|
|
|
|
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 5:31:39 PM | Just a couple additional things.
Upwards of 35% of the vehicles seized are rental cars. How is that fair to the businesses renting them out?
The media has reported several cops abusing their powers and they are being investigated, however, the owners of the vehicles seized by those cops under this new law HAVE NO LEGAL RECOURSE, even though they are INNOCENT.
You can have multiple drivers all obeying the law 100% and still have an accident. Cops then lay charges and let the courts sort it out. Someone somewhere is "more at fault" than someone else. So go ahead, drive in any lane you like doing the speed limit, but dont be surprised if your involved in a collison from behind or side swipped, it might not be your fault, but it could be your life or those you love. The law also states for slower traffic to keep right. So if your in the middle lanes going the speed limit and you are passed on your right, you ARE breaking the law. I think you simply dont know ALL of the road laws. You only choose to follow the ones you know of.
Even if you are doing 100Kms in the right lane and everyone else is going noticably faster, you ARE breaking the law by not going with the flow and posing a risk to other motorists and yourself. This happens becase ppl comming up on you try to go around you on your left, trying to merge with vehicles already travelling faster than you, this makes it dangerous for ALL motorists in the immediate area, hence why cops hand out citations to drivers doing the limit.
Happy motoring. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 6:22:08 PM | It is quite easy to pick out the speeders in this thread. 
Stay off the highways because I obey the speed limit?? This is getting crazier by the minute. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:20:42 PM | | People in this thread talking about what if someone you knew was killed by a speeder.. We had a young mom in our town who died.. She was stopped at a traffic light on a motorcycle and was hit from behind by a guy doing less than the speed limit.. You can be killed by non speeders also.. But that doesn't sell papers of course.. Don't believe all the chicken little stuff in the news.. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:26:47 PM |
Again while excessive speed is probably an valid concern What is excessive speed?
in the a.m. 130km/h is not excessive it is the flow of traffic!!!
It is excessive. The only reason it may not be excessive to you is because people are getting away with driving those speeds because there isn't enough resources to monitor the highway.
If the government places cameras on the highway to monitor the speeders (and control the flow of traffic), guess what happens? The speeders whine about it.
You tell me that a vehicle towing a camper or utility trailer at 130km (going with the flow) is safe, then I say you're a fool.
The issue/concern is about reaction time and the ability to react safely. Unless you have airplane brakes on your vehicle you cannot respond safely to a sudden event like a blown tire or where the other driver is reacting to an event taking place in front of them
For me if you are doing something that can effect others then there sould be rules to provent it (ie speeding, racing)
You contradict yourself. You are implying there should be rules yet there should be no penalty. Then, what's the point of having rules if there is no consequence for the rule breaker.
but if you do not want to wear a seat belt or a helmut as an adult that should be your decision. I think Iwould but it should still be my decision I would not be hurting anyone by not doing so
Think out of the box.
If you mush your brain in an accident we, the taxpayer, must pay for your hospital and therapy care. As well as special funding for you to live your "new" lifestyle. That is why seatbelts are law... taxpayers have the right to demand laws be implemented as a means to reduce senseless, preventative health care costs.
Not to mention we also are affected by the costs incurred to insurance companies. Hence the reason people in larger cities pay more than those in rural areas - provided they have the same driving record/history.
again sometimes kids need protection from the decisions of parents however how many people over 45 had a car seat? , had a seat belt? used to lay in the back window of the car? We all survived..
What an assinine way to reason!! You need protection from your own thinking - lol!
You escaped injury and avoided being a "statistic".... that's all you did.
Interestingly enough... I wonder how many people are no longer ejected through windshields due to the seatbelt laws?
WHAT I SAID IS THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO A DAY IN COURT WITH A JUDGE AND/OR JURY THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!!! IT SHOULD NOT BE A COPS JOB TO ACT AS JUDGE AND JURY..NOT HIS JOB!!!
Police have the right to do as they see fit based on the offense, the person's disrespect for the law he/she broke and the perception the police have regarding the offender's "likeability" of re-offending if released "on the spot"
Attitude is everything. The police are simply applying laws. Some may not have the right attitude but that is part of the imperfections we have as humans. Afterall, I'd rather have a power hungry cop to deal wiyth rather than a defiant law breaker... the cops behaviour can be dealt with much easier - hence the investigations others have posted about.
a real sports car doing 150 kilometers on the highway which isn't even taxing the vehicles capabilities or some cop doing 180 trying to catch them in a full family sized sedan that isn't engineered for performance driving regardless that they have some upgrading that helps control the car better
The cop wouldn't have to go 180 if the sporster wasn't going 150... I'm just saying.
