HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
CONTENTS
Monday 25 May 1992
Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 124
Ministry of Transportation
Michael Weir, policy officer, road user safety office
Nina Chyz, legislation counsel, legal services branch
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Brown, Harold
Staff / Personnel: Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1701 in committee room 1.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE
Resuming consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): We'll call the meeting to order. This is the standing committee on resources development re Bill 124. Mrs Cunningham had some remarks she wished to make at the beginning of the meeting.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): With apologies to the Ministry of Transportation officials, but you might be interested, from time to time there are a lot of states and provinces looking at what Ontario is doing, so my staff get phone calls. If it's interesting, they usually put it in the form of notes. I sometimes tell people and sometimes I don't -- there's so much information -- but I thought the committee might like this.
The New England Journal of Medicine is a very prestigious journal to be published in. A couple of weeks ago we heard from a doctor at the Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention Centre who has done more research and has submitted yet another paper to the New England Journal of Medicine. His name is Dr Peter Bieleson. He and Dr Andrew Danninberg have conducted a study on the effects of bike helmet use and injury prevention.
Now you just wouldn't be able to do this in very many places, but the reason they're doing it is that one of the counties they've been looking at is Howard county in Maryland. So they compared Howard county, which has both a mandatory helmet use law for people under 16 and mandatory education, to Montgomery county, right next door, which has just the mandatory education with no law. They have introduced a law since the research took place. Third, in the middle of all of this, in Maryland of course, is the city of Baltimore, which has neither mandatory education nor the law.
Their article has been submitted, but it's yet to be accepted. They're hoping for acceptance. They'll send us a copy. They wanted to discuss the findings with us. The most important finding was that a mandatory helmet use law significantly increases bike helmet use. Of course, we're all sitting here and saying, "I would hope so," but this is not Utopia. As you know, I came down in a cab today. The cab driver wasn't wearing his seatbelt, nor did the the other front seat have a seatbelt that worked. So because we have laws, we should have a lot of empathy for our enforcement officers.
The manufacturers in Maryland say that they could provide helmets for $11 or $12 if there were more laws and a greater demand for helmets. I don't know what their population is. We should probably look at that.
That was on 20 May. Today we got another phone call. These physicians are very excited about what's happening in Ontario and will be sending us the study and its results. Today Dr Andrew Danninberg called. He's very excited that Ontario legislators are studying the issue and encouraged us to use the study as a reference, so we can look at it and see if it's helpful to us.
They conducted the survey in two parts. They had an observational study. I thought this was interesting. They counted children on the street riding their bicycles between the time the bill was passed and the time it came into effect. They had the phase-in period we're thinking of. The helmet use increased from 4% to 46%. I think their phase-in period -- I'm not sure, Mike -- was probably about nine months. I think they talked about it in the fall and introduced it in the spring.
Mr Michael Weir: This was Howard county?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, but I'm not sure. It wasn't very long, I remember. They mailed their survey to the schools. This was the second part. They had a survey and questions such as, "Did you wear a helmet in the last month?" were asked about the helmet. The survey was sent to grades 4, 7 and 9. I think this is interesting. I never would have thought to do this. In this time frame, helmet use increased from 11% to 37%. So this was another study, still counting but in a different way, asking the children as opposed to just counting people on the street.
Their main conclusions were that helmet compliance is greater among younger children and helmet compliance increases when there is both education and a law. So although we talk about a certain compliance level before we introduce it into a community, I think we can clearly see that the best they had was 11% -- at least the students said that -- and it went up to 37%. If we waited for 25%, we'd probably be waiting for a long time, because even with a law, in nine months or so they got 37%. In just counting, the best they had was 4%, and even with the law, they've got 46%.
My guess is over time, a couple of years, maybe three years, people will look silly if they don't have a helmet, but I think it's that kind of commonsense, practical approach that no matter what we have with our phase-in period, at least from my point of view, and even with the law, we can't expect 100% of the people to be complying within three months, obviously, or even nine months. With a longer phase-in period, maybe we will and maybe we won't, I don't know.
