New Helmet Law Passed

[Taco]

You mean like trying to skim your government travel remittance to see if you can get a little extra cash to stick in your jeans? That kind of freedom?

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by artie

So I have some degeneration in the discs in my neck. I bought the lightest helmet I could find at a quad store. it still gives me a headache. The chiropractor would not come out and say I shouldn't wear a helmet but the suggestion was there. He did suggest that people that wear heavy motorcycle helmets sometimes end up with neck problems from the weight of the helmet. I have been using the lightest downhill ski helmet I could find and that seems to work. I wonder if I will get a ticket for using a ski helmet?

If you have neck issues ,the question you should be asking is should you be on a quad in the first place. and yes it sounds like your helmet won't be in compliance. Myself I wear a bike helmet but I am also in a Ranger side x side with a roll cage and seatbelts so not really an issue according to the rules

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Newview01

It must be an easy life, to just go with the flow and watch freedom disappear.

That's what happens when the wind is always blowing from the left in ones world......

[Mackinaw]

What does it matter it is like all laws follow them if you want or not it is your choice.
You all want to make your own choices so chose just dont bitch about the results.

Mack

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by moosemad

Soooo. Do I need a $500 helmert or a $50 helmet? Anyone know?

Do you have a .50c brain or a $50,000 brain? How badly do you want to protect it?

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Lefty

On the radio today, a brain injury group said that the number one cause of brain injuries they treat are from car accidents, and they are requesting everyone to slow down. So if most brain injuries are from automobiles why are we not all smart enough to wear helmets each time we drive? Maybe we should legislate mandatory helmet use for all motorized vehicles at all times. Then the government can hire me to see if tractors and combines should be included as I honestly think a proper answer can be arrived at for under 2 million. If it can save one injury it must be worth it right? They passed a law for atv which isn't even the number one cause. How dumb is that? Personally I don't think they should of passed a law for helmets, as 98 percent of my riding I would never need one. When I am riding where I might need one then usually I have it on.

All modern vehicles have seat belts. Most have roofs. The modern ones have airbags. Safety features are mandated.
Atvs and bikes have none of these (unless you are talking about ranger, rhino, mule, etc)

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by raab

The fact that its a minor hindrance isn't my objection. It's that the government is taking away choice and playing the public saying it saves lives. If they truly cared or wanted to save lives a online licensing course similar to the Boating Course or Hunter Education IMO would be far better. A course that taught the basics of quad handling, what to bring, basic survival skills, trail handling, etc... People think a helmet is some magic device that prevents deaths. It's not, I know people who have died wearing a helmet on their motorcycles and skiing. It just gives some people a better sense of security, and in turn you find those same people taking risks they normally wouldn't take.

And you don't think that a course like that wouldn't include necessary safety equipment like a helmet?

[tundraltd]

I can say I am always surprised when I'm out quading how many people that don't wear helmets and the amount of Alcohol that is consumed while operating said equipment, I personally had to phone stars three years ago south of alderflats ab for a quader who had been in a wreck without a helmet on and he did die of a massive head Trauma, just never makes sense to me. JMTC

[abhunter8]

Is anyone else offended by our new OHV helmet law? Or the fact that it specifically states that it doesn't apply to members of the Sikh religion?

We should seriously consider starting our own official religion "The church of the Outdoors". We worship the land and wild animals. So much so that we use them for food and hang them on our walls. Develop the core tenants to suit us and protect us true respectful Alberta Outdoorsmen. And we are unable to wear helmuts as it would be disrespectful to the animals and scares them. We meet in the great outdoors on a regular basis and we carry our ceremonial Bows and rifles as our religion states we must. It works for the sikhs carrying their daggars.

Yes I am joking somewhat... but really why not!?

[raab]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

And you don't think that a course like that wouldn't include necessary safety equipment like a helmet?

I think they should know about helmets and situations where they might be necessary. I don't think you should have to wear one all the time because some idiot in government thinks you need one. To many people like the government making decisions for them. It would be nice if people actually valued freedom and being able to make their own choices.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

And you don't think that a course like that wouldn't include necessary safety equipment like a helmet?

A course can give advise as to what they should do, but it can't make them comply with regulations or good practices. In many cases , people only complete mandatory courses like the hunter safety course or firearms course to be able to legally obtain their licenses, they don't take the courses with the intention of actually retaining any information long term.

