New Helmet and Seating Rules For Motorcyclists In Effect Now
Friday, June 1, 2012 @ 4:17 AM
One of the approved types of helmets and the label indicating it is such.
Effective today, there are new rules for motorcycle drivers and their passengers as the new helmet regulations and seating rules are in effect.
The new regulations are coming into effect in response to a growing number of serious injuries and deaths involving those on motorcycles. While motorcycles represent about 3% of all insured vehicles in this province, they are involved about 10% of all fatalities that occur on the roads. Between 1996 and 2010, motorcycle fatalities increased 57% in B.C. and stats show the fatality rate for drivers under the age of 25 is, on average, 15 times higher than drivers over the age of 25.
Under the helmet regulations, the “beanies” or “skull cap” styles are now illegal. Helmets MUST bear one of the following approval marks:
1. DOT: conformance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218; Motorcycle helmets (United States of America), also known as FMVSS 218 (49CFR571.218).
2. Snell M2005 or Snell M2010: certification in accordance with the Snell Memorial Foundation 2005 or 2010 Standard for Protective Headgear for Use with Motorcycles and Other Motorized Vehicles.
3. ECE: approved in accordance with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 22.
Then there are the new seating regulations which require passengers to be sitting astride the bike behind the driver, and with both feet on the pegs or boards.
( photo at right indicates proper seating for passenger- photo courtesy Province of B.C.)
If the passenger’s feet can’t reach the pegs or boards, then the passenger is not supposed to be on the bike. If the new seating law is violated, the bike will be impounded.
Prince George RCMP Traffic Services Sergeant Al Steinhauser says there will be no grace period for those found violating the new seating regulations, but officers MAY give a rider a little extra time to buy a new, proper, helmet.
If found to be in violation of the new regulations, here is what you can expect in penalties:
|
Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) Section
|
Description
|
Fine
|
Points
|
|
194(1)
|
Operate motorcycle – not on seat
|
$121
|
2
|
|
194(2)(a)
|
Passenger unlawfully on motorcycle
|
$109
|
0
|
|
194(2)(b)
|
Motorcycle passenger not lawfully seated
|
$109
|
0
|
|
194(2)(c)
|
Fail to use foot pegs or floorboards
|
$109
|
0
|
|
194(3)
|
Ride motorcycle without required helmet
|
$138
|
0
|
|
194(4)(a)
|
Permit passenger under 16 to be unlawfully seated
|
$109
|
2
|
|
194(4)(b)
|
Permit passenger under 16 to ride without a helmet
|
$138
|
0
|
|
194(9)
|
Obstruct a peace officer
|
$276
|
0
|
|
194(10)
|
Operate motorcycle more than two abreast
|
$109
|
2
|
|
Fine Increase 3.02
|
Improper Display of Plate
|
$230
|
0
|
|
Fine Increase 3.03
|
Illegal Plate
|
$230
|
0
|
Comments
Let the people who ride motorbikes start their whining at how unfairly they are being treated. Its about time that the laws were updated.
Funny how they ignore other safety gear? Why not make leathers and chest protection mandatory…maybe even air bags? Or is this new legislation more focused on raising fine revenues than saving lives?
Bike inpounded is going alittle too far I think.
Glad I sold mine.
Feels like we live more and more in a police state. I can see the helmet, I can understand if your feet can’t touch the pegs then you shouldn’t be on it, but Inpounding the bike for it? I mean all that is, is a money grab. You could drop off the passenger and get a truck/car and pick up passenger.
Did you notice that all the stats make reference to percentages, etc; however they do not give you a specific number of people who were killed in motorcycle accidents, nor do they stat whether those killed were wearing certified helmets, or if they were wearing beanies or other types, or perhaps no helmets at all.
This is vintage Government **BS** . They have no problem in being absolutely specific in regards to the fines that will be levied, or the impoundments, however very **fuzzy** when dealing with the actual deaths.
I would suggest that as many or more people died in Snomobile accidents, Airplaine Accidents, drowing etc;, than motorcycle accidents.