I just thought you'd be interested that they've done this research. I think it's helpful to us.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): You made a comment, I believe, that Maryland as a state was going to be able to sell the helmet for $11 or $12. Is that correct?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that's what they're saying in the state of Maryland. The manufacturers are advising the legislature.
Ms Murdock: I guess you wouldn't know, or would you be able to find out whether those would be the helmets that would be acceptable in Ontario as approved? Remember the question we asked last week.
Mrs Cunningham: Their law does state -- would it have all three, Mike? Probably the two.
Mr Weir: They'll accept the helmets that are approved by the American National Standards Institute and Snell, and I think they leave room for others by saying, "A helmet approved by the director," which allows for other helmets that may be equally as good.
Ms Murdock: The officer who was here from the Solicitor General's office made a comment at the end. I don't believe he was recorded, but he was concerned that the cost of the helmets worn by police officers who are bicycling now in the summer months in Toronto was significantly greater than what we as a committee were seeing they were available at. While we were saying around the $20 to $25 mark, he was saying something like $90.
Mrs Cunningham: When I went into the stores and I took a look at what's available for $25 or $30, when you mail away or when the people come out to you, the distributors, they have the three approval stickers on them. When you go into a sporting goods store -- and I have to admit this myself, my own boys who are in their 20s, three of them, chose different helmets and chose to pay more money for things that had the same stickers on them, but they were snazzy looking and hard-shelled. So people are inclined to do that if they've got the money. The ones I wear and the kids next door wear are the ones that are distributed for $25 or $30 and they too have the stickers on them. I don't know what to say about that.
Ms Murdock: But the standard is the same?
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, yes. They've all been tested. Some people just want this different look. The people in the bicycle shop didn't say one was better than the other, all they said was that they were approved. It's interesting.
Ms Murdock: But the gentleman who was here that day indicated that he thought the helmets they were buying for their police officers were better and it was a concern of his, that's all.
Mrs Cunningham: There's something else I wanted to share just for a minute. We'll pass these around later, but we have to say thank you to the Metropolitan Police Force who are constantly doing something in the way of public education. The most recent pamphlet is called You and Your Bicycle, and it's just great. It gives all the safety tips. Then of course there's the other group which is the city of Toronto cycling committee. They have a pamphlet out too and it's just excellent stuff that other municipalities could do. It's all with regard to safety. I'll pass around the last page.
It says, "Here's a list of some of the fines for offences under the Highway Traffic Act," which we're going to have to look at today: "Careless driving: motorists and cyclists $253.75; disobey stop sign -- fail to stop: motorists and cyclists $78.75; fail to yield to pedestrians: motorists and cyclists $78.75; fail to signal a turn: motorists and cyclists, $78.75; open door into traffic: motorists, $78.75; fail to obey signals, motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, $78.75." That's the Highway Traffic Act, which we're looking at.
One of the bylaws in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is "Fail to yield to vehicles when crossing roadway: pedestrians $83.75." I had no idea. "Bicycle -- ride on sidewalk: cyclists $83.75." We're moaning about having more fines. They're there now. Anyway, I thought I'd pass that on.
1710
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
The Acting Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you. I understand the agenda has a presentation from the Ministry of Transportation. I would ask you both to identify yourselves and proceed with your presentation.
Mr Weir: I am Michael Weir, safety policy officer with the road user safety office, Ministry of Transportation.
Miss Nina Chyz: I'm Nina Chyz, legislation counsel with the legal services branch.
Mr Weir: At the last meeting a motion was put forward by Ms Murdock that we would come and try to elaborate on the definition of "highway," what it includes and what it doesn't include. That's why we're here today.
Miss Chyz: Initially, I would like to say the definition of "highway" in the Highway Traffic Act applies equally to provincial highways and to municipal roads. Perhaps I should read the definitions.
The highway definition in the Highway Traffic Act in section 1 provides, "`highway' includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway, square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof." In other words, it's fence to fence.
We should also probably look at the definition of highway in the Municipal Act which follows the definition in the Highway Traffic Act quite closely, and it says, "`highway' means a common and public highway, and includes a street and a bridge forming part of a highway or on, over or across which a highway passes."
