met with Frank Klees to discuss options but nothing happened as a result of that meeting either. Once Jaczek's Bill was introduced, Mellor's letter was forwarded to Jaczek to advise her that he was contacted by a concerned mother who would support her Bill. Jaczek's office contacted Ms. Mellor to rally her support in time for the 2nd reading of the Bill.
In short, Mellor's letter wasn't the cause for Bill 117 but she certainly supports it and not just for the purpose of protecting her own son. She doesn't think kids should be on bikes period. Hey...we all have our opinions.
Perhaps Wheels columnist Johnson should have made a few phone calls of his own and do some research BEFORE he points a finger at someone of being the root cause of something that affects so many people. As a result of his article, we have all incorrectly believed the same erronious opinion.
Shame on me for NOT doing my own research first.
The fact remains though that this Bill is statistically unjustified. There simply isn't enough statistical evidence to justify such a law.
Parents should be left to raise their kids as they see fit and I for one will never support something that bans a child from experiencing what joys life has to offer. Although I do believe that a lot can be done to mitigate the risks though. In our case, I would support a law for mandatory riding gear.
Parents spend hundreds of dollars on hockey gear for their kids, so why not riding gear for the motorcycle?
Time to set the record straight. Katherine Mellor is my ex-wife. Let me start off by saying that contrary to the opinions that many have formed, and as was recently suggested by Wheels Columnist Allan Johnson of the Toronto Star, Bill 117 may not have anything to do with a bitter divorce and everything to do with a mother who is concerned about the welfare of her son. After much investigating, it is still unknown at this time, who actually convinced MPP Jaczek to submit this Bill.
Having known Katherine for half my life, I can say that she is not by nature a malicious person. Her letter to Minister Bradley had nothing to do against me as her ex-husband nor does she have any concerns that I am anything less than a capable and cautious rider, but moreso about her fear of others on the road. Her letter actually focused largely on the general lack of skills of drivers of cars, but that part of her letter was left out of the debate (because it addresses a larger issue...the real issue).
There lays the real issue about how to make our roads safer...improve driver training and situational awareness and our roads will be a safer place. Bill 117 however, is a solution to a problem that simply doesn't exist.
Although my ex and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything, I object to her being portrayed as "the disgruntled ex wife" (nor does she want to be portrayed as such). Although I believe she is misguided about the dangers of motorcycling, her concern is for her son's safety...nothing more and nothing less. Which is why she supports this Bill. However, she wasn't aware of the Bill until after it passed the first reading.
Yet the statistical likelihood of our son being injured in organized sports is far greater than him being injured from going for a ride on the back of my bike.
However, Ms. Mellor has her opinion and in the end it would be far easier for her to say to our son "I'm not forbidding you from riding with daddy...it's just illegal now".
When I stated that I wanted to take our son riding, she expressed her displeasure with the idea but never said "no". In fact, her response was "I don't like it but just make sure he has proper gear on". We also had civil discussions and set guidelines about certain riding conditions (not at night or in the rain, no +5hr rides that I'm known for doing, regular breaks, etc). These were terms that we agreed upon as conditions for taking my son for a ride. At no point was their any "arguing" about it.
The next thing I know...there is a Private Members Bill being considered to ban children from motorcycles. The MPP who authored this Bill could have easily introduced a Bill making driver training courses mandatory and although that would have addressed the real issue, it would never fly. Instead, they chose to do this, which in the end will have no impact on improving overall road safety.
Once again...this was NOT the result of my ex-wife and me not being able to come to an agreement. I said I wanted to take our son riding, she set some conditions that we agreed too as rational adults and I stuck to them.
This is the 28th thing the Liberals have banned or tried to ban since taking office. It seems to me that they are quite focused on banning anything that they deem as unsafe and that they need to protect us from ourselves. Just another step closer to the Nanny State mentality that we are all fearful of.
Their success so far has been banning parts of our lifestyles that on paper, seemingly only affect a small group of people that can easily go unnoticed (like riders) or prey upon peoples fears (like unsafe drivers).
The general public are simply ignorant about motorcycles (either fearful of them or simply dislike them as a result of the 1% group that always make the media). As such, passing a law like this can easily go un-noticed but the implications are far reaching and restrict how a parent can raise their child and the parts of life that we want them to experience.