As well... are you suggesting that those owning vehicles designed for high speeds (ferrari, porsche, etc) should be able to excercise their indulgance on the road?
Comparing the types of vehicle is redundant.
On the other hand, maybe 250 - 500 horse powered engines should be outlawed... what is the purpose of possessing such power?
Well... maybe they simply want to get to the speed limit faster than everyone else - lol!
This law is only about gaining more control over our lives
Maybe, it is also about those resisting to relinquish "redundant" control. Your basic rights are not being violated.
No lives will be saved because of this law, speeders are going to speed anyways and like I mentioned in an earlier post....
You'll have to prove loss of life is not reduced. As well... I guess law breakers should rule the roads and everyone else should be told to shut up and suffer the consequences of some ***holes.
I believe lawmakers should make it so repeat offenders can't afford to drive. Driving is a privilege.... not a right.
is the LAW GOOD OR BAD.... IT IS BAD not becasue of its intent BUT because IT TAKES AWAY BASIC RIGHTS AND PRINCIPLES
Please... indulge!!
What basic right does this law restrict you from?
As far as principles are concerned... well... you'll have to describe that one to me as well.
there once was a guy in germany(to name one) who started taking away basic rights and principles...started with small things and grew from there..history shows this..think about it!!!
He committed suicide - which is illegal - LOL!!!!
You should know by now that speed limits on major highways are rarely followed
Yet... if government installs cameras on the highways I'd bet you would biotch and complain that it's not right for them to control speeders. Law breakers and those who can't handle following rules are usually the biggest whiners and complainers when it comes down to enforcing speeding laws.... go figure..
how do you know is has? are you trying to suggest that because someone speed more than 50 kph over a posted limit, they will always kill some one? i did suggest that this is new, i have no doubt in a year or so from now someone will do a study, and we'll hear how great a law it is for saving lives
It's about prevention
If you are suggesting that it is no more dangerous driving 50 km over the limit as it is driving the speed limit well... this conversation will go in circles.
As of yesterday, a 29 year old ***hole was caught speeding at 124 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. Please.. apply your logic. If that kid was allowed to continue on (he was in city limits) according to you, there is not a problem - police should let him pass school zones.
This law is not relegated to 400 series highways.
Again... think about what is best for the betterment and quality of life. Stop thinking on behalf of the law breakers. Your reasoning is as sound as those who feel sorry for the murderer rather than the victim and the victims family.
Also.. serial killers never stop until they are opunished and removed from society. Serial speeders will continue breaking laws until they are caught and/or hurt someone else.... your argument suggests we should sympathise with those who drive at such a high rate of speed.
If any one thinks paying a fine will stop the racing/excessive speeding they are kidding themselves. Just like with drunk drivers the percentage of repeat offenders is high!!
Hence the reason for harsh laws. Why do you have a problem with that?
Protect my children... fvck over the ***holes (street language for street racers) who have no regard for their own safety and the safety of others.
Well guess what, an analyst said that he was using the leftest lane (illegal for him) to pass a woman who was in the middle lane (his passing lane) because she was going to slow (she should have been in the rightmost lane).
I beg to ask... was he passing because he was speeding? It's usually the case. However (read below):
Both of them were major contributors to the accident and his death.
My conclusion: You are taking sides.
ROSEBOOTS, if you drive slower then the flow and you are in the middle lanes, you pose a hazard
Rebuttal: If you are driving faster than everyone else, you pose a hazard. again... you're taking sides.
My advice to you is if you do not want to play the game(aka go with the flow) don't join in(aka stay off the highway)
Game? Why don't you get off the highway and find yourself a gameboard... like maybe Milton Bradley's game of "Life"?
The media has reported several cops abusing their powers and they are being investigated
Hence the reason for "LAWS".... nobody is above them. Why should speeders be excused from reproach? | |
|
Mayor
|
Joined: 1/2/2006
Msg: 180 | |
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:42:44 PM |
Maybe, it is also about those resisting to relinquish "redundant" control. Your basic rights are not being violated.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Yes I happen to believe they are
Hence the reason for "LAWS".... nobody is above them. Why should speeders be excused from reproach?
they shouldn't, nor should the government and law makers hence the supreme court | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:44:21 PM | HaveNoFear
You have little credibility with your story. The scenerio you describe with the lady with the dog is just not believable and doesn't seem to even fall into the law as you describe the situation. I did a search on the Toronto Star website, and could not find any of the statistics you are quoting, not to say that they are not accurate.