If one wants the specific information on the actual number of motorcycle deaths they will have to mine the Government websites, and then do the math.
As an example a 57% increase in fatalaties, could be an increase from one to two, or from two to four.
An increase from one to two would be a 100% increase as is an increase from two to four.
The legislation is about preventing injury and death. It is also about prevention and diminishing the impact on families, relatives and on our overly stressed health care system, funded by taxes from all of us, including those who don’t own motorcycles! It makes 100% sense leaving out the politics.
According to the coronors site, the death rate hasnt really changed much. The fatalaties have increased but the number of insured motorcycles has more than doubled as well…
Year, Deaths,# Insured Motorcycles,Rate per 10,000 Licenses
2000 29 44,700 6.5
2001 22 49,200 4.5
2002 31 51,100 6.1
2003 33 55,100 6.0
2004 45 60,100 7.5
2005 48 65,500 7.3
2006 39 73,800 5.3
2007 48 79,800 6.0
2008 40 89,800 4.5
2009 47 93,700 5.0
interceptor. Are these figures for BC or for Canada???
That’s for BC. From the coroners website.
How about ticket them for open headers/straight pipes as well.. Nothing better than being woken up at 4-5am when one of these people are ride their bikes down Ospika.
Their excuse is “straight pipes save lives” not when you cant hear a fire engine, ambulance or police sirens above the motorcycle
It would be interesting to see how many of these deaths were a result of not wearing a helmet, or not wearing a certified helmet. Or better still how many deaths occurred while a certified helmet was worn.
Palopu: “It would be interesting to see how many of these deaths were a result of not wearing a helmet, or not wearing a certified helmet. Or better still how many deaths occurred while a certified helmet was worn.”
Who cares? How about people who received a serious brain injury because they were wearing a beanie vs. a fully encased helmet? In my mind, if one person got a serious brain injury because of a beanie, then that’s reason enough to outlaw them.
Do these new laws exempt 13 or 14 year old brats who ride up and down on my street noisily at all hours headed to the bush for a little while? No license,no insurance, no registration, no helmet etc? And when you phone the cops to complain the lady who answers the phone wants to know more about you than the motorcycle rider. My only solution is to wait until they grow up and move away. Grrrrr!
I got cheese.
Johnybelt , First I am not critizising the new helmet law . yes I think it sucks but not for the reason one may think. Any helmet no matter what the rating is no protection from a brain injury . Brain Injury occured when your brain is jarred against the inside of the skull. There is not a helmet on the market that can prevent this. An impact is an impact no matter what. The only factor to determine the extent of injury is the rate of impact. I know of people who are alive today simply because they were wearing a skull cap style beanie. I also have a friend who died and was revived 3 times from a low speed crash of 40 km/h and was wearing a full faced helmet .It was the way he impacted his head that caused the trauma. Nobody can pick their accidents, nobody can say this helmet will save your life over that helmet. The truth is the only true way to save a life is education . To educate those who do not ride to be aware and to educate those who do ride to ride properly and to respect their machine,to ride a bike suitable to their skill level and to always take a rider training course to learn the skills you will need to save your life.
HarleyGuy: “Johnybelt , First I am not critizising the new helmet law . yes I think it sucks but not for the reason one may think. Any helmet no matter what the rating is no protection from a brain injury .”
Of course there are no guarantees, especially when riding a motorcycle, but I doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the beanie style of helmet doesn’t offer near the same protection as a full helmet in an accident situation.
Well…there has to be some sort of standard in regards to safety equipment. How about a rating system similar to what autos have? 5 stars down to one? That way you’re free to choose your level of protection. If a beanie style DOT approved helmet rates a 1 then let the scale go up from there…..
Here’s a simple solution: when you receive your motorcycle lisence you must sign a form that voids your health insurrance. If you get hurt, you’re on your own nickle. If you can’t afford to pay for medical care, oh well, you chose to ride that bike in the first place. Why shift the burden of your care to those of us who do not share this hobby?