Also, the Municipal Act, section 261, defines what constitutes a public highway and it states:
"Except in so far as they have been stopped up according to law, all allowances for roads made by the crown surveyors, all highways laid out or established under the authority of any statute, all roads on which public money has been spent for opening them or on which statute labour has been usually performed, all roads passing through Indian lands, all roads dedicated by the owner of the land to public use, and all alterations and deviations of and all bridges over any such allowance for road, highway or road are common and public highways."
The courts have also come up with decisions defining what a highway means. In the case of Consumers' Gas against Toronto it was held that unless the meaning of highway is affected by context, association or definition, highway in the ordinary sense means a public road or way open equally to anyone for travel.
The definition of highway in the HTA generally contemplates well-defined travelling areas. The words "for the passage of vehicles" contemplate movement of vehicles between or across the area from points within to points outside the area. This definition then would exclude such things as shopping malls or parking areas where the paramount intent is to regulate the parking and not the movement of traffic from point to point.
The definition also requires that the area in question be open as a matter of right to all members of the public. For such a right to arise, there must be a dedication of land by the owner to the public and acceptance by the public, and this generally occurs where no permission is required and the public uses the area for travelling from point to point.
Based on the foregoing, if the land is dedicated or designated as a public road and there has been an acceptance of such dedication or designation by the public and unrestricted use has been made for passage of vehicles, the area will come within the definition of "highway" in the Highway Traffic Act.
I should also point out, perhaps, that there are a number of criteria you can refer to in making a determination of whether this is a highway or not. I've already mentioned the paramountcy of the uses: Is it really just for parking or is it to get the public moving from one point to another? Is there an acceptance by the public of this dedication; are they actually using it as such? Are public funds expended, is public money being used for this? You have private roads, but if they're dedicated to the public, then again you need an acceptance by the public of this area. Is the area the sole access for vehicular traffic? Where does it lead? Does it come to a dead end or is it the sole access to some area that the public has to traverse to get from point A to B? The volume of traffic also: The greater the volume, the more indication that this is probably used by the public as a public highway. It has to be unrestricted. Is it open all year, 24 hours a day? Because if it's closed at any time, then people are being restricted from using it and it no longer falls within that definition of "highway." Does the area operate as an essential thoroughfare? These are criteria one looks at.
Basically, I suppose, from this committee's point of view, the definition of "highway" would apply to anything that's a highway, which, as I said, includes municipal roads. It does not apply to any other municipal property: municipal parks, vacant land, off-highway situations. I think what you would require in these circumstances would be municipal bylaws, and those should be provided in the Municipal Act or, if the authority for that is lacking, the Highway Traffic Act would stipulate that the municipalities may regulate by bylaw, and then it would be up to the municipalities to regulate in such a fashion. It generally doesn't include a school yard or, as I've mentioned, all sorts of parking lots at malls, behind apartment buildings.
If the committee would like to ask questions, it might make it easier for me to respond.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
Ms Murdock: Restriction in a parking lot: In the parking lot of a shopping mall, for example, in order to get to the parking area you have to have movement of traffic from point A to point B. Would that portion of it be classified as public?
Miss Chyz: Probably the highway that leads you to the mall, but otherwise it's a private property and the authorities there can block it off, as they do at Yorkdale; they use chains, and there are certain hours within which you can use it. That is no longer what could be a highway.
1720
Ms Murdock: The other question has to do with roads that are closed for the winter. They are still roads. I mean, it's still a public highway or access road or whatever designated for the use of vehicular traffic.
Miss Chyz: When you're saying they're closed for the winter --
Ms Murdock: You said it had to be 24 hours a day year-round.
Miss Chyz: Again, it depends on the context. If for some reason it's unsafe to travel at that time, it still may be a public highway except that conditions may be -- if it's very far up north that no one can get --
Ms Murdock: So skidoo trails and that would not --
Miss Chyz: They are not a highway.
