Canada Election 2015

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

I could quite seriously detail this thread with talking about motorcycle helmets. One of my favourite topics and incidentally has a wealth of data.

I am absolutely fascinated by the general public's relative obsession with helmet laws (more so in the US) and the hyperbolic language used around said topic.

Some interesting tidbits: More pedestrians are killed each year compared to motorcyclists in Canada, perhaps we should consider helmet laws for pedestrians as well.

Interesting case study about Louisiana helmet laws:

https://wmoon.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/louisiana-injuries-and-motorcycle-registrations/

Indications motorcycle injuries/fatalities aren't generally related to helmet usage or even training:

https://wmoon.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/smeed%E2%80%99s-law-and-motorcycle-fatalities/

Do you also have figures for the total number of pedestrians and how many pedestrian trips were taken compared to the number of motorcyclists and the number of motorcycle trips? We'd need to know the rate of fatalities because the absolute number doesn't mean much. Also, do you have stats on the frequency and seriousness of head injuries with a helmet and without? Obviously most "injuries" aren't going to be head related as the head is, what 10% of the human anatomy?

But as for the actual helmet laws, we'd need to review that based on its own merits separately.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

All I'm assuming is that it's riskier to ride with a turban than to take a citizenship oath with a niqab.

Maybe not -- what if there's a crowd of bigots with pitforks and torches waiting for you outside the building?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

We'd need to know the rate of fatalities because the absolute number doesn't mean much.

The absolute numbers matter because it implies how much burden these demographics are on our health care system. If 100% of daredevil skydivers who leap out of cars heading into the river whilst on fire are killed, it doesn't mean we should spend time, money, and effort on establishing safety laws for that demographic.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

These days it's not uncommon for safety rules to be circumvented for religious reasons.

Sometimes there are tragic consequences:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/family-sees-mo...ak-gokarting-accident-20100408-rvci.html

Still with the turban, I would say that it's also different from the niqab issue as there is no gender rights angle to it at all.

I hope you aren't assuming that because it's "not uncommon" that I would support it or that I would consider such incidents as precedents to allowing more safety negating exceptions? If anything, it makes me feel more strongly that if there are specific, quantifiable, safety concerns that there shouldn't be exceptions.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The absolute numbers matter because it implies how much burden these demographics are on our health care system. If 100% of daredevil skydivers who leap out of cars heading into the river whilst on fire are killed, it doesn't mean we should spend time, money, and effort on establishing safety laws for that demographic.

You're both right... relative numbers matter too because the effort (collective spending, sum of the individual time lost, etc.) required to, say, have all pedestrians in full body armor, is a lot higher than the cost to have all motorcycle riders in full body armor.

So the "ROI" for society would be higher in the latter case even though more pedestrians die than motorcycle riders every year.

[Dmajackson]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Another couple points drop and the NDP go from 96 to probably somewhere closer to 75. Just really depends on what areas they lose support in.

In one of their relatively strong ridings 308 has Megan Leslie's Halifax riding as a toss-up and I find this extremely hard to believe, whereas I find it hard to believe that the NDP are an automatic shoe-in in Acadie-Bathurst....they'll win, but not by as much as predicted right now.

Actually I think they have it right for the moment.

Halifax is a left-wing area and if we had proportional representation then we would vote for the NDP every election. However, instead we have FPTP which means you have to vote strategically to overthrow extremely unpopular leaders. Halifax is well-educated so if the NDP is truly in a free-fall and we hear that here we will vote in a Liberal candidate in the hopes of overthrowing Harper which is #1 priority right now.

What really worries me right now is 308 has Central Nova going to the CPC. This is Peter MacKay's riding so people there are used to getting better-than-normal treatment by the CPC's which may be leaning some to vote for the CPC's only to realize that backbenchers have no say in the CPC dictatorship. Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland have to stay strong and vote ABC to send a message to Ottawa.