In another case, Bill 203 (that also started as a Private Members Bill), the highly toted Street Racing law passed with flying colours because it preyed upon peoples fears. The media, law enforcement and politians went nuts about how dangerous street racers are and that they are causing deaths left, right and centre. In the end though it's the average Joe who has seen the brunt of that Bill. Soccer mom's are loosing their minivans, blue collar workers are loosing their jobs and essential emergency vehicles in remote communities have been impounded, which actually put lives at risk. Nearly no "street racers" have been affected at all. Turns out Bill 203 is a great cash grab for the Province of Ontario. It sure as hell isn't making our roads safer though.
Next...banning the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. Just another attempt to "make our roads safer". Oh please spare me this ongoing ignorance! It has been proven over and over that hands-free cellphones are NO safer than hand-held. Having a conversation on a phone while driving is equal to about 3 drinks, therefore causing a driver to be legally impaired. Taking the phone out of a drivers hand is NOT going to make one bit of difference. Driver education will though.
Drivers in Ontario suck...no arguement there. However, instead of focusing on making better drivers, the government believes it will be easier to remove distractions. What's next? Ban phones altogether? Keep going. No eatting, drinking, shaving, reading? Seems like a good idea. Lets keep going. Ban GPS's, radios....KIDS??? I can't count how many times I've seen car or minivan swerving on the highway, only to realize as I got closer, that the driver was trying to tend to a child in the backseat.
Bill 117 does NOTHING to improve road safety in Ontario but hey...we gotta "save the children". Jaczek has already stated that she will next look at ATV's and Snowmobiles to protect children from them also.
Not once in over 10yrs of MTO statistics has a child been killed on a motorcycle, which to my knowledge can't be said about any other recreational or sporting activity (with the exception of playing Chess perhaps).
Where the hell is this going to stop? When will people wake up and realize that certain lines are being crossed and once that's done, you can't stop or go back.
A child was just killed on Friday when his toboggan crashed into a tree. Hmmmm...I wonder if that will spawn another Bill? It may very well if we have another fatality this winter. At that point some politician will claim that there has been a shocking increase in "tobogganing related fatalities" and that this increase is epidemic and the recreation needs to be banned...to "save the children".
Hmmm...may I remind you of the movie "V for Vendetta"? The society in that movie was based on the government preying on peoples fears in their attempt to protect them from themselves.
Bill 117 passes 2nd reading and is referred to Justice Policy Committee
On December 4th, I was in attendance at the 2nd reading of Bill 117 and was disappointed, although not surprised to see Bill 117 pass it's 2nd reading and get referred to the Justice Policy Committee for review and consideration.
Although MPP Dr. Jaczek's Bill is well intentioned, it is certainly flawed with regards to the statistics she uses to support her position. Yes, children have required medical attention from motorcycle related injuries but not once in 15 years has a child been killed as a result of riding as a passenger on a motorcycle in Ontario. In fact, Dr. Jaczek is not unable to clarify how many of those injuries were as a result of road vs. offroad motorcycle activities, nor is she able to confirm or deny that some of those injuries may have been as a result of simply leaning against a hot exhaust in the driveway.
The Canada Safety Council concluded that from 1999 to 2005 there were no fatalities for motorcycle passengers less than fourteen years of age. They also revealed that Ontario children were four times more likely to have been injured as passengers on bicycles and 262 times more likely to have been injured as passengers in vehicles than to have been injured as passengers on motorcycles. They also state that this Bill is trying to address an issue that simply does not exist.
The motorcycle industry body (MMIC) will be distributing petitions around all the member manufacturer booths at the upcoming Toronto Motorcycle Show for the public to sign. The completed petitions will be supplied to the MPPs that can use it most effectively (likely opposition), and so we thoroughly recommend that if you're going to the show, that you take time to add your signature.
Bill 117 assumes a couple things; firstly, that motorcycles are so dangerous that children must be protected from them and secondly that because of this, parents should not be able to make the choice to ride with their children.
Of course any child that is hurt or killed is a tragedy and it is very easy to say, "If they had not been on the motorcycle, they would have been fine." However, the same can be said about any child killed in a car accident or killed in a skiing accident. They would have been fine had they not been in that situation to begin with.
Life is not without risk and nearly every recreational or sporting activity comes with some. It is a parent's responsibility to calculate those risks. Even our day-to-day routines can be dangerous; including taking our children to school could result in them being killed along the way. Children are injured at a rate of one every three minutes from Hockey related injuries but nobody bats an eye at that despite such a shockingly high number of injuries per year.