[jrowan]

This is a cost cutting measure. It takes a lot of money to provide health care for someone who will not function normally for the rest of their life.

Trying to pass yourself off as Sikh probably won't work, unless you have never had a haircut in your life. Besides a person who did this could be charged with making a false statement, a criminal offense.

[Beeman]

Originally Posted by abhunter8

Is anyone else offended by our new OHV helmet law? Or the fact that it specifically states that it doesn't apply to members of the Sikh religion?

We should seriously consider starting our own official religion "The church of the Outdoors". We worship the land and wild animals. So much so that we use them for food and hang them on our walls. Develop the core tenants to suit us and protect us true respectful Alberta Outdoorsmen. And we are unable to wear helmuts as it would be disrespectful to the animals and scares them. We meet in the great outdoors on a regular basis and we carry our ceremonial Bows and rifles as our religion states we must. It works for the sikhs carrying their daggars.

Yes I am joking somewhat... but really why not!?

I've thought about this as well and it's easier than you think. Just change "gun range" to "church" , "gun club president" to "pastor" or what ever you prefer, and "alberta fish and game association" to the "church/mosque/whatever of alberta fish and game" and you're done. Of course guns and hunting/fishing would become religious obligations and rights and we get to use the lefty nonsense against them, or claim some sort of 'isms.

[cardshark]

Originally Posted by Beeman

I've thought about this as well and it's easier than you think. Just change "gun range" to "church" , "gun club president" to "pastor" or what ever you prefer, and "alberta fish and game association" to the "church/mosque/whatever of alberta fish and game" and you're done. Of course guns and hunting/fishing would become religious obligations and rights and we get to use the lefty nonsense against them, or claim some sort of 'isms.

Gun Range -> Jihad training facility
Gun Club President -> Imam
Gun Club Member -> Muslim

That would be far more likely to work than church/pastor.

Or maybe start the Sikh Gun Club and see if you can have firearms restrictions and laws removed just for you.

[270WinMag]

I wear a helmet most of the time depending on the type of riding I do. So it doesn't bother me to wear one.
But what about horseback rinding. Most of their mishaps are head related. Shouldn't they be wearing a dot helmet also?

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by jrowan

This is a cost cutting measure. It takes a lot of money to provide health care for someone who will not function normally for the rest of their life.

Trying to pass yourself off as Sikh probably won't work, unless you have never had a haircut in your life. Besides a person who did this could be charged with making a false statement, a criminal offense.

So are ATV riders the highest source of head injuries in this province? If it is a cost saving measure wouldn't they go after the activity that causes the most injuries.

What does going my whole life without cutting my hair have to do with being Sikh? I only found the Sikh religion yesterday. I just started yesterday. How will you prove I am making a false statement? You know what, I may just lose my Sikh faith tomorrow too. I may regain my faith the next day I go quading again. How will you prove I am making false accusations? Are all born-again-christians guilty of making false statements?

[kayaker]

Originally Posted by gpgriz

Another strike against personal freedom.
Even if not wearing a helmet is stupid, i want the freedom to make that stupid choice or not.

'Freedom' when I am having fun! Underwritten of course by public costs for injury and mortality...

[abhunter8]

Originally Posted by Beeman

I've thought about this as well and it's easier than you think. Just change "gun range" to "church" , "gun club president" to "pastor" or what ever you prefer, and "alberta fish and game association" to the "church/mosque/whatever of alberta fish and game" and you're done. Of course guns and hunting/fishing would become religious obligations and rights and we get to use the lefty nonsense against them, or claim some sort of 'isms.

I love it... Let's do it!

[Dean2]

Originally Posted by kayaker

'Freedom' when I am having fun! Underwritten of course by public costs for injury and mortality...

Specious answer!!! Underwritten by the public purse: Just like it is for Obesity, Alcoholism, drug use, smoking, driving without seat belts, sky diving, golfing accidents and everything else that makes you go to a Doctor.

When Montana went from no speed limit to a Federally mandate speed limit their highway mortality doubled the next year. You never see law makers talking about real stats because it doesn't fit their agendas. So much for speed kills.

Here is one link but there are a ton more that validate the same findings.

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm

More legislation does not make my world better, safer or cheaper. WE already have ALL the legislation we need. Focus on getting rid of a bunch of it, not making more.