The same could be said about cars. You can still get hurt in a car. The argument could be then be said that since your in your ‘car’ and not a more safer full size truck then it is the similar deal like a bike?
Or that in a serious accident that your more likely to be killed on a bike, so less money spent on medical costs because you did not make it, but in a serious car accident you are still alive but the medical cost is much more because you sustained more damage but not enough to kill you.
Where would we draw the line on that?
This reminds me of debating people who are anti-seatbelt because they feel it’s safer to be ‘thrown clear’ in an accident rather than be strapped in. You just gotta shake your head and move on.
HarleyGuy72 why do motorcycle racers wear helmets, must be a reason? We should do an experiment, I got the hammer. First I will hit you over the head while you wear a helmet. Then I will hit you over the head without the helmet. What do you suppose the outcomes will be?
Yes wearing a helmet in a crash may not stop you from getting injured but I suspect just a little bit there will be a quite a marked difference in severity in injuries.
Krusty: That idea of yours could apply to any ‘hobby’. Like to ski? No health insurance. Like to hike? No health insurance. Like to ride a bicycle? yadayadayada……
I’m willing to bet that you enjoy a ‘hobby’ that could be considered risky by some people somewhere…..
Seems to me that all the laws that are passed (ostensibly) to reduce the cost of health care, are directed at the driving public. Could this be, because it is easier to fine these people??
People die from all sorts of accidents, such as swimming, skiing, mountain climbing, ski-dooing, flying etc; Its a little bit harder to police and fine these people, however drivers and driving infractions are a dime a dozen. Good source of wealth for the Government.
My point in this whole issue is that if you take the motorcycle death statistics, and relate it to the actual cause of death, ie; Head trauma, mangled body, etc;, you would probably find that the number of people actually killed as a result of not wearing a helmet is
very small, there would probably be just as many or more who were killed, while wearing a certified helmet.
Even race car drivers wear helmets. It’s for …protection! So why shouldn’t a person wear one who is driving a vehicle which has no protective outer shell…like a motorcycle or a bicycle? I have seen skiers and mountain hikers wear helmets and skateboarders too! They are not crazy. They believe in not getting hurt when injury can be prevented or minimized.
I will make sure to wear my helmet swimming.
Studies indicate that the risk of brain injury in hospitalized motorcyclists is nearly twice that for unhelmeted motorcyclists and that unhelmeted drivers had acute care costs three times ($30,365) that of helmeted drivers 22, 23
In California, the first year’s implementation of the 1992 helmet law resulted in a 37.5% decrease in statewide motorcycle crash fatalities over the previous year; those likely to sustain TBI-related impairments decreased 34%. California has demonstrated a more than 99% compliance rate in helmet use. This suggests that, with adequate enforcement, unrestricted helmet laws can achieve nearly 100% compliance.24, 25, 26
http://www.caregiver.org/caregiver/jsp/content_node.jsp?nodeid=441
This is somewhat off topic but would give pause to any motorcycle rider.
I was driving down 5th Ave mid-morning today, from Ospika towards Hwy 97. An older maroon sedan was in the left lane and just ahead of me. We came to a red light at Ahbau, and he sailed right through, either oblivious or sporting a death wish. A motorcyclist coming through the intersection on Ahbau with a green light at that instant would have been in bad shape, likely dead, regardless of the helmet type. It highlights the need for riders on 2 wheels to drive defensively especially at intersections.
By the way, I noted the driver of the sedan headed in to the Timmy Ho’s across the by-pass, so it wasn’t life and death for him.
On the helmet law, I’m conflicted between my dislike for the nanny state and support for natural selection on one hand, and my reluctance to pay extra health care costs for users of poor or no helmets on the other.
CL
The government is trying to push the misconception that all motorcycle deaths are caused by head injury. I really doubt that. I once saw an accident with a motorcycle where the riders head was the only thing intact.
by: seamutt on June 1 2012 11:29 AM
I got cheese
Really, Seamutt, that’s more information than strictly required.
metalman.
Hey P Val. Dont knock em till u tried em!
Comments for this article are closed.