Recreational Snowmobilers Are Dying (2)

I agree.  400 series highways have certain speed limits, towns do, and school zones do.  It would need to be comprehensive but put in guidelines that apply to ski hills AND guidelines that apply to backwoods relatively near civilation for things like day trips etc or backwoods that are going to be either.  The guidelines would have to cover not only the people involved and their ages but also what their purpose is in going there.  THe guidelines would then either be made into laws or learning about the guidelines would be made into laws.

I stated some general categories for laws above.  In terms of specific I can't speak of the exact ones for snowmobiling and skiing etc because I don't know enough about the dangers involved in the specific sports, that was what I was hoping to learn about while I was lurking earlier.  But I can speak of generally outdoorsy rules that I know from outdoorsmanship

Examples:

It would be the law that if you were to go into designated areas that you notify authorities (Conservation Authorities, RCMP or a governing body) who you are, where your destination is, how you will be going and when you will be back.  This is a guideline right now that needs to be made into law.  It lets people know the seriousness of going into those areas and that it is not just a fun trip into the woods.

It would be the law that if you wanted to camp in said wilderness areas you must have the knowledge to know how to survive in that area, or at within a party have a "guide".  This could be done much the way the drivers license system is done only on a tiered system of different areas, from time length to type of environment (ie winter camping versus summer camping or area) and if you were going alone, in an experienced group or leading a group of inexperienced campers.

It would be a law that if you are in a boat, canoe, kayak etc in certain types of water flow you would be expected to wear a helmet.  And that life jackets would be mandatory to wear for all ages depending upon the boat that you have.

These laws would help people realize the seriousness of what they are getting into.  I once went camping with a friend of mine who was amazed because I brought food.  He had mostly brought beer.  We were going backcountry camping for 5 days and he had brought enough food for about 3, luckily I had enough for 10 days.  I knew he was an inexperienced camper going out so I prepared for both of us and we had a lot of fun in the end.  He did realize the seriousness of what we were into once we were out and he would comment oh shit, how are we going to..... and I would pull out the right thing to make us a latrine, to cover up our fire pit and to keep us warm even though it was summer.

 

The gist that I get from Unionist (and Unionist I know you will correct me if I'm wrong  ) is that he isn't talking about a specific thing like banning people from areas outright he just wants to put laws in which he admittadly doesn't know enough about the sports in general to know what they could be to help save lives.   And Unfortuneatley no one here is telling him what they could be for the specific sports.

Personally I don't look at the laws and say well they need to be there so that we can catch the people who don't do it.  We should have these laws because so many people don't realize what they are getting into.

I am not speaking from some of the snowmobilers that died in the accidents as I do not know each case and what it means to be an experienced snowmobiler, as that is more of a subjective assessment now and not an objective one that could be assessed.  I am merely speaking for the number of people who are out in the wilderness, cold, whatever that really needed more training to be there.

I think it is unconscionable to publish this photograph of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett riding a motorcycle sans helmets:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2008/11/03/brad-pitt-benjamin-button-3/

Such unsafe behavior simply shouldn't be encouraged...even if only implicitly.

More laws, please!!!

When I ride my bike, I wear a helmet.  Sometimes, if I ride the three blocks to the nearest gas station, I'll putter over there without one, but generally I always wear my bean protector.

But, should there be a law forcing me to wear a helmet...to protect me from my own stupidity if I chose not to wear one?

I don't think so.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Sven's libertarian thinking is right in line with his Congress, which in 1976 revoked the authority of the states to impose sanctions for not wearing helmets. At that time, all but three states had motorcycle helmet laws.

What happened after Sven's rugged individualism took hold?

Canada, however, has been slow to appreciate the fundamental human-rights signficance of Sven's right to dignified maiming and death on the road:

Source.

And thanks, Refuge, for turning your attention to this problem. Glad to have someone on the file that knows something (i.e., not me!).

I can't believe this thread is still going. 

If it can be shown that helmets reduce injuries then yes, in this case, there should be a law. In Canada, medical treatment is socialized, so I'm guessing this is the reason, and the only reason, why Canada is a "world leader" in motorcycle helmet laws. Note that the motivating factor is probably injuries requiring lengthy, costly medical treatment and not deaths. Who cares if you get killed while engaging in a risky recreational activity? I don't. One less idiot in the gene pool.