You lost the most credibility regarding the prologue to your dog story. The minimum set fine is $2000.00 and the officer does not decide any increases. If she was charged with this at all, it would be automatic court, and the judge would decide guilt or innocence and determine the fine. Arguing with the officer, does not give the officer any authority to rasie a fine as he/she isn't the one that sets it. The whole story just does not ring true.
As far as automatic suspensions, these have been in effect since at least 1996. The highway traffic act of Ontario allows for an automatic 90 day licence suspension for blowing over .08 on a breathalyzer, and this is prior to attending court. In other situations, a vehicle may be towed to prevent the continuation of an offence.
I am not going to quote all the laws, but your constant messages with possibly inaccurate information is getting quite frustrating. You have had quite a condescending attitude for someone that professes to be a "veternarian" that also works in the "aeronotical" field. One would think you would be able to spell your occupations correctly. Again, makes me question you credibilty. I wouldn't have mentioned this, had you not been so condescending to other posters.
As for the person that said that the fine would take food out of kids mouths....I don't believe anyone forces anyone else to drive 50 kms over the speed limit, or run from the police etc etc. Perhaps some people need to be able to show some self-control and learn to take some responsibility for their own actions. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 7:55:51 PM |
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court
Let's get technical:
You have the right to challenge your fine. You're not guilty, totally, until you wave your right to a trial. If you give up your right to a trial... you accept the charge as laid. Therefore you admit guilt.
A fine is levied at the scene of the offense and all other matters for "public safety" can be invoked by the police officer.
Again... you're right would only be violated if you choose not to respond to the charge. It's rather foolish to have a judge in traffic court if no charge is pending and/or invoked. basically, it's the same as a parking ticket and being toweed away in a "No parking" zone... you violated laws... you must accept whatever consequence is invoked at the time and then you have the right to challenge the offense | |
|
Mayor
|
Joined: 1/2/2006
Msg: 183 | |
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 8:33:24 PM | What I find hugely intriguing with this whole topic, the speed kills issue not withstanding, is that Canadians have probably never been more educate and more informed, and still fail to learn the lessons of history, the best we can comeup with is this law, somehow people i find that sad. For the common good has been used to erode rights and freedoms for centuries by various types dictatorships, empires, and democracies alike, in fact wars have been fought over such issues.
But hey its only a 7 day suspension, and $2000 for people that have no respect anyway, oh and our roads will be much safer, so its ok | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 8:36:05 PM | I have had enough of this ... some of you do not get it!!!!
It is not about speeding or not speeding. THE COPS SPEED!!!
The law is about being a nuisance .... the lady with the dog was deemed to be a nuisance and the cop seized her car. AT NO TIME CAN YOU APPEAL THAT!!!! YOU ARE GUILTY!!! DECIDED BY THE COP!!!! THAT IS WRONG!!!!
Getting idiots off the road ...will not even be solved by this law!!!! It is the principle of the way the law is being imposed!!! Certainly getting racing off the roads is paramount but the law will not stop that. I think the first month with the law has shown that!!!
And yes I do not Support photo radar without stopping the car. (the way it was used a few years back) It presumes the owner was in the car. Guilt put on the owner and he may or may not have been there. Use photo radar as a tool for prosecution... sure but stop the car and identify the driver!! Enforce the speed limit sure no problem but no conviction and sentence pronounced at the side of the road by the cop!!!
Now if you drive the highway on a regular basis you will know they do not stop cars below 120 or so. Even the cops are driving 130km/h. Heck the Gov't keeps suggesting they will return the limit to the former limit which was 70m/h or about 112km/h and I think 115 and even 120 has been bantered about. Again no problem just enforce it , but not with convictions and seisures at the side of the road!!!
Everyone going the same speed is the safest. Obviously factors such as weather and volume need to be taken into account and some do not. It would seem a reasonable assumption that many drivers on the highway are quite comfortable going 130 since they are all doing it. I certainly am. Would I do 140 or 150 ... no ...there is a limit to what each driver feels comfortable with and there are not that many going 150 from a percentage point of view. So tag those guys with a fine ...absolutlely. why ? Because the problems come when others are not in the flow(faster or slower) they become a hazzard a pylon to go around a thing to brake for. Every time there is a lane change or a braking the potential for an accident increases. And if you do not get it .... open your eyes and look around!!!