Bill 117 takes away our rights as parents to make decisions about exposing our children to the world we want them to experience. It assumes that parents are not capable to make decisions about the risks of any given activity and the rewards associated with them.
Once again this Bill is designed to address a problem that simply doesn't exist. To quote a colleague and fellow rider who said: Let those who ride decide.
My Response to Bill 117 (banning children from being passengers on motorcycles)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
posted by The Lonely Rider
This is a letter that I sent to Dr. Helena Jaczek, MPP, who recently introduced a Private Members Bill to ban children under the age of 14 from being allowed to ride as passengers on motorcycles.
>>> Greetings Dr. Helena Jaczek, I am writing to you to express my disappointment at the Bill 117, Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Child Passengers on Motorcycles).
I am a father of a 9yr old boy. I am 33 years old, and I am a passionate about motorcycling, and I very much look forward to passing on that passion to my son. I also run various websites that cater to the motorcycle enthusiast that promotes safe riding.
My son and I both look forward to spending time on the bike, taking him places and letting him experience the world in a way that cannot be replicated in a car. We look forward to exploring the open road, open skies, and generally speaking the road less traveled.
To me, you see, motorcycling is more than just an economical and environmentally responsible mode of transportation. It's freedom. Freedom to unglue my mind from life in an office, from life in front of a television, and yes - from life behind the glass windscreen of a car, which isolates me from the world around me.
I'm not a leather-clad "biker" that rides solely on sunny weekends to a coffee shop to hang out and rev my engine. Nor will you ever find me blasting through residential communities or riding at excessive speeds on backcountry roads. My passion is for touring and exploring the beauty of riding roads that take me through the countryside, forests and small towns along the way. In short...exploring our world and communities and I love sharing those with my son. Teaching him along the way that there is more to life than TV and video games.
This bill assumes a couple things; firstly, that motorcycles are so dangerous that children must be protected from them and secondly that because of this, parents should not be able to make the choice to ride with their children.
I would like to say, before I go any further, that any child hurt or killed is clearly a tragedy. And with any child hurt or killed on the back of a motorcycle, it's very easy to say, "If they had only not been on the motorcycle, they would have been fine." However, this is absolutely and without question a logical fallacy. Any child killed in a car accident would have been fine had they not been in the car. Any child killed in a skiing accident would have been fine if they had not gone skiing.
You provide statistics to support your Bill, but you don't mention the number of actual child fatalities over the last 10 years...only injuries.
Life is not without risk and nearly every recreational or sporting activity comes with some. It is a parent's responsibility to calculate those risks. Even our day-to-day routines can be dangerous, including taking our children to school could result in them being killed along the way.
The heavy-handed, reactionary legislation of Bill 117 takes away my right as a parent to make decisions about exposing my child to the world I want them to see, in a manner that is unfair, prejudicial and to be frank, discriminatory. It assumes that I am not capable to make decisions about the risks I'm prepared to expose my children to and the rewards associated with those risks.
And it's a slippery slope to saying I can't take my kids skiing or snowboarding, both of which also pose a safety risk to children; or that I can't allow my son to ride a bicycle because that too poses a safety risk. In fact, more people are killed riding bicycles each year than passengers are killed on motorcycles (regardless of age).
Many children regrettably drown in backyard pools, are we to go further with your train of thought and ban backyard pools also? Once we start enacting laws that restrict recreation and sporting activities for kids, where does it end? No more hockey, bicycles, ice-skating, skiing or snow boarding? No more camping trips because a child may trip and break an ankle? No more swimming for fear that they may drown?
Motorcycling seems to be an easy target for those that don't ride and don't care to understand our passion. They see idiots on cruisers wearing leather chaps with their loud pipes pretending to be gang members (who are actually more likely to be lawyers or doctors) or alternately the reckless sportbike riders who slalom in and out of traffic, and assume that these are the images represent all riders in general.
This legislation is inappropriate, sensationalist, one-sided and opportunistic. As a voter, I can promise that it will affect my behaviour at the polling station. This "save the children at any price" nonsense has gone on quite far enough. If you really want to save the children, ban backyard pools in any household where the children don't know how to swim. Ban children from ski slopes or from riding bicycles. Ban them from playing organized sports like hockey. All of which cause many injuries to children each year, even deaths.