I think the increased money used in human power and to set up the resources would be worth it. Here's my answer to the enforcement or people caring about getting caught from post #1:

 I think that everyone who lives in more wilderness areas would be familiar with the knowledge, just like everyone who grows up around guns is more easily able to get a firearms license.  Though I am not an expert on the subject I believe first nations people are exempt from licensing (from the government perspective) not because of their greater understanding of hunting over other hunters but because they don't have to keep to the maximum kills, hunting seasons etc that are requirements of the licensing. I think native issues needed to be treated differently in all areas, not because they know more but because they need to be respected as the people who invited the Europeans to live along side them, not govern them.  If they have their own traditional governmental bodies then they need to be respected as having their own laws and rules.  If they want to be a part of the Canadian system then the outdoor rules can be set up in a similar way as the hunting regulations ie they don't need a license to hunt for food or to pass on their traditional ways and if they are "camping" to pass on traditional ways that should be allowed as per the rules of their community.

Again here is my response from post #1

 

I agree if people are macho or too cool for warnings, helmets etc they likely are aware of the risks or that there are risks but don't care.  I am talking about putting in laws for the people that do care so they have an easy way to get informed about what they ARE suppose to do.

I don't know the stats on ski injuries, Sven. Nor am I arguing about it. But I would guess, in Canada at least, that if they were significant enough, then some provinces might legislate the wearing of helmets for skiing. Problem with skiing is that it's a big business and a big part of the tourism industry at least in AB and BC, so putting in restrictive laws on a big business recreational activity like that would be a lot more difficult politically. Don't snowboarders have to wear helmets in competition?
 

Helmets-schmelmets.  Skiing with helmets is the least of my concerns.  If you're flying down a hill at 100+ km/h and hit a wicked mogul at the wrong angle, you can get severely injured or killed even if you're wearing a helmet.

What is desperately needed is a very low speed limit!!

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

 

 Yes and the licensing could be done to opt in or out of certain types of outdoor wilderness sports.

Yes, and they can be checked inside the areas as well.  In fact for snowmobiling the police are inside areas for things like drunk driving, which you can't even do on your personal property.  It is not a perfect system but it is a system. 

Strawman - I didn't say there was no intention or means of enforcement. 

But even laws that are harder to enforce I disagree that they are a waste of time and money.  It is really hard to enforce drinking and driving on a snowmobile yet I think that it is an important law to keep on the books. That's my opinion.

Likewise with drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, Unionist?

After all, those three things are responsible for millions of deaths annually (not just an odd snowmobiler here and there). 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Unbelievable. People on Babble saying that a Canadian stepping out their back door into the "wilderness" would need a permit and have to report to the RCMP.  WTF is that about.  Is this some sort of urban stupidity or just fascist yearnings?

Even in a city like North Van (that is like many many many places in Canada) if you live in many neighborhoods you are literally in the completely untamed wilderness by stepping out your back door and walking a hundred metres.

This "progressive" board has definitely regressed.  Bring on the police and arrest me for going hiking, something I started doing from my backdoor into the wilderness when I was about 10 years old. 

This fucking thread has shown me totally why I am weaning myself off of this chat forum.  Police solutions invoked to limit personal choice issues. Lock up all those dissidents who think that the wilderness is a Canadian birthright. 

 

LETS INFORM THE POLICE ABOUT EVERY MOVEMENT WE MAKE JUST TO BE SAVE

Anyone who would trade liberty for security deserves neither. B. Franklin 

Kropotkin, even a dyed-in-the-wool anarchist needs to make a few compromises if she wants to live in a society. Perhaps the U.S. (à la Ben Franklin) comes closer to your ideal of "freedom" than Canada?

Promises, promises...

Kropotkin I am only going to say - Strawman. This is not even close to what I said let alone meant.

No, you didn't say that, nor did I suggest you had.  I said the sort of regulations that are being bandied about are largely unenforceable and I maintain that they are.  You've previously said that enforcement isn't all that relevent, and I've explained why I think that's an impractical point of view.

You're asking to legislate common sense without using any in regard to how that legislation could be made anything but symbolic.

Oh, how very generous and high minded of you.  I am, of course, ever so grateful that you're letting me off the hook. 

 There is a cost to legislators taking the time to draft and put in place legislation, publish it and set up whatever licensing infrastructures are necessary, depending on what shape these regulations take in their final form.  Time is money, I don't see the point of wasting it on legislation that isn't fully intended to be enforced.

The point is that such regulations aren't enforceable, and I refuse to banter about whether they're worthwhile in the abstract given the practicalities. 