I have no problem with enforcing the law but it is still safer to go with the flow at whatever speed. If a driver is uncomfortable then they should move right or get off!!
My problem is and has been throughout this thread is THE NEW LAW AS IT IS BEING APPLIED IS FUNDALMENTALLY WRONG!!! AND IS BEING ABUSED!! (see post above about lady and her dog.. 1 example) and the news reports are supposedly that some officers re being investigated for abuse of power and the law is only a month old!! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 9:26:01 PM | CURIOUSABOUTYOU, who said anything about the Toronto Star? not me, I simply said the Star. It is also reprinted in the Windsor Star
http://communities.canada.com/windsorstar/blogs/vanderblogger/archive/2007/07/04/street-racing-nonexistant-problem-stats-show.aspx
Happy now.
I dont care what credability I have with you. Send me a private message with your contact info and I will pass it along to my client and tell her you dont believe her and she can contact you and ring your ears out, show you her ticket, and all the other crap she went through that day, or you can call the Uxbride detachment or whatever enforcemnt dept stopped her (I dont know, I wasnt there till after everyone was gone).
Go and re-read the new ammendments. It's right there near the top under officer powers. Cops can simply increase the fine just for arguing with them on the side of the road and they have done it many times already. That was put in to discourage you from doing so and to discourage those who would become enraged and attempt physical violence against the officer.
It is NOT automatic court, not at all, you get in line behind the other 900 charged.
I dont care if the story rings true, truth is often stranger than fiction.
You are proving to everyone here that you have no idea what your talking about.
Me as well as others have posted links about this new law throughout this thread, reasearch online, call a lawyer, call traffic defenders, etc.., go back and read em all, them come back and tell me what you found.
I never ever EVER said I work in aeronautics. Back home, me and some friends flew small planes. A guy who rebuilt rare parts as well as hand manufactured others ran a shop near the feild for decades. His health was failing and he was shutting down. We found out and approached him. Short story is he sold it to the 4 of us. My 3 partners back home run the majority of it. Its a small part time side business that generates little money, but we do it for love and preservation reasons. I have other skills and talents also, not everyone is as limited as you.
Yes I spell bad, so what, you read horribly, especially my posts and like to twist what I say and put words in my mouth.
I encourage everyone here to read up on the new laws, including the ones about road construction workers. Yes there are new laws regarding that too. So dont take my word for it, research it, call a lawyer, call POINTTS, I dont really care.
My problem with this law is not that it partially goes after speeders, we have those laws already, but how your rights are nonexistant. Yes catch the speeder, yes charge them, but let them have their day in court. Heck, everyone saw that boy shoot that girl on boxing day, yet he was found NOT GUILTY. Had there been a similar law for murderers, a cop would have executed the then 16yr old boy before he got medical attention for himself being shot right there and then..
This is also part of the new law. Anyone can call into policestations and say that so and so was speeding excessivly (even though they were'nt). Based simply on that information, the police can tow your vehicle off of your driveway without you even knowing it. Maybe it was mistaken vehicle description and plates, maybe an angry neighbour or ex boyfriend/girl friend, etc... And I dont care if you believe me or not, ask someone who works in this feild. In my line of work, I talk to enforcement of all kinds all the time, firemen and paramedics included.
There are ppl here who think speed kills, well so does vehicle mass and stopping power. A dump truck doing 100 needs many times more room to stop, yet they travell at the same speed as you. If speed kills then so does mass and braking performace. So maybe heavy vehicles should be banned from freeways. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 9:40:54 PM | I know I should no longer be reading this thread because this is just getting dumber & dumber with each post, and it's frustrating the hell out of me! Obviously, we can tell who the speeders are here in the thread because they are the ones who are scratching & clawing at any argument defending their actions.
I fail to understand what is so appealing about driving like an idiot. The highways are not racetracks, people! Newsflash...the posted limit on most, if not all 4-lane highways is 100 km/h!!! I know the flow tends to go about 120 to 130 km/h and that's what I will drive at if that's what the flow is. I go with the flow! That's pushing it, but if everybody on the highway is going that speed, it's better than being pushed off the road by some impatient jerk who thinks they're Jacques Villeneuve!