One nice thing about this election is even if it goes south and the CPC wins the most seats I believe the LPC will have more popular support. This will hopefully cause LPC to realize how barbaric FPTP is and in the two years it takes Harper to implode his party the LPC can talk with NDP and GPC and get a solid plan for proportional representation which they could easily pass with the LPC majority coming in 2018.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

The Liberals released their plan

https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf

I can't stand how each new Liberal plan constantly reads like throwing money around to everyone. I think it speaks to their weak leadership that their idea of a plan is clearly a compromise between likely all members of their current and prospective caucus so everybody and every region gets a little piece of the big buttery juicy Federal Government Spending Pie.

You can reduce the NDP platform and the Conservative platform down to a few central planks upon which they will focus their legislative assembly mandates. With the Liberals, they are literally all over the place in a manner that does not inspire confidence.

I think of the three platforms, both the NDP and Conservatives would be more impactful to everyday life.

[Acajack]

Lio, I am thinking the current zeitgeist in favour of religious exceptions could indirectly represent a bonus for a libertarian like you!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I hope you aren't assuming that because it's "not uncommon" that I would support it or that I would consider such incidents as precedents to allowing more safety negating exceptions? If anything, it makes me feel more strongly that if there are specific, quantifiable, safety concerns that there shouldn't be exceptions.

I'd say a case can still be made for a religious exemption provided that the danger is only to the individual making that decision of his or her own free will. I am not sure which way such a case would go though...

We already technically kind of do it for Jehovah's Witnesses who are allowed to refuse blood transfusions and such...

[Acajack]

About 5 years ago in the GTA a Sikh man who did not want to wear a hard hat on a construction site I believe won his discrimination case...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The absolute numbers matter because it implies how much burden these demographics are on our health care system. If 100% of daredevil skydivers who leap out of cars heading into the river whilst on fire are killed, it doesn't mean we should spend time, money, and effort on establishing safety laws for that demographic.

There are already laws and regulations pertaining to skydiving, and they wouldn't permit anything that dangerous. Laws don't need to be anywhere specific enough to include all the "what not to do" scenarios. They can cheaply and effectively perform their purpose but stipulating what you must do instead.

As far as the burden on the healthcare system, that isn't the only relevant factor. If you look at absolute numbers rather than rates, then you may see the cost to the healthcare system, but you're not recognising the cost and complexity involved in implementing the safety feature. If you're forcing a safety feature on a huge number of people to mitigate the risk experienced by a tiny percentage, the impact on the people who aren't affected by the risk is far higher than a safety feature involving a small number of people at a much higher overall risk. In the pedestrians example, you'd have huge numbers of people who'd need to go out and buy millions or billions of dollars worth of helmets and carry them at all times in case they wanted to walk somewhere, you'd have large numbers of people who otherwise would have walked choosing another form of transportation (another health affect) and you'd have money spent on enforcement if you actually wanted people to follow the laws. So yes, it's the rates that matter.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I'd say a case can still be made for a religious exemption provided that the danger is only to the individual making that decision of his or her own free will. I am not sure which way such a case would go though...

We already technically kind of do it for Jehovah's Witnesses who are allowed to refuse blood transfusions and such...

Agreed. I think we can always make a "case" for religious exemptions and I've always advocated for a case by case approach. But if I were making the decisions, I'm afraid I wouldn't be very generous in terms of granting exceptions.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Agreed. I think we can always make a "case" for religious exemptions and I've always advocated for a case by case approach. But if I were making the decisions, I'm afraid I wouldn't be very generous in terms of granting exceptions.

I'd say the political and legal door is pretty wide open in Canada for such accommodations these days. Regardless of whether safety concerns are involved or not.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

In the pedestrians example, you'd have huge numbers of people who'd need to go out and buy millions or billions of dollars worth of helmets and carry them at all times in case they wanted to walk somewhere, you'd have large numbers of people who otherwise would have walked choosing another form of transportation (another health affect) and you'd have money spent on enforcement if you actually wanted people to follow the laws.

First of all I've never really heard "money spent on enforcement" being a net negative. These "enforcement" tickets, from speeding tickets to helmet tickets, all generate revenue.

And you encapsulated a great line of thinking as it pertains to democracy. Tyranny of the majority. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. The weak evidence for helmet law safety doesn't really matter, the majority want riders to wear helmets because they don't ride, they aren't themselves burdened, and they generally have a bias against the riding demographic.

It would never happen for pedestrians because they wouldn't vote against their own interests.