Speaking of time and money, gotta get back to work.  Ciao.

Would you like to get into a no I didn't, yes I did argument? Cause I sure don't.

Um, that should be "Franklin", not "Frankly".

Apples and Oranges, unionist. What has been proposed is a liscencing system for any sort of wilderness activity, where the government decides if you are capable or doing camping, skidoo-ing etc. in whatever it designates as wilderness -in conjunction with the requirement by law to report one's exact time and date of entering the wilderness. The humanpower required to create such a system is difficult to even calculate. Would one need to know how to operate a firearm to use against an attacking grizzly to qualify as capable? Or would one need to know how to do First Aid or hunt their own food should they get stuck? Who would determine these guidelines?

 Seatbelt laws are applicable on public highways throughout Canada and enforceable via highway patrol.  It is a sensible law that saves lives. I am not against helmet laws either and I don't care if they cover every inch of Canada. If for some strange reason a police officer happens to be in the middle of nowhere on the Hudson's Bay and see someone without their helmet, by all means charge them. The chances of it happening are next to nil and there is no expense to have the law on the books - as long the goal is not to have police covering every inch of this massive country.

 However, requiring licenses for any sort of wilderness activity seems ridiculous. Hunting and fishing licenses are required due to the need to adequately protect stocks for future generations and biodiversity's sake. Officers are not going to be in the backcountry inspecting, but within civilization's limits checking how many animals/fish the outdoorsperson is returning with. This also makes sense.

To say that drugs have not been proven harmful is ridiculous as well. Have you been to the downtown east side? Have you ever worked with a family where one member has alcoholism? Philosophically, I do not believe in prohibition. This is not because I deny the health effects, but because I believe in personal freedom. Minors should not be legally able to purchase anything on their own, but once an adult the State should never require a license proving that this person can responsibly use this substance.

I also support a pregnant woman's right to use substances while pregnant. We can warn women of the risks - as we can warn skidooers of the risks of avalanches - but in the end each person's personal freedom means that we may have children with FAS and skidooers who are killed or paralyzed and the accompanying costs to the healthcare system.

   You know I was planning on going for a snowshoe hike this afternoon in a conservation area, since the weather is finally sunny here.

 Now I'm not so sure. I  mean am capable and skilled enough?  Maybe I should go check with my local government office to make sure that I'll be okay.

Shades of Wayne's World...

Unionist, I can't tell if this is just some kind of secret contest you have going to see how long you can keep people posting on an inane topic - keeping the thread link visible on the front page of Rabble - or if it's something that really, genuinely concerns you, in which case I would assume you would have already begun your letter-writing and lobbying efforts, since the matter is of such urgent importance, more so even that the number of people dying of AIDS in Africa.

But if you are truly concerned, you haven't really indicated why. Is it the deaths that bother you? Your rather maudlin and melodramatic thread title suggests that it is. Are you concerned about declining snowmobiler populations? Is it the injuries? Either way, you haven't really indicated why this is such a serious problem affecting society at large, as opposed to, for example, just their families.

Certainly everyone can be concerned about transportation safety issues and workplace safety. No one should have to be killed on the job if that's not an inherent risk of the occupation, just as no one driving safely on our highways should be killed by systemic negligence. 

There are numerous risky sports where people are injured or killed, but I don't see you starting threads titled: "Base jumpers are DYING!", "Moto-crossers are DYING!", "Even sport fishers are DYING!".  So what's the real deal? Is this just a joke? If so, I would suggest it actually is trivializing much more serious issues - and deaths - occurring around the globe right now.

Well, I will have to get a permit to leave my house and go to my vehicle, say nothing of berry picking, and snow shoeing.

___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"

This is now the third thread on snowmobilers' deaths in the last month on Babble and Unionist has failed to explain to us why it matters.

I would agreee with you on the last statement except that I don't see the occasional deaths of snowmobilers as a problem. But I appreciate that you answered my question and am satisfied at least that this isn't a mere humorous exercise for you.

 

Dana, I agree with you to an extent, but you should be aware that not one single person has suggested that criminal law be used as the tool here.

Having said that, how would you apply your approach to helmet and seatbelt legislation?

BTW, Unionist, thankyou clearing up your intent as well, it helped me see why so many people may have been having problems with my post (they have been misunderstanding my intent as well) so I adjusted my last post to try and make it clearer.