I realize collisions can happen at almost any rate of speed. But, there is no place anywhere on Canadian roads where it is safe to drive 50 + km/h over the speed limit. And those who attempt to justify driving at that rate of speed...give it up! If you drive like that & get caught, you're guilty...end of story! Cry all the tears you want and use all the excuses in the book...YOU'RE F---IN' GUILTY!!! You are a hazard on our roads!
I also have a bone to pick with those who feel they can just dawdle along too. The ones who won't even approach the speed limit. I've found this usually happens when someone's eating or reading or texting away on their cell phone instead of focusing on their driving. This is something else that needs to be curbed! Is it too much to ask you to pay attention to your driving? You wanna text or eat or read in the car...let someone else do the driving then. Otherwise...stay the hell off the road!
The lack of common sense in our society today just boggles my mind! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 10:36:20 PM |
And yes I do not Support photo radar without stopping the car. (the way it was used a few years back) It presumes the owner was in the car. Guilt put on the owner and he may or may not have been there. Use photo radar as a tool for prosecution...
If you can't identify the driver on the camera (your complaint)... how is the camera deemed an effective tool for prosecution?
THE NEW LAW AS IT IS BEING APPLIED IS FUNDALMENTALLY WRONG!!! AND IS BEING ABUSED!!
Rather than whine... tell us what the alternative should be?
the news reports are supposedly that some officers re being investigated for abuse of power and the law is only a month old!!
The law has been in effect for a very brief time yet many of you haven't given this law time to prove worthy, or not (keep in mind the tales of the toonie breaking apart by those who rejected the new coin).
You make false claims this law won't help.... PROVE IT. In my opinion, you remind me of the shit disturbers who sat at the back of class in elementary and secondary school. In fact, I sense a few of you have contempt for many new laws.... it's your nature.
Again... if some police did wrong (speculation as of right now), they will be prosecuted and/or disciplined. Pulling over a speeding car is not based on specualtion/allegation.
For you to argue in their favour... under the guise of some bullshit premise that they are being labelled guilty (in which they are - but you can't see that) rather than presumed being innocent (which they are not - they were driving at excessive speeds) you're pissing in the wind.
Again no problem just enforce it , but not with convictions and seisures at the side of the road!!!
Often, we hear of those who were pulled over and given speeding tickets only to be caught further down the road speeding again. So... based on the behaviour of "speeders", in the past, this law prevents the jerks from getting behind the wheel only to resume his/her poor decision to speed once out of the range of police. This law gives an immediate impact on the offender because, arguably, it can be assumed this person speeds regularly.
It's about prevention more than any other reason you present.
When you break the law you inherently concede some of your human rights.
You just don't get it. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/26/2007 10:51:12 PM | HaveNoFear
Yes, I am happy now. Thanks for providing the link, although most of the stats are American.
When I said "automatic court" I do not mean you go to court that day, I mean it isn't a matter of just paying a ticket, I believe court is mandatory. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I am in this case, as I believe any speeding ticket over 40kms/hr has been "automatic court", rather than a set fine, for many years.
I just re-read (scanned) the ammendments and could find nothing where a police officer determines the fine and can increase it on his/her own whim. Sorry. Please provide me with the quote and reference and I will humbly apologize and stand corrected. I am not infallable.
Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited
172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager.
Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver’s licence may be suspended,
(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or
(b) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years.
The officer is also required to suspend the licence...SHALL means "must" not maybe..
Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver’s licence; and
(b) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (b).
Here is a link to the ammendments:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=1594&isCurrent=false&ParlSessionID=
Where are you getting this information about someone being able to call in and say someone was speeding and have the car towed. I don't think so. Sorry but firefighters and paramedics do not enforce traffic laws. My source is myself, the HTA and a police officer with 27 years experience.
Also, I am not arguing there are many other reasons for accidents. I agree with you 100% there. Bad drivers, drivers that don't pay attention, drivers that drink and drive etc etc etc. I am saying that street racing, or just any person driving 50kms or over is taking a foolish and unneccesary risk that can endanger themselves and others for no real reason other than their own selfishness.
I am also not taking a personal shot at you. I am sure you are a nice and caring person. I am offended at how you feel it necessary to try to demean other people when you feel not everyone is agreeing with your points. As for spelling..I do make my share of spelling errors. I just felt that if you mis-spell your own occupation in your profile, it brings some doubt to the truthfulness.
