FocusCanada Forums

split p-51's post across this and the next to address broken quotes.. -dp

Quote:However, for argument's sake, I could say that even if being the best driver doesn't exempt you from the possibility of getting in an accident, how does that give you the right to do 50KPH over?

I guess that's where our arguments diverge. I don't think me or anyone else should be doing 50 over a posted limit. The problem is, I think many speed limits are artificially low. Particularly on intercity, devided highways.

I think the limit should be 120, and rigorously enforced at 130, today. If people get used to that, then we can talk about going higher later.

Speed doesn't kill. Speed differential kills.

Quote:If a moment of inattentiveness at 30KPH can lead to an accident, how do things improve at 80KPH?

Attentiveness improves. More chance of actually *seeing* the problem and actually doing something to avoid it instead of just not seeing it, and just hitting it. A kid is going to die if hit by a car at 30 anyway. They aren't "more dead" if they get hit at 80. I know at least for myself, I have a better chance of seeing somebody if I'm going at a good clip, than if I'm just loafing along.

And let me be PERFECTLY CLEAR here. I'm not saying we should be doing 80 on residential streets. Frankly I'm surprise the limit is often 50, and think it should drop to 40 in all cases. And rigorously enforced. I'm complaining about the limits on highways, industrial boulevards, etc... being too low.

Quote:Safety on the roads needs to improve. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure that adding safety equipment is going to improve things either. Like SUVs, people believe they're safer they tend to take more risks.

You prove my point. Slow limits leads to feelings of security and "I'm going so slow, I can play with my Ipod while driving."

Quote:Just to add one more factor to the discussion. To those of you who are good, and very good drivers, we have to realize that when the G2 driver doing 100 doesn't look, or miscaculates the speed of you coming up beside them, then that's where you'll get the blame for the accident that'll occur.

They shouldn't be on 400 series highways until they have their G anyway. You can get anywhere you want without being on the 400's. The 400's should be reserved for those who've proven they know how to drive.

Oh yeah, THAT would be a popular move woudln't it! :lol:

Quote:It is absolutely true …

It's completely true. Those are the numbers. I agree that it was largely achieved because of safer cars. But, the fact is, traffic deaths are down, and that is the only point I'm trying to make.

Quote:The point is our driving public didn’t get this way because the speed limits are too low. They got this way because our standards are woefully too low … any idiot can get a license and do. And conversely raising the speed limits will not improve their skills, knowledge or awareness one iota.

I basically agree with most of what you said, except this final point. Low limits are part of it. It's all part in parcel of the problem.

My policy of raising the limits would go hand in hand with fixing some of the other problems too. #1 would be evasive manoever testing mandatory to get your G, and be allowed on teh 400's.

Quote:Surely you’re not contending this makes you a good driver, are you? What it makes you is an inattentive driver, or perhaps a driver following too closely … and if you’re claiming it was the low speed limit that “made you do it” then that’s pretty lame in my view.

I don't claim the accidents make me a good driver. Neither case was I following too close. It was inattention. First case, I was distracted by somebody waving a pizza sign on the sidewalk, turn back, car ahead is stopped. I had a trailer, and couldn't stop. Light bump. Guy behind me (not towing a trailer) piled into the back of me. More distraction than inattention.

Second time, slippery road in the rain, we're plodding along in heavy traffic, lots of room ahead. Woman ahead *yields the right of way* to an oncoming car to turn left in front of her at an unsignaled intersection. She basically stopped in the middle of the road. I was looking at the radio or something, slid, hit her. That was my innattention, coupled with I believe her committing an error too. I should point out, this was THE WORST intersection in Windsor, and it was super slippery because of all the oil from the accidents (no joke, I almost fell walking on the road).

What makes me a good driver is all the OTHER accidents I've avoided. I've only ever been hit from behind while I was stopped. Many other instances where I saved somebody else's ass.

Quote:one a broadside by a drunk driver going through a red light … and the first one – two weeks after I got my license, a car pulled out of driveway in the rain in front of me and I couldn’t stop.

My point exactly. I've avoided things like this.

Am I saying I'm safer than you? Probably not. We're probably roughly equal, but in different ways. You're probably more attentive than me in traffic. I'm probably more capable of evasive manoevers than you.