Ms Murdock: Unless they used a roadway. Okay, thanks.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm trying to get my head around this with regard to what you've just said. We're different from the legislation we're able to compare ourselves to, because we're looking at the definition of "highway" for the whole province. I'm sure the state of Maryland would have a definition of a highway for a whole province, but the laws we're able to look at now are counties within the state. They have done what you have suggested, that if municipalities or counties within the province of Ontario think the definition of "highway" too broad under the Highway Traffic Act, and if we choose not to change it as a committee for the purpose of the bicycle, then they themselves would have to make their own bylaws. Is that what you're saying?
Miss Chyz: No. What I have said is that because "highway" under the Highway Traffic Act includes municipal roads as well as provincial highways, then it can be regulated through the Highway Traffic Act, but anything else that doesn't come within that definition can be controlled by municipalities provided they have the bylaw power to regulate; that would be any land they own that would be off-highway, because I think the on-highway situation is covered.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. Can I give you three examples that at least Howard county felt were important. They said "public roadway," which is covered under our act now and would be; we wouldn't have to change it. They say "bicycle path." I don't see that in our act now.
Miss Chyz: No. Generally if it goes through a park or wherever it is -- again, these are municipal bylaws. I believe some areas may have regulatory power to regulate bicycle riding on paths within the municipality.
Mrs Cunningham: It does say in our act "intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles," and a vehicle is a bicycle. Wouldn't that be a pathway, a bicycle path?
Miss Chyz: It's a pathway but it's not designated as a highway. You have all the various criteria, and I don't think that it would meet all.
Mrs Cunningham: The reason I'm saying that -- are you looking at chapter 8 in the definitions of the Highway Traffic Act, where it says "includes a common and public highway, street, avenue, parkway, driveway" -- I'm trying to think vehicle, bicycle on any one of these. It says here "common and public driveway," not private. None of this is private.
It goes so far as to say bicycles "in a square, place, bridge, viaduct or trestle, any part of which is intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles" -- which is defined later on as a bicycle -- "and includes the area between the lateral property lines thereof" -- whatever that means; I don't care. So that's what I'm looking at.
Mrs Cunningham: Then I'm looking at words in the other act, which I think are important for us: "public roadway" -- which you've said, yes -- "bicycle path, right of way and public owned facilities, parks" etc. This is where kids ride bikes. Some of that would be in the act, I suppose, and some of those instances would be in our act now but some would not. I'm just trying to compare the two. My view would have been that a bicycle path would be covered, but you're saying not likely.
Miss Chyz: Not under the court decisions. It's unlikely. It's not for the general use; it's restricted to the bicycles. Again, to cover it through the Highway Traffic Act -- the bicycle path is generally something that's set aside by a municipality.
Mrs Cunningham: So if we felt strongly about a bicycle path, because this wasn't clear, we could add bicycle path.
Miss Chyz: Right, it would be designated as a bicycle path. I don't think it would be designated as a highway, as such.
Mrs Cunningham: Except under "highway" includes -- a bridge is designated as a highway; a place, whatever that is, is a highway; a square is a highway. So if we just added "bicycle path" and we added "publicly owned facilities, parks" -- boy, if I were a judge some day.
Clearly, in Ontario on a bicycle path one should have a bicycle helmet, in my view. We shouldn't have to wait for every municipality to pass a bylaw. I think that ought to be our criterion, but you're here to give us advice.
Mr Weir: I think it's your objective to get helmets on people's heads and I think the proposal you put forward would in time accomplish that. I think the majority of people who use off-highway areas to ride their bikes in most cases have to use a street or a road or the things we believe constitute a highway to get to their off-highway destination. I don't see people taking their helmets off when they get there because it's not at this point in time a legal requirement for them to wear it, if they're wearing it anyway on their way there.
I also believe that if the law were implemented and applied to what we believe is a highway and people respected that law and thought that law had credibility -- why would they feel that law has credibility? Because they believe that people should wear helmets. If that's the case, then they'll wear them off-highway as well.
This is a major policy change we're talking about for cyclists here. I believe it is not at all inappropriate to start with the proposal as you've proposed it and go from there. Has anybody written to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario? Are they aware of your proposal?