It's interesting because helmet safety extends even to car drivers and car fatalities. If you can afford a car you should be able to afford a helmet for additional safety. But again, it would never happen. Like you said, too much burden.

[Migs]

With the TPP signed this makes Canada the only G7 nation with free trade access to all of the US, Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific that’s more than 60% of world’s economy.

Well done Conservatives, this deal should catapult us over the top!

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by Dmajackson

Actually I think they have it right for the moment.

Halifax is a left-wing area and if we had proportional representation then we would vote for the NDP every election. However, instead we have FPTP which means you have to vote strategically to overthrow extremely unpopular leaders. Halifax is well-educated so if the NDP is truly in a free-fall and we hear that here we will vote in a Liberal candidate in the hopes of overthrowing Harper which is #1 priority right now.

What really worries me right now is 308 has Central Nova going to the CPC. This is Peter MacKay's riding so people there are used to getting better-than-normal treatment by the CPC's which may be leaning some to vote for the CPC's only to realize that backbenchers have no say in the CPC dictatorship. Nova Scotia, PEI, and Newfoundland have to stay strong and vote ABC to send a message to Ottawa.

One nice thing about this election is even if it goes south and the CPC wins the most seats I believe the LPC will have more popular support. This will hopefully cause LPC to realize how barbaric FPTP is and in the two years it takes Harper to implode his party the LPC can talk with NDP and GPC and get a solid plan for proportional representation which they could easily pass with the LPC majority coming in 2018.

In the riding of Halifax, the strategic voting *shouldn't* be a factor, since the Conservatives are a distant third there. However, the fear factor might turn them around anyway...since Harper is not just hated there, he is despised.

[MolsonExport]

More pedestrians are killed each year compared to motorcyclists in Canada, perhaps we should consider helmet laws for pedestrians as well.

Classic example of the base rate fallacy.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of pedestrians to motorcyclists.
And I reckon that while most motorcyclists are also pedestrians, proportionately few pedestrians are also motorcyclists.
A straw man.

The base rate fallacy is also responsible for the (extreme) overestimation of extremists among Muslims; something which is extremely unfortunate.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Classic example of the base rate fallacy.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of pedestrians to motorcyclists.
And I reckon that while most motorcyclists are also pedestrians, few pedestrians are also motorcyclists.
A straw man.

A straw man is attacking an argument that was never made to be more easily defeated. I actually didn't do that this time.

Replace pedestrian with car drivers if it pleases you, the case is the same.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Migs

With the TPP signed this makes Canada the only G7 nation with free trade access to all of the US, Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific that’s more than 60% of world’s economy.

Well done Conservatives, this deal should catapult us over the top!

over the top of what?



simpletoremember

[ssiguy]

The decline of the NDP is Mulcair's own fault.

For someone who is as intelligent, articulate, and politically savvy as he is I am quite surprised at his lack of coherency in this campaign.

It was he who choose to try to move the party and it's policies slightly right to appeal to the masses where he had to try to compete with Harper on the fiscal side and he left the entire left completely open to the Liberals and they took advantage of that misstep with zeal.

The niqab issue isn't really one in most of the country and certainly not a big enough deal to change anyone's vote.............except in Quebec. Considering Quebec is his bastion of support you would think he would be far better versed in it's sensitivities and priorities. All he had to say is that he was against it and the whole conversation would have been over but he didn't. How he could make such an incompetent political move and misunderstand his Quebec base ,and his own province, is truly bewildering and it is costing him dearly.

The NDP has had the wind taken out of it's sails and the obvious, and expected, beneficiaries are the Liberals. The Liberals have run a masterful campaign and Trudeau has done a truly stellar job in rejuvenating the party's base, finances, policies, and hopes that I don't think anyone could have done better.

At the beginning of the campaign, the centre/left vote was evenly split and the ABC vote didn't know where to go as they didn't know which party had the best chance of beating Harper............they bided their time until a front runner could emerge and it could have been the NDP of Liberals but Mulcairs missteps and Trudeau's excellent performance has made up the centre/left fence sitters mind.........the are flocking to the Liberals.

This was any one's race to win but now it is clearly a battle between 2 parties.