Quote:The only offense I’ve been charged with in all that time is speeding.

Basically true for me too. The careless doesn't count, because it's a trumped up charge. The cop said she "had to" but told me to go to court to get it quashed. Her words. "If a cop responds to an accident, somebody HAS to get a careless."

Quote:How do you figure this? The majority of drivers, as incompetent as they are, do not have collisions. I’m not saying you’re not safe … but you’re obviously no statistician either.

The vast majority of people do have collisions. I don't think I know a single person who hasn't. For example, my wife who always obeys the limits and has never had an accident in her life... fell asleep on the 401 and we piled into the center median at 100km/h. She had a "perfect record", but that was the closest I've ever come to dying in a car.

My statistical point is this: Every mile I drive is a sample group. I have a chance of hitting somebody, or somebody hitting me. I've been hit far more often than I have hit others. This despite the fact I speed.

Quote:Statistically the majority of drivers do not have collisions and the majority of drivers are never charged with speeding. Statistically that says drivers that don't speed don't have collisions - statistically.

See, that's where you're wrong. Majority of people don't speed. Vast majority of people have been in collisions.

Quote:Right or not, this is irrelevant … we’re discussing the enforcement of existing speed limits, not lowering them.

My point is, this law will drive down actual average travel speeds. The limits on the 400's have been a joke for at least a decade. Now the 100 really means "no really, don't go over 150".

Quote:can't outrun the radio dude

Yes you can. Buddy of mine is a cop, and probably a better driver than me. He has had to give up on some chases.

Quote:Kids safety – doesn't it start from education?
Isn’t it required by law to be around them all the time before they are 12?
KEEP THEM OFF THE ROAD! that’s safety. If a kid is on a road – charge the parent! Talking about highway speeding – what are kids doing there?

As a new parent, I've already come to realize that I cannot control everything my kid is going to do. That's why I advocate reducing residential limits to 40, and I'd support enforcement of these new laws for anyone doing over 60 in a residential area!

In residential areas, the problem goes away from attentiveness, and becomes just pure reaction time. If a kid runs out from behind a car parked on your side of the street, you never had a chance to see him. Your only hope is to brake enough so as not to kill him, or maybe throw your car into the parked car.

That would be something else I would propose. Currently in that situation, you are charged with an at-fault accident. That's wrong. If I respond to a child's mistake by pitching my car into a parked car or light pole to save that child's life... I shouldn't be at fault. You get into the difficulties of proving, etc. etc... but it's just wrong the way it is now.

Quote:Since I actually HAVE children, what do you suppose I do? Keep them under lock and key until their 12? Were you kept in a box until you were 12? Do you think that on their 12th birthday they will suddenly find some mystical wisdom that will make them impervious to some f***ing moron doing 80 in a school zone?

I agree 100%.

And more to my point... somebody would have to be doing 100 in a school zone to be charged with this. These rules should apply to less than that in School zones.

70 or 80.

Why are we more concerned about somebody doing 150, largely surrounded by concrete, more than we are about people doing 90 in a school zone. Or passing school buses, etc.

Quote:The f***tard wannabe racers should slow the f*** down. People crossing the street judge the time they have by figuring the oncoming driver is doing 50, 60, 70, or whatever the limit is maybe plus 20. Nobody figures on people doing 100 in a 50 zone.

Well, I disagree with this. People should judge crossing time based on rate of closure, not distance. That's stupid, for just this reason.

Our brains have been programmed to judge rate of closure of predators for millions of years. Let's use them.

Quote:If you want safety - educate your children and k e e p t h t e m o f f t h e r o a d !!! Do your part of safety at least. You have more control of you children than some driver, you can just fine him later but it may be too late...

People, including kids, have every right to be on the road in residential areas. In so many new housing areas with no back yards, that's the only open space. People deserve to walk, bike, run and play on the roads in their neighborhood. Cars should be secondary.

Quote:What's your problem with the stunting laws again? They clearly define what you can't do...

I have a problem with misapplication.

ie: my tires slip a little by accident, but I'm in a "racy looking car". You get charged. The objectiveness of cops is bad enough when you give them a tool like a breathalyzer or radar gun. Just placing it up to them for perception... scares the crap out of me.

We've been over this one before.

There's also a big problem with one of them.