Anyway...let's just agree to disagree. I hope you don't end up hurt or hurting someone else in the event you decide you want to drive at this speed. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/27/2007 4:36:20 AM |
And yes I do not Support photo radar without stopping the car. (the way it was used a few years back) It presumes the owner was in the car. Guilt put on the owner and he may or may not have been there
I think when someone lend their car to someone then you should be taken the responsibility of that person, you are putting your trust in this person with your car.
Photo radar is used all over Alberta and it seems to be affective. My sister has taken the car away from the kids for speeding and has made them pay the fine.
Nothing in life is perfect, but if we can try and do our part to make life a little safer,, then why dont we. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/27/2007 12:37:04 PM | Will it make our highways safer?
I've had my issues with this new law on both sides of it.
However, I do drive for a living, spending 10-12 hours a day on the roads in the GTA area. I'm based out of Barrie and avoid using the 400 series highways like the plague!
Now that it's been a few weeks...things seem to have improved. I do believe that it's having the desired effect.
Didn't feel like throwing away my licence at the end of the week, for a change.
It was always a small minority that had no regard for the laws, and, other users of the roads. Seems like they're getting weeded out and getting the message.
It's only anecdotal evidence from my own point of view, however, the past week or so has been much less stressful, with a noticable drop in aggressive actions by fools, as far as I can tell.
I haul "oversized" loads....everyone hates it that I'm out there anyhow, and, some of the things I've seen people do in the past few months has been nothing short of amazing!....Not in a good way! Some are scared to death...for no good or real reason, and others, seem to have no fear at all, and that's not good either!
Perhaps it was just a good week? | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/27/2007 12:51:07 PM |
The law also states for slower traffic to keep right.
I'd like to see this law. It doesn't exist in Ontario. It is, however, consistent with how you post here . . . I was left wondering how many people believed your story about the lady and the collie. Quite a few it seems. I almost fell off of my chair when I saw how low you'll sink to boost your opinion.
Stay off the highways because I obey the speed limit?? This is getting crazier by the minute.
The same guy in the red shirt saying the same thing over and over again using capital letters in case you didn't get it the first twenty-five times.
It's a dead argument roseboots. Your life is in danger every time you venture out in your car, not because of how you drive, but because of how these people drive.
There is no such thing as "flow" when it comes to traffic on 400 series highways. If there was, who sets the flow speed? The guy in the lead?
It's getting crazier by the minute because the inmates are running the asylum. ie. this thread. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/27/2007 1:03:35 PM |
You have little credibility with your story. The scenerio you describe with the lady with the dog is just not believable and doesn't seem to even fall into the law as you describe the situation. I did a search on the Toronto Star website, and could not find any of the statistics you are quoting, not to say that they are not accurate.
You lost the most credibility regarding the prologue to your dog story. The minimum set fine is $2000.00 and the officer does not decide any increases. If she was charged with this at all, it would be automatic court, and the judge would decide guilt or innocence and determine the fine. Arguing with the officer, does not give the officer any authority to rasie a fine as he/she isn't the one that sets it. The whole story just does not ring true.
I posted before I read this. Glad someone took the time to check up on his story. Very clever of you to notice the fine imposed wasn't anything a police officer at the scene could impose. He didn't mention which paper he got his stats from either . . . but he must have forgotten that when he got all defensive about the Star.
I'm doubting he is a veterinarian now. He looks so familiar too. I am almost certain he is the guy that came out of the kitchen and picked up our dishes last night, but I'm not 100% sure, so I wouldn't make that accusation.
Well done CuriousAboutYou !! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/28/2007 12:27:42 PM | The law also states for slower traffic to keep right.
I'd like to see this law. It doesn't exist in Ontario
As a matter of fact, it does. It's just not written in the way that it's usually interpreted.
What it does state, is that the vehicle being overtaken, shall keep to the right, to allow the faster vehicle to pass.
There is no mention of speed, limits, or otherwise, in it.
There is no such thing as "flow" when it comes to traffic on 400 series highways. If there was, who sets the flow speed? The guy in the lead?
Going with the flow isn't the best way to describe the idea that the guy is trying to get across. A better idea might be to think of it as the median speed. Try it this way. If you are being passed, by as many vehicles as you, yourself, are passing, it could be said that you are travelling at the median speed compared to other traffic. Hence, "going with the flow", neither leading nor impeding. Staying to right, unless you are passing another vehicle, or, moving left, allowing another to merge onto the highway from an acceleration lane or "On ramp". Allows for a much smoother traffic "flow".