In my mind, the need for a driver's license is to prevent you from doing harm to others due to your poor driving skills. I am not opposed to this. A firearms or hunting license is the same idea, because you an easily harm someone else with a gun or while hunting, so that law is to prevent potential harm to others.Passing the bar is a professional requirement to do a specific job, to me that is whole different thing. Perhaps I misunderstand. When people say "there should be a law" what kind of law do they mean, other than criminal law? What other kinds of laws are there other than those which use criminal prohibition?If it "against the law" to hike in a wilderness area without a permit, then how does that law get enforced except in the criminal code? If it is "against the law" to bicycle without a helmet, then the police punish those who bicycle without a helmet.

Dana, are you being serious? You're an activist and organizer on such issues. Surely you are aware that (for example) all provincial and municipal prohibitions - speeding, going through red lights, smoking in restaurants, seatbelts, you name it - are non-criminal in nature? Only the federal parliament is allowed to legislate crimes.

Also, your statement that the police "punish" is odd. Police may be tasked with monitoring and enforcing all kinds of laws. That doesn't give them the power of arrest (never mind "punishment"!) and it doesn't make the infraction a criminal offence.

Interesting point of view Dana

What about parents who neglect to buckle their children in. In Many countries in Europe and the middle east it's uncommon to use seatbelt's. I've seen kids standing up in the front seat on their parents, kids 5 or 6 years old riding on top of busses.  When an accident occurs with unbuckled children (and adults) in it it tds to be very gruesome.

If not police, who do you think should monitor saftey?

Also enforcing seatbelt and helmet rules isn't only just to protect said person.  When someone is injured from a car crash (in which they would otherwise have walked away from had they been wearing a seatbelt say)  it costs money, resourses, manpower. How many resourses get tied up in bringing someone to the hospital?

It's like pregnancy tests.  A woman can go to walmart pay $7 and do a pregnancy test.

OR she can go to the hospital, tie up the resourses of a nurse to do the test for her. The nurse ses the same $7 test kit only (and this from a doctor) the money spent on manpower having the hospital do the tests was an extra $90 (all things considered).

In the case of someone from a car crash who increased the seriousness of their injuries due to lack of seatbelt/helmet it puts a larger strain on hospitals and staff.

It seems like an extra added cost to have automatic seatbelts that someone can just disable anyways.

Instead of lower insurence or someone with an auto-seatbelt what about something where the cars computer registers wether or not seatbelts were fastened during the crash and if they were that the person in the crash recieves more money back or something?

I don't think someone should get special consideration when saftey (or security) is the issue.  My work fired a Sikh some years ago because he refused to take his turban off. He was required to take it off and wear both a helmet and gasmask but he felt he didn't have to. He was kicked out, tried to sue but withdrew it.

Well naturally all legal regulation has to be backed by consequences for non-compliance. Losing one's licence is an example. Paying interest and penalties on unpaid taxes is another. Is that "punishment"? Hardly. But even if it is, it's hardly "criminal".

Everyone knows what it means to have a criminal record. You can't get one by not wearing a seatbelt. You can for driving while impaired - which happens to be in the Criminal Code.

Legal regulations without consequences for non-compliances would be a significant waste of time as well as a clear message that society doesn't care whether you are reckless and negligent or not.

For all the high-spirited libertarian sarcasm, I doubt if many here will tear out their hair if authorities come around to banning - with prejudice - recreational sledding in certain areas whenever an extreme risk of avalanche is acknowledged.

 That's no joke. It hurt Like hell. 

 

I want nothing or expect anything from the long dead horse. I am asking what would Unionist, and perhaps you, have the Government regulate to prevent future similar injuries?

 I'd also like to know what they think should be done to help deal with the 2nd highest category of severe injuries in Canada. That report has me  concerned and worried now.  Those numbers dwarf recreational ones. 

 

 Rage? Interesting that's what you see. Perhaps the sarcasm extends from all of the political labeling as slurs and the implications coming from conflating anyone who doesn't agree 100%  with being just like those on the 'other' side of the gun debate as well as other disengenous emotional  manipulations to control the parameters of the debate to fit into ones own personal parameters of what 'social good' is. 

 I agree. It needs some reflection. Hope you take your own advice.  

 

  Thanks for the synopsis.  I don't see rage. I see frustration but mostly just disbelief expressed in harder language.
 Political debate is funny sometimes. Things don't have to be overt to have the same meaning.  Some of the best are those that use calm and cool language.  It's doesn't have to be full of literal wtf? To imply wtf or to imply other non-literal meaning. 