If somebody is following too close, you can't brake check them, or EVEN SLOW DOWN to get out of their way. The only option is to speed up to pass the car next to you to pull over.

If Mr. Tailgater wants to tailgate you up to 150... guess what...

You're faced with losing your car either way.

If I'm doing 118 passing a semi on the 401, and some jackwad is tailgating me... I have to sit there and do nothing now.

The other one... I'm at a light waiting to turn left. Light goes green... grandma in the oncoming lane is snoozing. We now ALL have to wait there. That's dumb.

They should make another law, when the light goes green, you have to move your car in 2 seconds or you get a small ticket.

Quote:It's usually some idiot contractor rushing to his next job.

I find the same thing. Contractors are the WORST on residential streets.

your quotes broke because the post is too long (too many quotes).. it's a limitation of the software.

if you'd like I can split it into two posts for you so it displays alright.

naz,Oct 10 2007, 10:09 PM Wrote:

NikiterZTS,Oct 10 2007, 03:09 PM Wrote:but seriosly i've talked to the whole wack of my buddies with bikes and their friends.......and they told me "if i know for sure cop didn't see my plate....not even going to bother to stop"
its too easy to get away on the bike...with these new laws and all people with some what fast bikes are not even going think twice
[right][snapback]250579[/snapback][/right]

can't outrun the radio dude
[right][snapback]250648[/snapback][/right]

depending on situation and the kind of roads you have, its very easy actually ;)

Helps when your vehicle has the power to put some distance to.

Steve, yeah I guess. Thanks.

Flofocus,Oct 11 2007, 06:10 PM Wrote:

naz,Oct 10 2007, 10:09 PM Wrote:

NikiterZTS,Oct 10 2007, 03:09 PM Wrote:but seriosly i've talked to the whole wack of my buddies with bikes and their friends.......and they told me "if i know for sure cop didn't see my plate....not even going to bother to stop"
its too easy to get away on the bike...with these new laws and all people with some what fast bikes are not even going think twice
[right][snapback]250579[/snapback][/right]

can't outrun the radio dude
[right][snapback]250648[/snapback][/right]

depending on situation and the kind of roads you have, its very easy actually ;)

Helps when your vehicle has the power to put some distance to.
[right][snapback]250741[/snapback][/right]

interesting. my bike could certainly put distance on a police cruiser but i've never thought about running. i guess i'd rather pay $ or not speed than risk dying?

anyone who has actually run wanna PM me the details :D

I know of some guys who just WON'T stop if that's the scenario. I wouldn't attempt it, personally.

Actually, here's a good one. Was out last night, wet, cold and new to the car. Broke the tires loose at a light when I grabbed a bit too much gas and let out the clutch a bit too fast. The DSC kicked in and reined in the car (good stuff, that!), but my first thought was "oh s***, was there a cop there?"

I don't speed through residential areas because I know they're jam-packed with inattentive kid goodness. It's also pointless cause the roads are generally tertiary routes and further down the maintenance list than the main arteries. Seriously, I just don't cause it's wrong... but the other two reasons are both funny AND true.

Also, speeding in a school zone should be just cause to get your nuts rapped with a hockey stick... or Nef's cane. :)

I like what P-51 pointed out about the Catch-22 of the "impeding traffic" and "50 over" segments of the new/improved/ruined law. You're damned if you do and damned if you literally don't in the right/wrong situation. I never thought of that.

We were out for a cruise earlier and stopped in to see some friends at a local hangout... one guy is a tow truck driver and just did his first "50 over" impound. On my way back from Callander before that I saw two OPP doing radar at 9PM at night. At this rate, you'll be able to rob half of rural Ontario at will because all the cops are doing Fantino's bidding on this new law. Another OPP SUV (in the new colours no less!) had a flatbed tow truck pulled over at the side of the road as I got back into North Bay, or so I thought. Turns out it was another car being impounded for speeding 50 over in an 80 zone... so that's 130+. In town (bypass highway like the Allen Expwy)... what a tard.

P-51,Oct 11 2007, 01: Wrote:The vast majority of people do have collisions.  I don't think I know a single person who hasn't.

Must be the crowd you run with ... j/k ... but you're wrong - the majority of people do not have collisions.