Tha main point is this. It's the degree of difference between the speeds of vehicles on the highways that causes so much grief. Therefore, by staying at the middle rate, you have equalised, as much as possible, the difference of speed between you and the others on the road. Be they slower or faster moving than you.
You can't control the actions of others. However, you may certainly adapt your own responses to take pro-active action against the outcome.
 | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/28/2007 7:45:39 PM |
Tha main point is this. It's the degree of difference between the speeds of vehicles on the highways that causes so much grief. Therefore, by staying at the middle rate, you have equalised, as much as possible, the difference of speed between you and the others on the road. Be they slower or faster moving than you.
Thats more calculations per second that I care to make when I'm concentrating on the road. I think I will just keep close to the limit, maybe my usual 5 - 10 km over. Stay in the lane that most matches my speed . . . if its the far right, so be it. Usually the middle lane, sometimes the left lane. And get out of the way of people who are oblivious to the hazard they pose, when it's safe.
I know you're a good driver intheswim, I don't expect you'll be any problem when I am out there. I can only imagine the lives you probably have saved in your career by anticipating the moves some of these jerks make.
I've never hit anyone or been hit, but I've had a couple of bad experiences that have left me in a cold sweat. The worst being a sudden whiteout headed south on the 400. I got into the right lane and slowed to between 50 and 60 kmh. Visibility was so bad, car tail lights 60 to 70 feet ahead were fading from vision, and you had to follow their tracks. About every 30 seconds headlights would appear in my rearview and sideview mirrors and some meatball would go flying by at 120 kmh.
Way behind me I could see what looked like police lights flashing, but in a real weird pattern. It was headlights and taillights of cars spinning out of control and smashing into each other. What an eerie feeling.
I got off at the next exit and took slow secondary roads home. On the news when I got home was a story about a massive pile-up on the 400 headed south. If I remember correctly, about 50 cars were involved. No deaths, but a lot of people stranded on the highway for hours. I dodged one that day. What got me was that it just wasn't a small few who didn't know to slow down and adjust, which you'd expect. It was about half of them out there.
I've got a lot of family up there in Orillia who I rarely see in the dead of winter because of that day. If people had just slowed down through the whiteout, we'd all have lost maybe 15 to 30 minutes. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 11:50:19 AM | rob & Lisa Manchester, Jimmy Ng, Irene Thorpe, Tahir Khan, David Virgoe
do you recognize these names??? These are a few of the people that have been killed in the last few years because of Car Racing on our roads in Canada.
Look at the names of these people and be thankful that one of them is not your family, because if the speeding on our highways continue, next week it could be your loved one. SPEEDING kills............. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 11:58:09 AM |
Tha main point is this. It's the degree of difference between the speeds of vehicles on the highways that causes so much grief. Therefore, by staying at the middle rate, you have equalised, as much as possible, the difference of speed between you and the others on the road. Be they slower or faster moving than you
However, in an emergency situation, who has more control, and a shorter travel distance, when abruptly applying the brakes to complete a full stop?
Maybe that that should be the focal point in this argument? | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 4:17:12 PM | However, in an emergency situation, who has more control, and a shorter travel distance, when abruptly applying the brakes to complete a full stop?
Good question!
The short answer is this: The person who has constantly scanned the scene ahead, andticipates, and, predicts, acurrately, the outcome of the moves of others, before they've even completed them. The person who uses space to their advantage, not allowing others to intrude upon their cushion of space, front, or rear, or from side to side, and, doesn't allow themselves to get "trapped" with out an escape route. The person who is actually thinking of all of these things while they're driving...and putting these tools to work !
I could go on at an even greater length, it's all good, it's all real, it all works and, there's a lot more to it than can be presented here...however, it's much better demonstrated from behind the wheel during what's known as a " commentary" drive. Love to show you sometime!
Better yet, sign up at the Ontario Safety League for an advanced defensive driving course.
The person who learns, and practices, these techniques very, very, seldom, has to worry about "emergency" manoeuvers! Those are for the amateurs, with all of the usual results too, I'm afraid! | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 5:09:04 PM |
The short answer is this: The person who has constantly scanned the scene ahead, andticipates, and, predicts, acurrately, the outcome of the moves of others, before they've even completed them. The person who uses space to their advantage, not allowing others to intrude upon their cushion of space, front, or rear, or from side to side, and, doesn't allow themselves to get "trapped" with out an escape route. The person who is actually thinking of all of these things while they're driving...and putting these tools to work !