Mrs Cunningham: They're aware of it. It was the one group we did want to have before the committee, but in my view, we haven't asked them. They're definitely aware of this. We should do that; we have to follow through on that and ask them their opinion.
Mr Weir: I'm not sure -- and I think you stated it earlier -- that with a stroke of a pen you can make it a Utopian world, but you have to start somewhere.
Ms Murdock: Just a question on that utility or gas company case. Is it the only precedent that defines "highway"? The case you referred to.
Miss Chyz: Oh, that one. No, there are many others, and there are cases that tell you what is not a highway. The courts have to decide on the facts. Also, when we talk about the highway, it's how you built the highway and what's required for it, and I don't think that's contemplated for a bicycle path. "Highway" is also used, for instance, in the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.
Ms Murdock: Courts look at the intent of the legislators.
Miss Chyz: I think they would follow some of the criteria I have listed and would see whether it meets those. Obviously, if it has been designated as a highway -- there are designation plans, so that you can readily find. If public money has been spent on it, then you don't have a question that it's a highway.
1730
Ms Murdock: I recognize that the Ministry of Transportation doesn't particularly want to extend the definition, even though you're not saying that. But I'm saying that in truth, if this should come to pass, as we think it will, judges in the courts, or JPs, as the case may be, if they're not clear or not sure would be looking at the intent of the legislation at the time of enactment in terms of seeing what we intended when we put it through. So it would end up that they would go back and use that and build it up as another criterion, wouldn't they, based on all the cases you've looked at?
Miss Chyz: By including bicycle paths in here? Is that what you're stating?
Mr Weir: I think you're trying to paint a scenario here where perhaps someone on a bicycle path is charged --
Ms Murdock: Yes, after the education phase.
Mr Weir: -- and it has gone to court and he's charged under a section which would be in the Highway Traffic Act. How would the court determine whether or not that person was on a highway?
Ms Murdock: The criteria that have been built over time, that you listed earlier.
Miss Chyz: So the defence would be that this didn't happen on a highway and the prosecution would have to establish that it did.
Ms Murdock: And that new criteria would be developed in relation to bicycle helmets. That's, in all likelihood, what would happen.
Miss Chyz: I guess if you have to wear the bicycle helmet everywhere, then it doesn't really matter whether it's highway or off-highway. But what we're dealing with here is, if it just applies to highways, then what are we capturing by that definition?
Ms Murdock: No. I don't agree with you. What we're saying is that if we only amend the Highway Traffic Act, then we are confined to what the definitions within the Highway Traffic Act state. So although we have clearly indicated we would like everybody to wear bicycle helmets everywhere -- while they're riding a bicycle, of course -- unless we amend the definition, that's not going to happen. That is what we're hearing from you, basically.
Miss Chyz: My opinion is that a bicycle path as such does not come within the definition of "highway."
Ms Murdock: But should an infraction of the proposed or the eventual law occur to the new section, whatever the new section would be --
Mr Weir: And I'm not so sure it won't happen. I think the objective here is to get helmets on people's heads, not to get a bill passed through the House; maybe the two go hand in hand. But I think if a bill is passed in what I believe is already a very extensive way, by covering what is a highway you will be capturing the majority of the people, and if it's done right, hopefully the majority of people will respect it and comply with it everywhere.
Ms Murdock: I don't disagree with you on that. You usually have to travel at least on your driveway or on the street to get to the park anyway.
Mr Weir: At some point or another. I'm speculating, but if it works on the highway, I would suggest there would be probably a high level of usage rate in off-highway areas as well.
Mrs Cunningham: I certainly agree. I just think it's our responsibility to be asking all these questions, because we're going to get them. When I see how laws are made in the province, I think this is a refreshing example of at least where some members can ask the gutsy questions and understand things before we see it in law, so I'm going to ask you a couple more questions, if you don't mind.
The other legislation we looked at, because we tried to get it down to two or three pieces that were useful, was the state of New Jersey. That's the whole state; it is a state law. They talk in their law about a person under 14 years of age. These laws focus more on kids when they make exceptions. Andrea Strathdee, my staff person, tells me that the state of New Jersey legislation seems to have more exemptions. They go right into saying that "the director" -- who's defined -- "shall publish a list of bicycle helmets which meet the standards." I'm just giving an example.