Here's the numbers: in 2005 there were 2,578 fatal accidents and 149,153 accidents involving injury (all you had to do was say you felt pain and it was classified as injury - no hospital or doctors visit required to substantiate.

Now, here's the kicker - these numbers are for the whole country. Even if you double the number assuming every one was a two car accident - that's still "only" 300,000 people involved in collisions and if you want to double again to account for no-injury collisions - that's still only 600,000 people involved in collisions out of a country of 30 million. That's 2 percent of the population -- double again or quadruple again if you want - that's still less than 10% of the population involved in collisions and that even assumes that there are no repeaters.

The fact is the vast majority of people never have collisions throughout their entire life.

I'm looking at compiling the stats for speeding charges but it's going to be a similar story.

P51 Wrote:

Quote:The f***tard wannabe racers should slow the f*** down. People crossing the street judge the time they have by figuring the oncoming driver is doing 50, 60, 70, or whatever the limit is maybe plus 20. Nobody figures on people doing 100 in a 50 zone.

Well, I disagree with this. People should judge crossing time based on rate of closure, not distance. That's stupid, for just this reason
Our brains have been programmed to judge rate of closure of predators for millions of years. Let's use them.

A child's ability to judge time, distance and speed are not as fully developed as an adult's and furthermore they often lack a sense of understanding as to the consequences of misjudging.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, but the perspective is that pedestrians in general and our children especially require and deserve special protection in and around roads and I personally find nothing wrong with that.

NOS2Go4Me,Oct 12 2007, 12:16 AM Wrote:I know of some guys who just WON'T stop if that's the scenario. I wouldn't attempt it, personally.

Actually, here's a good one. Was out last night, wet, cold and new to the car. Broke the tires loose at a light when I grabbed a bit too much gas and let out the clutch a bit too fast. The DSC kicked in and reined in the car (good stuff, that!), but my first thought was "oh s***, was there a cop there?"

I don't speed through residential areas because I know they're jam-packed with inattentive kid goodness. It's also pointless cause the roads are generally tertiary routes and further down the maintenance list than the main arteries. Seriously, I just don't cause it's wrong... but the other two reasons are both funny AND true.

Also, speeding in a school zone should be just cause to get your nuts rapped with a hockey stick... or Nef's cane. :)

I like what P-51 pointed out about the Catch-22 of the "impeding traffic" and "50 over" segments of the new/improved/ruined law. You're damned if you do and damned if you literally don't in the right/wrong situation. I never thought of that.

I dunno... there's a lot of 'ifs' in there...<sarcasm> I'm glad we're assuming the cops are going to be overzealous</sarcasn> -- I've yet to find someone who's been charged who didn't actually deserve it.

If you head into a situation assuming evey cop is going to blow their load on you, you're definitely not going to be in the right frame of mind to get yourself out of trouble either.

I personally don't see the ambiguities you guys are all paranoid about, and if I really wasn't doing anything wrong, I'm not going to worry about it.

I'm not going to live in fear of driving because my car fishtails a little in the snow...

Y'know at the end of the day though, not even the "stunt" provisions are that draconian if you look at the potential impact the "stunt" could have

Perfect example of this was after the Dixie Ford Show & Shine, I stuck around after it was over because I didn't feel like fighting my way through a group of cars right then and there, it was nice outside so no harm no foul...

Almost every car that had any sort of "get up & go" hit Dixie Road going northbound like the proverbial bat out of hell, a number of whom almost lost control as their rear ends were swinging like a metronome on crack :ph34r: (and one of whom almost got wiped out by a transport truck not paying attention to the cars coming out of the lot, but that's another issue entirely)

If this new law discourages stunts like that, given the potential consequences, I'd say the law did what it set out to do, make the roads safer for everyone

NefCanuck

Quote:I've yet to find someone who's been charged who didn't actually deserve it.

Simon. Not for speeding. But was charged with a bunch of modification infractions that were trumped up. They almost towed his car. Had to get his lawyer *on the scene* to stop it.

ZTW, good research. 150,000 accidents with injury has got to be 300,000 actual people involved. For every single vehicle, there's a multiple. So that's 300,000 with injury, I'd guess maybe 600,000 total including without injury. Maybe even more, but I don't have figures.