 If it makes you feel better to explain away peoples reactions to whats being said by saying calmy and cooly, "Well this is just like a gun debate" with all the implied and unsaid implications of that as well as how that implies that on a left leaning board that puts you in the right and better and thusly allieviating you from actually pondering or reflecting further on 'why?' all this reaction then that's pretty much discussion over.  Who would really want to keep discussing anything in a serious manner with all of that hanging over it.  It's now edging into  matter of left vs right and all the stereotypes that a gun disscussion always seems to delve into.  The parameters of debate have been reset.  

 The saracasm I see here on this thread appears to come from a disbelief not rage.  

 

 If it makes someone like Martin feel better to throw out political labels such as 'libertarion' or 'anarchist' in the manner that such labels are used as slurs and moral and political positioning tactics, to explain it all away  then fine, again though, who would really want to continue any serious disscussion when at the meta level it's bascially being turned into debate about political labels and again right and left, rather then the actual issues at hand. 

As far as all those who have reacted with cpmments and yes some quite aggressive about urban vs rural, or this vs that have you ever considered the possibility that although that binary argument is rife with stereotypes that there might be actual reasons that sort of comment comes up in discussion like this? That perhaps, that though they come off aggressively or viscerally in some cases, that there may be actually some grain of truth in them that should be contemplated before passing them off as spurious? 

  It's interesting I lived urban for most of my life and in most of my political and activist work thought the whole urban vs rural was a crock and couldn't understand what the problem was.  Now that my situation has changed I'm beginning to understand it more, and beginning to understand from a different perspective that it's not something that comes from nowhere.  You can take that anyway you want, as a calm cool 'attack', as me talking out of my butt or perhaps something that deserves more reflection.   Don't particularly care at this point.

And progressive people should also have the capabilties of overcoming or looking through peoples arguements or insults to get to the root of what's going on behind the comments, instead of just always arguing or getting worked up about how people are arguing and in doing so implying judgement on how progressive people should be and conflating them with all the stereotypes of other contentious debates in order to enact some sort of 'progressive' positioning on the issue.  

 

Well, ElizaQ you see that as what Unionist (don't know if you also say me as doing this or not as I was on Unionist's "side") is doing and yet when I took time to reflect and I saw that on "the other side" of the debate.

To me the conflating of the argument is on the urban vs rural, government control etc etc.  When I read the initial thread my understanding of Unionists intent was to

1.Identify the Hazard (in his particular question on snowmobile)

2. Decide who might be harmed and how

3. Evaluate the risks and decide whether the exisiting precautions are adequate or more should be done

4.Review Assessment and revise if necessary

I didn't jump in for quite some time because I don't know a lot about winter sports in general so I was hoping that people that did would start talking about some of the problems (ie Hazards) that are involved and then go on with the rest of the assessment however that never happened.

I then jumped in to talk about a hazard in the wilderness -

1. Lack of knowledge

2. Who is effected -people who don't have the skillls, tools necessary to be out there

3. The only current measures are voluntary courses or gathering of information which have problems because they can change easily for different areas, different contexts, different people teaching.

So I proposed to set a standard by using the law that would make it very easy for people to get the information they needed because it would set an unchanging standard for particular places or events that would be easy to access and to find out.

Once I proposed this I get a lot of feedback.  Some of it I found very relevant for changing my idea ie, the first nations issue, the enforcement made me think about that end, of which I am not an expert but did find out that there is a current way of dealing with enforcement right now for similar laws like hunting, fishing, boating, firearms.

Other stuff is what I feel the conflating and yes the  "conflating anyone who doesn't agree 100%" comes in.

Statements like

How are these statements suppose to help me evalutate my proposition?  If I was given specific situations, as with the First Nations it could have helped me change and modify what I was saying and maybe it would have even been changed and modified out of exisitence, I don't know that because unfortunately I was given statements like the above that did not have to do with my proposal but did have conflagurating the issue with other issues. 

Ghislaine was one of the definete exceptions to this, her comments made me reflect and change what I was saying and I am still pondering about who would be the one to decide what the legislation should be, that is a very good questions that I don't have the answer to yet, or maybe at all.