Then they go on to talk about the requirements of the municipality with regard to people on bicycles. Then they go on to talk about "on a road or highway closed to motor vehicle traffic and limited to pedestrian or bicycle use at all times or during specified periods of time during which bicycles may be operated." They have to have helmets there. These are our bike paths. Then they talk about "exclusively on a trail route, course, boardwalk, path or other area" specifically for bicycles again. I think what you're telling us is that we don't need to get into that kind of detail at this point.
Mr Weir: That's what I essentially said.
Mrs Cunningham: Our objective is to get more people wearing helmets. I have to tell you that I don't see too many people with these white lights on the back of bicycles right now, which is the law. Since I found that out, I look. They just don't exist. Or red ones -- I'm sorry. That's why the white ones don't exist. There are some red, but not as many as one would like to see.
I'm pretty well convinced -- I don't know how my colleagues feel -- that I don't want to get into changing it so extensively that we lose it. We want to see compliance, but it does make me nervous about the very first municipality or school board to start having a heavy hand over children who are riding their bikes in school yards and sending them home. I guess school boards can have their own rules, as they do now, don't they?
Mr Weir: Yes, they can, and I think they have some responsibility.
Ms Murdock: Then there's --
The Acting Chair: Excuse me, Ms Murdock. Are you finished?
Mrs Cunningham: I can see there's going to be further discussion, but before our expert witness tells us any more I did want to ask the questions on exemptions and on who, meaning age, and to talk about the fine. I want to get their opinion on those three issues from their point of view as legislative counsel in this ministry, but not if Ms Murdock has more questions about the highway. I think it's important to complete that first.
Ms Murdock: About the private property. I think it was clearly stated in the last session that with regard to insurance companies and liability insurance on private property such as parking lots, and I would guess school yards as well and municipal property that wouldn't be designated "highway," should you have an accident there, the owner of the property could be liable, right?
Miss Chyz: Right.
Ms Murdock: But that isn't going to help you not wearing a helmet unless it was through mitigation --
Mrs Cunningham: They're probably liable now. Is that your point?
Ms Murdock: Yes, and that doesn't change. I suppose if there were a law that said everywhere else you had to wear a helmet and you didn't wear a helmet it could go to mitigation --
Mr Weir: I think that's a civil matter in the apportionment of damages.
Miss Chyz: It's a civil matter, and again it's a question of where they permit it. Has the owner has taken all precautions to keep people out from using the property?
Ms Murdock: So putting up signs to make sure bicyclists wear bike helmets.
Miss Chyz: Well, that may not be sufficient, because if you still allow them to play around and an injury occurs, maybe you have been permissive in allowing them in.
Ms Murdock: Whatever. There's a way around it, I think.
Mrs Cunningham: Could we move on to your opinion on the who; that if children under 12 years of age are to be included, some legislative changes are required? Would your ministry would want to respond to that, or should we be talking to --
Mr Weir: Would you repeat that?
Mrs Cunningham: If children under 12 years of age are to be included. Otherwise, if we talk about children, my view is that is exactly who we'll be talking about. I think probably everybody in this group will stick their necks out and say you have to have the role models as well as the children. That's my guess. We haven't talked about it, but just from the questions I think that might be so. If children under 12 years of age are to be included, some legislative changes are required, I'm assuming, outside of this ministry and elsewhere.
Mr Weir: No legislative changes would be required to this bill that I'm aware of. There are many sections in the act that say "every person shall" and it applies sort of across the board.
1740
Miss Chyz: Right. Under the Provincial Offences Act you can charge persons under 12. You may not get convictions against them, but charges may be laid. I suppose the other thing to look at is who really has control of the children, whether they should be responsible in any way for their conduct.
Mrs Cunningham: If we look at precedents for that in other jurisdictions, we talk about "the parent, guardian or legal guardian of a minor shall not authorize or knowingly permit the minor to violate this subtitle." So in fact the parent, guardian or legal guardian is responsible. Does that have to be part of this act?
