Total Motorcycle Community Forums

B.C. outlaws motorcycle 'skid lids'
Skid lids, skull caps and beanies outlawed June 1st
CBC News Posted: Apr 30, 2012 12:09 PM PT

B.C. has introduced new motorcycle safety regulations that will ban novelty helmets and require all riders to wear protective headgear that meet international safety standards.

Motorcyclists found wearing so-called skull caps and beanie helmets that don't met the new regulations will be fined $138, said Minister of Justice and Attorney General Shirley Bond.

"Helmets must have a rigid head covering and a strong, stiff, outer shell. I know that some riders will bristle but it's time for them to hang up their beanies," said Bond."

The new helmet laws are part of a number of new safety regulations aimed at minimizing the number of motorcycle injuries and deaths in B.C. — including new rules for passengers and licence plates.

The new regulations, which come into effect June 1, also say all passengers must be able to reach foot pegs or floorboards and children who cannot reach the foot rests will not be allowed to ride as passengers.

"While B.C. already has mandatory helmet and seating laws, these new standards provide even more guidance to help riders — who are more vulnerable to injury and death than other road users — enjoy a safe journey," said Bond.

Denise Lodge, who lost her son to a motorcycle crash, welcomes the new rules.

"Since March 3, 2005, in memory of my son Corey, I've been actively advocating changes to legislation, the culture, attitude, belief and behaviour to ensure other young riders don't needlessly lose their lives," said Lodge.

According to the Ministry of Justice, there are about 42 rider deaths in B.C. every year, and more than 200 motorcyclists have died since 2007.

"So in the memory of our sons...and all of the voices that are unable to speak, we thank you," said Lodge.

----------------------------------------------------
About bloody time I say. You should read some of the commentary raging on this issue on the CBC forum page.

Here is what I wrote:

About bloody time. I been riding since the 80's and always worn a full faced helmet, mainly for two reasons, one: protection from preventable brain injury and two: I am ugly enough that I don't need to be kissing pavement when I get knocked off my bike at speed.

There was a study done on the impact points of M/C helmets during crashes and accidents, one of the highest points of contact found during the study was the chin area, an area which those stupid beanie and novelty cap fail to protect, hell they don't even protect the back of the skull.

There is a term within the Motorcycling Community, ATGATT which stands for All The Gear, All The Time. Gear includes a proper DOT or Snell approved helmet, even if its not full faced, gloves, boots, textile or leather jackets preferably with impact armour at the elbows, shoulders and back, textile or leather pants or overpants again with armour in knees and padding on the hips. All this gear can be a right PINTA to put on and wear, especially when it gets warmer, but if and when you come of your bike, you will at least have some measure of protection against road rash and impact damage. The old saying of "It's better to walk away in disgust then to ride away in an ambulance" is at the heart of the ATGATT philosophy.

And while no amount of protective gear can completely protect a rider, having none at all pretty much zero's your odds of surviving unscathed even from a minor accident. That dude in the above picture might think he looks like a cool hard assed biker, but in my humble opinion he nothing more then a poser and a fool. I mean it looks like he is wearing bloody flip flops for Christ's sakes, you can't get more n00bish and squidly then that.

I'd never ride without my full face helmet, and I don't understand not wearing one. The helmet regulations don't bother me, it makes sense from a safety standpoint. I wasn't impressed to see the rest of the new regulations that came with that, especially the initial wording on this specific one before it was corrected:

Motorcycle operators and passengers must be seated with their feet on foot pegs or the floorboards at all times (even when the motorcycle is stopped at an intersection).

that made it quite clear that whoever was drafting these new regulations wasn't a rider. My balance is not that good.

I also wasn't impressed that they continue to draft new regulations for motorcyclists while failing to enforce the ones they already have for cars. How about a month long crackdown on people who change lanes without signalling? What about the people driving to work while reading the paper, putting on makeup, or eating breakfast? All of these things are doubly dangerous to the riders on the road who aren't sitting inside a giant SUV for protection?

How about police holding off on the seatbelt checkpoints and instead do something to improve our safety on the road and reduce the dangers from cagers by actually targetting the people causing the majority of accidents?

these new regulations are only being put through as a public relations boost, by pandering to families who lost riders for doing something stupid like wearing a skull cap instead of going after a huge part of the problem which is the traffic threatening to kill us by not following the rules of the road?

I'm confused... it doesn't sound like they're banning the "beanie" helmets or other open face helmets, they're only introducing the requirement that it must be DOT certified? Because this is pretty common everywhere else that has mandatory helmet laws.

I don't think the writer of the article is a rider either. I assume it isn't the beanie/skullcap "style" itself that's being banned, but any novelty helmet that doesn't conform to "international safety standards". However, that standard isn't specified in the article.

Though I don't recco any helmet that doesn't cover your jaw, there are some beanie style helmets out there that are DOT or ECE certified. Can a cop pull you over just because you're wearing a beanie style helmet (even one with a DOT or ECE sticker on it)?