[mgvande]

Originally Posted by 270WinMag

I wear a helmet most of the time depending on the type of riding I do. So it doesn't bother me to wear one.
But what about horseback rinding. Most of their mishaps are head related. Shouldn't they be wearing a dot helmet also?

The problem is finding a helmet that will fit the horse. The ears are problematic and the chin strap gets in way of the bridle.

[mgvande]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

So are ATV riders the highest source of head injuries in this province? If it is a cost saving measure wouldn't they go after the activity that causes the most injuries.

What does going my whole life without cutting my hair have to do with being Sikh? I only found the Sikh religion yesterday. I just started yesterday. How will you prove I am making a false statement? You know what, I may just lose my Sikh faith tomorrow too. I may regain my faith the next day I go quading again. How will you prove I am making false accusations? Are all born-again-christians guilty of making false statements?

Your argument isn't that flawed these days. One can identify as a woman one day and go into a woman's bathroom. (In the states anyway) not sure if we are that screwed up here yet. But who is to question your sudden transition to being a Sikh? That would be politically incorrect.

[JustMe]

So for all of you that think the helmet wearing law is wrong, how many protests have you organized at the Legislature to protest its passing? Or is this just a gathering place to complain but do nothing? Curious....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kiwi_hunter]

Typical health and safety going overboard, we have had a similar law here in NZ for quite some time now. There is no exemptions for farmers, its more targeting farmers riding quads on there own land. All we are doing is breeding a world full of mindless kids that do as they are told and are incapable of using common sense to keep themselves safe. Hi-vis clothing is another example of dumbing down the future, everyone puts a hi-vis vest on and beleives they are safe from any harm. A whole school of children wearing hi-vis vests all day! Its getting beyond a joke down here, soon it will be illegal to go outside below a certain temperature incase you get cold.

[Okotokian]

I don't know what you whiners are complaining about. You only have to wear your helmet when you are actually riding your ATV, and your government is working hard to ensure that doesn't happen anymore.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Dean2

Specious answer!!! Underwritten by the public purse: Just like it is for Obesity, Alcoholism, drug use, smoking, driving without seat belts, sky diving, golfing accidents and everything else that makes you go to a Doctor.

When Montana went from no speed limit to a Federally mandate speed limit their highway mortality doubled the next year. You never see law makers talking about real stats because it doesn't fit their agendas. So much for speed kills.

Here is one link but there are a ton more that validate the same findings.

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm

More legislation does not make my world better, safer or cheaper. WE already have ALL the legislation we need. Focus on getting rid of a bunch of it, not making more.

The way I read that. There was 184 fatal accidents in 1994 in Montana. I looked it up there was 187 last year. So either I didn't read your data right or I'm not buying into it. It's very possible I didn't read it correctly. It's also very possible that since 1994 there haven't been a whole lot of changes to the fatal accident rate in Montana as a whole.

In a state by state comparison it appears Montana might have contributing factors, bad roads, weather, who knows .... bad drivers. New Hampshire had half the deaths due to traffic accidents in 2015 and almost the same vehicle miles traveled.

If you average out the vehicle miles traveled many states had less deaths than Montana. Alaska, DC, North and South Dakota and Vermont jump out.


http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/ge...-overview/2015

[A Sittn Duck]

Looks like helmets are mandatory now on public land in Alberta for ATVs

http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/alberta-mo...sers-1.3392655

[D4l3k]

starts may 15th, just slap on a hockey helmet, good to go

hunting will be interesting this year with all guys with helmets
better paint em blaze orange!

[A Sittn Duck]

Originally Posted by D4l3k

starts may 15th, just slap on a hockey helmet, good to go

hunting will be interesting this year with all guys with helmets
better paint em blaze orange!

Reading the article, says it needs to be an approved helmet. Hockey aint gonna cut it. You're absolutely right about hunting season, I immidiately thought about that as well.

[D4l3k]

if it was actually for the safety of all people riding ATVs, then why are farmers,ranchers,anyone working under OHS (surveyors),religious turban wearers, first nations, side by side owners and so on all exempt from these laws?

why the selective laws? i thought we were all equal under the charter of rights?

funny how the article forgets to mention all the people that don't need to wear a helmet on a atv after this law is passed

[bat119]

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...ghlight=helmet