Miss Chyz: If you did want to make the guardian or parent responsible, you would require something similar.
Mr Weir: Yes. If you wanted to hold the parent or legal guardian responsible, you would have to put forward a motion to amend this bill, to include a subsection to that effect.
Mrs Cunningham: To be consistent with other legislation, ie, the Provincial Offences Act, it would be any person less than 12 years, as opposed to 16 in one state and 14 in the other state.
Mr Weir: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay, and We've answered the question of where. "The current legislation is quite comprehensive but does not include areas such as school yards or parks." We've had a discussion around that today and we understand what will happen there.
The penalty is your ministry. The current penalty for all offences is $75 plus court costs or $78.75. Is this appropriate in this case? We've talked about legislation that makes good sense, like asking them to produce a helmet within 48 hours. Is that the kind of thing we would put amend here?
Mr Weir: I wouldn't think so initially. I feel the objective is to get the helmet on the head, not merely to show up in court and show proof that you own one. I don't think that meets the intent of your proposal. The fine levels, the $75 plus court costs, is the out-of-court payment that's been set by the chief judge of Ontario for most other rules of the road that apply equally to motorists and cyclists. I see those to be quite appropriate. The fine often will indicate --
Miss Chyz: How serious the offence is.
Mr Weir: People will perceive it to be associated with severity or with how important the public -- and let me broaden that -- or how the Legislature views this issue to be. Since all other rules of the road are currently viewed in that way, I don't see why this should be treated any differently. I don't think you would want to lessen the perception.
Mrs Cunningham: Then my question is that right now -- I keep going back to this red light on the back of a bicycle -- if an enforcement officer were to point this out and produce what we refer to as a ticket, one would simply have to pay that fine.
Mr Weir: Or plead not guilty and take your chances, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: All right. The police officers who came before this committee talked about encouraging children to buy helmets or whatever now, without any legislation. We've talked about changing the act or producing regulations or guidelines that go with the act. I think most members of this committee think that's a punitive way of dealing with it: charging somebody $78. They'd rather they had the helmets. I know public education would be an easy answer, but is there some way we could have guidelines or regulations that go with legislation?
Mr Weir: In terms of enforcement practice?
Mrs Cunningham: In terms of enforcement practices, or does it always have to stay with the local police authority?
Mr Weir: Yes. I don't want to speak on behalf of the Solicitor General, but most police organizations have administrative guidelines that govern their enforcement practices. You can recommend some enforcement guidelines. Whether they choose to actually adopt them and incorporate them into their practices is up to them.
Mrs Cunningham: That would be the best we could do, though, is recommend some guidelines for enforcement practices?
Mr Weir: Yes, I would think that's appropriate. If there was enough of a lead time before the law actually became effective -- now that you've warned me away against the public education answer, I'm going to use it -- and public education was used during that time when the groundwork was being laid, so to speak, by the time the law came into place everybody should know it's the law.
Ms Murdock: Then they can start nailing them or fining them for not having the red light at the back of their bicycle. Part of the reason they don't do it is because they aren't getting stopped now.
Mrs Cunningham: We're on a roll. The penalty could be in guidelines but public education, I understand -- the enforcement practices could be suggestions in guidelines. Have you ever heard of such a thing coming from a committee?
Mr Weir: No, but it doesn't strike me as being surprising.
Mrs Cunningham: This is the intent of this legislation. It could be passed as part of a report.
Mr Weir: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: And published in that regard. I think it would make us feel better. It would certainly get some of us off the hook. It sounds awful to have to charge some child $78.75, but I certainly appreciate your response to that. If it's important, then it has to have the same fine as not having the red light.
The last one, the date to come into force: I obviously get invited to different places where there are bicycle rallies and what not, and there seems to be a lot of impetus on this now. Have you a suggestion, having heard all of this, Mike? We'd like to live to see the light of day on this.
Mr Weir: At the last meeting I did suggest that the bill become effective on proclamation if indeed it was passed in the House. I think I said during the last session that we would certainly work towards an informal target date of, I think I said on the record, two to three years.
