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.