Also one thing was changing the parameters of the discussion.  Changing the subject to other areas of safety such as tobagganing, going into the innercity, as far as what I could see this posting was about coming up with solutions, not proposing problems, unless you could say hey, this is a problem to and here is a rational solution I don't see it as a very positve part of the conversation, for me.  People would take my statements about a particular situation and  conflagulate by taking the proposal to help one particular issue and bring that exact proposal to another issue with different factors involved. That creates "disengenous emotional  manipulations to control the parameters of the debate to fit into ones own personal parameters of what 'social good' is" by changing the parameters specifically from what I was talking about, ie possible solutions to untrained people going out into the wilderness, or Unionist was talking about, seeing if there was anything that could be put in to help people who get involved in these situations stay out of them.

Yes, I asked Unionist if this answered his question about this being like a right to fire arms debate, not because I was saying any particular person was right or left or urban or rural but because in fire arms debates these types of tactics also come up, it is also why I said it directly to Unionist and to no one else.  And if I recall the only reason that Unionist mentioned it was because he was asked point blank what he thought this was like.

 I, unfortunetly, think what could have been a good discussion about hazards in the wilderness and some possible solutions has been hijaked by other issues and beliefs and don't know if we will be able to continue on a good discussion of risk assessment and what could be done about these risks, if anything.  That is why I dropped out of the discussion quite some time ago.  I would have liked to explore the education aspect a little more, I don't know very much about advertising campaigns, effectiveness etc but I felt like people weren't talking about the same thing anymore.

As I mentioned in another thread: I think all males should be required (by the government, of course) to wear athletic cups....24/7. You never when a male could walk around the corner in an office and run into an errantly place chair. It would be for their own best interests.

Also, all car occupants should be required to wear helmets. The majority of serious and fatal car injuries are head injuries. A six-belt retraint system (much like those found in NASCAR or Formula 1 vehicles) should be required of all occupants in vehicles. It would significantly reduce the risk of serious or fatal injuries. Best recommendation of all? No private vehicle should be permitted to exceed a 25 km/h speed limit. Do you have any idea how many lives that would save each year?!?!?!

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

The death of a snowmobiler buried under an avalanche in central British Columbia brings to 19 the death toll from snow slides in Western Canada this winter.

Widow dies in jet-ski accident while on holiday

 

I read about a beginner who just fell down during a lesson on a baby slope - bumped her head - and died. She wasn't wearing a helmet-schmelmet.

 

Scientists puzzled at reports of person posting after brain removed

 

21-year-old killed while standing in line

 It's not really a subject one can take seriously. Sorry. 

 

Well, me and my roommates all post under the same account. My cat even gets in there sometimes. And she's republican.
 

They are talking of disallowing bikini line waxing in New Jersey, because 2 women were injured.

Yes, heavy sugary snow last night with melting all day in the Robson Valley.

Some perspective,  as I find the intent to this thread troublng. I was watching a program last night about sailing and boating accidents.  It stated  there are over 6500 deaths per year occur in the waters, and off the coast, of NA due to sailing and boating incidents/accidents.

Very little avalance danger here for snowmobilers - the main danger is weak ice over rivers, ponds, and lakes. We use our skidoos all winter because we have few connecting roads between the villages, and those connecting roads we do have are not plowed in winter (except between Old Fort and Blanc Sablon, quite a ways east). Because we rely on these machines for our very survival, we're extremely careful with them, and rarely venture off the established trails, except when cutting wood in the bush, or going to winter camps for ice fishing. There's talk now of connecting Quebec's Route 138 throughout the Lower North Shore, but we'll see.

24-year-old snowmobiler dies in B.C. avalanche near Alberta border

 

So that when you're thrown from your vehicle, your body doesn't hit and injure an innocent bystander.

 

Seatbelts should obviously be required on buses, and they will be.

While riding a bike? Great idea, as long as the bike is inside a bus.

 

Beyond me why people like skidoos. They are smelly and noisy.

Cross country skiing is the way to travel.

Why are you more worried about recreational winter activities than spring, summer and fall ones that kill more,  like boating? And yes as a matter of fact there was unionist, driving on the hwys.

 

How many people died in recreational boating accidents in B.C. in spring, summer, and fall?

What are the relative odds of getting killed while driving a vehicle on a B.C. highway vs. while snowmobiling in B.C. mountains?

I assume you know the answers to these questions, given your reaction to reports of snowmobile deaths. See, I don't know the answers, which is why I'm asking.

 

Perhaps you should look up the answers? As it seems you are the one targeting one recreational sport over others.

For interests sake, 11 people died on the roads just around here this winter, as opposed to 2 sledders.

Closing for length. Start a part 3 if you like.