That's just a number, with some thought given to the types of things that would need to be done, the extent of the public education and communications programs and the planning involved in coordinating that kind of thing, in getting the manufacturers up to speed and getting the store shelves adequately stocked. I'm not sure if two to three years is the appropriate time, but it's the time we kind of felt is in the ballpark.
Mrs Cunningham: Those are my questions.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I don't know if it's a question but just a brief comment. I noticed in the papers that bicycles are considered to be very dangerous vehicles for pedestrians as well. I think it was in Toronto where there was a fatality, where the person was charged with careless driving.
We're talking about helmets being put on them, but there also should be some kind of publicity or booklet form out for not only kids, but as they are growing up, to the effect that if somebody steps off the curb in front of a bicycle it can be just as dangerous as a motorcycle or a car because there are injuries to pedestrians. Just a comment as to how we could, through the police departments, the schools, whatever, talk about both aspects of it.
Mr Weir: Sure. I think that in any public education program you would want to include things like sharing the road with other types of vehicles and with pedestrians. There's lots of material out there now; we just need to find a way, in this particular case, to disseminate it widely enough.
Mr Wood: I didn't realize -- and I guess it's because I haven't heard of it before -- that a person driving a bicycle and hitting somebody, if there are serious injuries or if there is death, can be charged with dangerous driving or careless driving the same as any other -- I guess it just happened in the last while.
Miss Chyz: The rules of the road apply to them too.
Mr Wood: Yes, but I didn't realize the accidents were that serious. I was surprised when I saw it in the paper. They can be very dangerous vehicles. I know that sometimes you're on the sidewalk and you step out and see the cars going by and, oops, all of a sudden there's a bicycle that's travelling at the speed limit or close to it.
Mr Weir: Cyclists have some good comments about motorists too.
Mr Wood: Yes, I'm sure; the fight with pedestrians and motorcycles and motorists and vehicles on the road.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Wood. Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: I'll be brief, Mr Chair. The Ministry of Transportation is the one that puts out the booklets for when you want to get your driver's licence for the car.
Mr Weir: The Driver's Handbook.
Ms Murdock: Right, the Driver's Handbook. Is there a bicycle handbook?
Mr Weir: There are two, in fact. One, the Bicyclist's Handbook, is targeted at the younger kids. Then there's one targeted at teens and adults called Cycling Skills: A Guide for Teen and Adult Cyclists.
Ms Murdock: Are these sent to the manufacturers at all to be attached to bicycles for the appropriate age?
Mr Weir: What our communications branch does is write a letter to every retailer in the province and let them know what information we have available to them. For example, we were talking about helmets: A couple of years ago we ran a campaign in conjunction with Canadian Tire and sent hang tags, which encouraged helmet use, to every retailer. So the information is available and the retailers are made aware of what we have.
Ms Murdock: How often would that letter be sent?
Mr Weir: Once a year, and we cart them off to bicycle functions. Wherever we might run into a cyclist we come prepared.
Ms Murdock: Do you work at all with the OPP on this? I know in my riding I just heard on the weekend -- the OPP have a show on the cable channel and they are having bicycle carnivals, I guess they are.
Mr Weir: Rodeos?
Ms Murdock: Rodeos. I wonder if the Ministry of Transportation was involved in that at all.
Mr Weir: In fact, most of the police use a program that we developed back in the 1970s, and it's been amended from time to time, called the Go Safely Cyclers' Course.
Ms Murdock: That's what it is.
Mr Weir: Yes. That's our program.
The Acting Chair: Any further questions? There being none, thank you very much for coming down this afternoon. We apologize for the delay; sorry to keep you waiting. It seems we're always keeping you waiting, and we appreciate your patience.
Mr Weir: My pleasure. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: There being no further business before the committee, we'll adjourn till 3:30 Wednesday. I remind the subcommittee members that there is a meeting on Wednesday. There is as yet no agenda, so the subcommittee may want to consider what exactly it is going to do this Wednesday and advise the rest of the committee.
The committee adjourned at 1754.