I have a DOT approved shortie helmet. It's go so much protective "stuff" in it that I my head looks like a 1UP mushroom from Mario Brothers. Switched to a 3/4 with full face shield after one too many bugs went up my nose Never did "get" those thin little novelty helmets. I mean, really, helmet hair with none of the life-saving benefits of a good helmet? And they're putting butterflies and other pretty stuff on the good helmets for us girlie ladies.

It would seem to me that any efforts to improve rider safety should be welcomed but is a potential fine of only $138 really going to encourage those that don't value their brains in the first place?

BTW I can't think of anything less likely to put on my helmet than butterflies (but I was married to a Lepidopterist for 16yrs)!

I always go ATGATT but if you don't want to then I don't think you should have to. You aint gonna ride with me cause I aint explaining why your dopey a** is all banged up and you got that I just ate your goldfish look on your mug to your loved ones. I also think no ins company should have to pay either if your not geared up, but thats just so so the ins companies don't raise the rates for us that do wear the stuff.
I understand accidents happen but I try to take the best precautions I can. I think it's just as dangerous to sell a noob a Race Replica ie: gsxr 600 zx1000 cbrr600 and nobody cares about that either. I don't like no helmets skimpy helmets or a lot of things and I'll say it but it takes all kind of folks to make the world turn and we will never be able to fix STUPID so why try.
REMEMBER INJURY IS ALMOST ALWAYS PRECEDED BY "HEY WATCH THIS"

Some folks don't seem to understand what freedom means. It means being free to do what you want unless it keeps others from exercising their freedom, and only in the most extreme cases should freedom be limited by the "common good". And let's not start with the "a helmetless rider could cause my taxes to increase to pay his health care costs" business, since that justification could be used to force people to not do, or do, almost anything imaginable. The self-righteous rider who pats himself on the back for his ATGATT attitude seems to forget that non-riders might feel very comfortable saying there is no such thing as a safe motorcycle, and want them all banned. Maybe Canadians are happy with living in a nanny state, but I value the freedoms that I still possess here in the USA. Most of the time I wear a helmet, but I resent anyone, including our "wise" public officials, telling me that I have to do it. We are already forced to wear auto seatbelts for our own good, I guess, and in so many other areas we are moving further from being citizens to being subjects. At least we still have the 2nd Amendment, at least for how.

I didn't know you could get away with a half helmet in Canada.

I'm having a hard time decided how I feel on this particular issue.

Obviously, I think anyone who rides without a DOT approved helmet is, at best, taking an unnecessary risk. At worst, they're a damned idiot.

But, having said that, I only wear a 3/4 helmet with a full face shield, and I'm sure someone out there would call me a damned idiot for not wearing a helmet with a complete chin bar. I insist on my helmet every ride, every time, and legislation isn't needed to convince me to wear it. But I would bristle if my government tried to tell me that a 3/4 helmet wasn't sufficient and forced me to wear a lid with a chin bar. To further complicate that, I'm one of those odd people that believes the articles about SNELL requirements resulting in too stiff a helmet, and so I refuse to wear a SNELL approved helmet. I know someone will scowl at that comment too. Just the same way I scowl when someone says they ride without a helmet.

More complicated still, in warm weather I leave the armored jacket at home and wear just a leather vest. I know, I know, I'm a moron and someday I'll have the battle scars to prove it. I totally get that, but that's the level of protection I choose to practice. I insist on armored gloves and jeans and proper riding boots, those are non-negotiable. Jeans are a necessity, leather chaps for highway riding. We've all played 'ala carte' with our level of personal protection, and I'm sure any one of us would get a bit heated if someone tried to force us to raise that level of protection to satisfy an organ of government.

I guess what I'm saying is, once you start passing laws governing the level of protection a rider is required to deploy on their body, where does it stop? It's fine to say "Okay, DOT approved helmets are the law." But then what do you do about some squid in their DOT approved helmet, flip flops, khaki shorts and a jersey shirt? Do we start letting the DOT make regulations for percentages of foot, leg, and torso coverage? Will a half-sleeve armored jacket be okay while a full-sleeved denim jacket wont be?

With cars it's pretty easy. The government regulates the safety equipment required on all new vehicles, and then allow mechanical attrition to get the unsafe cars off the road gradually. Obviously this doesn't work with motorcycles, since 90% of the safety gear comes on the riders body. That's a frightening thing when you think about it, because they're liable to outlaw motorcycles all-together rather then try to legislate safety gear piecemeal.

A truly morbid thought has just occured to me -- as long as the morons who wear no safety gear whatsoever continue to die of head injuries -- as opposed to various other internal injuries -- it's just the helmets that will receive the attention of governments. If that trend shifts -- if head injuries become a less common cause of death in motorcycle accidents than, say, lung failure or kidney failure or other internal hemmorage types of injuries, then before you know it we'll have DOT approved jackets and regulations that require us to wear them. Bye-bye, leather coats, if that's your thing, it'll be the All-Gortex All-The-Time channel.

So, I guess I still don't know to feel about it. But the above is what comes out when I try to decide. Take it as you will.