So, 600,000 our of what... 15,000,000 *drivers*? That's 4 percent. Per year.

That means on average, every driver is in a collision every 25 years.

Definitely qualifies for vast majority in my book.

I don't know of ANYBODY who hasn't been in one. That includes my Mom, and wife, and stepmom, never had a ticket in their life, all been in multiple accidents. Cops I know, my driving instructor... NOBODY.

And my number crunching bears that out.

andrewned,Oct 9 2007, 08:56 PM Wrote:Last spring I was charged for racing 8 Km over the speed limit just around my house in Oakville.

What exactly were you doing while travelling at 8km/h over? We had a kid going less than the limit on our street but was driving like such an idiot he went over the curb and hit a cable box. Lucky my kids were not walking on that stretch of the sidewalk or I'd be in jail now :o

Hey Canada SVT,
Iwas driving home on Bronte road the same way I do it every ^&% day. Taxi driver passed just me like ligntning as i was driving straight and normal and then I've got 2 polic ecars "catching me". They actually couldn't answer why I was stopped and not the cab guy.
So what's your point? I'm not a kid and drove/ridden more tnah many people on this forum, have no at folt accidents in any country, and son on and bla bla.
And again you involve kids.. By the way if your kids were walking on that road I would entertain an idea of charging you…with something... at least having kids while being stupid... (btw speed limit on Bronte is 50km – real playground just off the highway !…)

The way you had mentioned you were 'just around my house in Oakville' I imagined you were on a usual residential street.

Was the charge for speeding or ignorance? You should have fought the former. :P

Now Fantino is talking about how he wanted the fines to begin at 30 kms over the limit. Give it time......he'll get it. So far, there has been 1000 vehicles impounded. :(

oldeguy,Oct 30 2007, 07:37 AM Wrote:Now Fantino is talking about how he wanted the fines to begin at 30 kms over the limit. Give it time......he'll get it. So far, there has been 1000 vehicles impounded. :(
[right][snapback]251970[/snapback][/right]

The test isn't how many cars they nab IMO. It's how many of them that they nab that actually get the charges dropped (not reduced, dropped)

If sufficent numbers get dropped because the police were overzealous in the law's application, there will be changes. Otherwise the law will have been proven right as being necessary to try and reign in the extreme fringes of the motoring population.

NefCanuck

naz,Oct 11 2007, 04:54 PM Wrote:

Flofocus,Oct 11 2007, 06:10 PM Wrote:

naz,Oct 10 2007, 10:09 PM Wrote:

NikiterZTS,Oct 10 2007, 03:09 PM Wrote:but seriosly i've talked to the whole wack of my buddies with bikes and their friends.......and they told me "if i know for sure cop didn't see my plate....not even going to bother to stop"
its too easy to get away on the bike...with these new laws and all people with some what fast bikes are not even going think twice
[right][snapback]250579[/snapback][/right]

can't outrun the radio dude
[right][snapback]250648[/snapback][/right]

depending on situation and the kind of roads you have, its very easy actually ;)

Helps when your vehicle has the power to put some distance to.
[right][snapback]250741[/snapback][/right]

interesting. my bike could certainly put distance on a police cruiser but i've never thought about running. i guess i'd rather pay $ or not speed than risk dying?

anyone who has actually run wanna PM me the details :D
[right][snapback]250762[/snapback][/right]

if i had a quick enough bike......id think twice about stopping for a cop...if i knew for sure he saw my plates then yes, no reason to run but on another hand if he didn't see them.....so long partner!!........ride or die bi-tchez

38 people a day caught for street racing

http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=53076

I hope a few of them are lawyers and get the charges tossed.

Changes to 30 over and your charged with street racing? Bulls***, this morning, the flow of traffic was going faster than 30 over. RETARTDED.

Time to upgrade to that 16G turbo to put even MORE distance between me and that piggeh. :lol:

^^thats balls man.......way to make some people loose their jobs.....

but over all i did notes that hw's slowed down....ofcourse there are some idiots that didn't learn

but i cruise at 115km/h and it feels fine........also feels very very slow :(

Fantino is a douche bag, plain and simple... Same goes for his lackey Cam Porky.... Err Wooley.

edit. I'm not 100% sure of the accuracy of this, but there's a pretty good write up on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Fantino