The short answer is this: The person who requires less distance to accomplish a full stop has more control.
Unexpected, emergency stops are not always forseeable. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 5:37:57 PM |
rob & Lisa Manchester, Jimmy Ng, Irene Thorpe, Tahir Khan, David Virgoe
do you recognize these names??? These are a few of the people that have been killed in the last few years because of Car Racing on our roads in Canada.
Look at the names of these people and be thankful that one of them is not your family, because if the speeding on our highways continue, next week it could be your loved one. SPEEDING kills.............
Wrong. Rob Manchester had twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system (something the family tried to cover up) he was drunk and made a very bad decision thinking he could make the turn before the cars got to him. David Vigoe's accident was covered in a previous post, accident investigator said David NEVER should have tried passing in the far left lane, and that lady witness should have been i the rightmost lane, they created an open vaccum space in the right which the speeding cars used, and no one hit David, so that there was absoloutly no reason for him to go off of the road, no one was racing. The taxi driver had a stop sign, those two boys speeding did not, taxi guy made bad judgement thinking he could turn before oncomming traffic reached him. None of these ppl were actual street racers, you only heard that because it sells papers.
The short answer is this: The person who requires less distance to accomplish a full stop has more control. Not if your a heavy vehicle and or have poor braking power and or are someone who does not react quickly and intelligently. You can have more space than me, but if my car stoppes better than yours does, you are more of a danger than me. Everything on the roads is fluid, much like a complete and seperate cosm, flow with it and you should be ok, resist, and you probably wont be. Like in nature, take the path of least resistance. Yes you can drive in the middle lanes at the posted top speed, but you may add to congestion and so forth. You can also be 8 feet tall and have the right to sit in any seat in the theatre, but it's polit to duck.
I wont be comming back to this thread, the ppl who get it get it and the rest are fools.
This law is only partially about speeding.
The lady told me she was fined $3,700 and I passed it along, I wasnt there
No one has PMed me to pass on their info to the lady who had her van seized, and no one has called the police station(s) to prove this dint happen.
If your brain cannot make those mathmatical calculations then you probably cannot walk on the sidewalk without bumping into everyone. Who knows, maybe your one of those morons who stands in the hall of a mall, and for no reason, without looking, they turn and walk right into you. Well ppl drive like that too.
If you cant look around your car and tell who will do what, then you probably should not be on the road.
I dont speed excessivly, I restore vintage and classic cars, not the expensive ones but the other type, to preserve history, so I try and keep a lot of space around me open when I drive. Im from another province, been here less than a year, and I seem to know Ontarios laws better than some who were born here. I joined a few car clubs soon after getting here, in them are cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, doctors, etc... We talk about this stuff all the time, the cops and lawyers have actually constructed a pocket book type manual dealing with this new law and others affecting us, made for members. So I know what fly's and what doesnt.
The main problem I ever had with this law is that you are automatically GUILTY. If you are found INNOCENT in court, you have NO recourse against this law, so you do not get back the impound fee's, reinstatement fee's, towing fe's, or compensation for going without your vehicle for a week. This means cops can do whatever they want under this law, and you need to prove yourself INNOCENT, instead of being innocent and proven guilty.
Id like to add all sorts of bad driving to this law, drunk driving, tired drivers, stupid drivers, poorly maintained vehicles, and so on. I also think our laws regarding fines should be something like they have in parts of Europe, where your fine is a certain percentage of your earnings for that year. SO have it minimum $2,000 or say 2% of gross income, which ever is greater. So this balances things out for those with lots of money. You make $20grand, you pay min $2grand, you make a million a yr, you pay $20 grand minimum. I'd also like to see gas prices doubled. All of this will help to remove bad drivers off of the roads and clear them up, as well as having less ppl idle their cars for no reason, boosts public transit, etc... SO keep this law, but get your day in court first. Those poor ppl who had their vehicles seized (the ones with the cops under investigation) well they have NO compensation for being innocent under this law. Everyone is GUILTY till proven INNOCENT, Never piss off a cop.
Good luck to you all, and safe driving. | |
|
| new speeding penalties good or bad?
Posted: 10/29/2007 5:40:40 PM |
The short answer is this: The person who requires less distance to accomplish a full stop has more control
You have missed your true calling! Your expertise is badly needed in the field of traffic safety! | |
|
|
| Page 8 of 11
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 |
|
Home
login 
