http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/609928 I'd also like to hear everyone's opinions on the other aspects of the article. What grabbed me is that I'm happy that one public police figure (Dave Wilson) respects the law, unlike Cam and Julian.
Topic
Interesting article about court appearances. Opinions?
You don't know that traffic won't flow well at 100 km/h, because traffic never flows at that speed unless forced to by an obstruction ahead. I have been in heavily enforced areas of New York State where interstate traffic flows well at around 110 km/h, including the occasional out-of-state RV doing 90 km/h. We have no lane discipline because it's not the law. You must keep right when going slower than the flow of traffic, but there's nothing I know of to keep you from going with the "flow" of 120 km/h in the left lane, while someone else behind you wants to pass. As long as you keep them from passing you, you're not breaking the law that states you much turn to the right when overtaken. 'Unnecessary slow driving' doesn't seem like it would apply, either, because you're going with the flow. Also, speed limits don't always have to be about safety. Drag on a car increases dramatically as you go above 100 km/h. Lots of gas to be saved by having everyone drive slower. If you need to get to your destination at the speed of sound, then you might want to reorganise your life. And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit! :lol:
You don't know that traffic won't flow well at 100 km/h, because traffic never flows at that speed unless forced to by an obstruction ahead. I have been in heavily enforced areas of New York State where interstate traffic flows well at around 110 km/h, including the occasional out-of-state RV doing 90 km/h.
We have no lane discipline because it's not the law. You must keep right when going slower than the flow of traffic, but there's nothing I know of to keep you from going with the "flow" of 120 km/h in the left lane, while someone else behind you wants to pass. As long as you keep them from passing you, you're not breaking the law that states you much turn to the right when overtaken. 'Unnecessary slow driving' doesn't seem like it would apply, either, because you're going with the flow.
Also, speed limits don't always have to be about safety. Drag on a car increases dramatically as you go above 100 km/h. Lots of gas to be saved by having everyone drive slower. If you need to get to your destination at the speed of sound, then you might want to reorganise your life.
And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit!
Not officially, although Harper did change policy to stop seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty on foreign soil. I think it's still way too much of a touchy subject for them to consider bringing back the death penalty in Canada. Does your post mean you won't be voting Conservative? :cry: I don't support it as some sort of deterrent. I think that there are certain criminal acts that are not worth trying to rehabilitate for. Saves taxpayers the money of feeding them. I mentioned before that I view society as a machine - why keep the broken parts around?
Not officially, although Harper did change policy to stop seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty on foreign soil. I think it's still way too much of a touchy subject for them to consider bringing back the death penalty in Canada. Does your post mean you won't be voting Conservative?
I don't support it as some sort of deterrent. I think that there are certain criminal acts that are not worth trying to rehabilitate for. Saves taxpayers the money of feeding them. I mentioned before that I view society as a machine - why keep the broken parts around?
For me, that's a whole other issue. I don't agree with the system in place in some of the States, because of exactly what you mention. A death penalty should be reserved for cases with irrefutable evidence like the entire act caught on videotape or witnessed by a group of officers. Otherwise, save it for certain offences for repeat offenders (e.g., three armed robberies and we get rid of you). And in those cases, no death row. We schedule you for next friday. :twisted:
For me, that's a whole other issue. I don't agree with the system in place in some of the States, because of exactly what you mention. A death penalty should be reserved for cases with irrefutable evidence like the entire act caught on videotape or witnessed by a group of officers. Otherwise, save it for certain offences for repeat offenders (e.g., three armed robberies and we get rid of you). And in those cases, no death row. We schedule you for next friday.
The problem would be defining "irrefutable" and the usual abuses within the system. What if there's only one officer? What if the tape is grainy? Where do you draw the line? As for killing people over armed robberies that didn't involve any injuries.... I don't think I need to outline the reservations, especially since anything can be called a "weapon." My riding gloves are "weapons" because of the kevlar knuckles.
The problem would be defining "irrefutable" and the usual abuses within the system. What if there's only one officer? What if the tape is grainy? Where do you draw the line?
As for killing people over armed robberies that didn't involve any injuries.... I don't think I need to outline the reservations, especially since anything can be called a "weapon." My riding gloves are "weapons" because of the kevlar knuckles.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Not many people agree with my views on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree. ;) I don't see the death penalty making a comeback anytime soon, anyways.
Not many people agree with my views on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't see the death penalty making a comeback anytime soon, anyways.
I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice. I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues. Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too. Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release. just my 2 cents
I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.
I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.
Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.
Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.
just my 2 cents
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
And the bleeding hearts shall bleed some more......."but we can reform him, we have the ability......". I hear ya 'bear.
hwybear wrote:
I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.
I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.
Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.
Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.
just my 2 cents
And the bleeding hearts shall bleed some more......."but we can reform him, we have the ability......".
I hear ya 'bear.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Squishy no. That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone. A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed". No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc. Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild. Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150. Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel. Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank. No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed. For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed. try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.
Squishy no.
That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.
A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".
No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.
Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.
Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.
Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.
Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.
No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.
For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.
try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.
The way I see it... personally I support capital punishment in certain cases... if someone commits an act of first-degree murder, they shouldn't be given ANY chance of parole. Certain other offences should warrant life in the slammer, none of this 25 years with hope of release after 15, but because you spent a year at the Don Jail we'll release you with time served. :roll: If someone is going to be released out into public again, they should complete a full rehabilitation program before release. Otherwise, if they're a risk to re-offend, the only thing they'll do in the penitentiary is learn more anti-social behaviour (they're surrounded by other criminals) and commit another crime the second they're out. No rehab completion = no release. Also if someone gets into fights or does other stuff while in prison, re-arrest them, try them and extend the sentence! Oh here's another thing that got me going: While I support presumption of innocence and human rights, etc., giving Kelly Ellard a fourth shot at trial was asinine. Both she and Warren Glowatski should be spending the rest of their life in the Crowbar Hilton. He spent a mere 7 years in jail for killing someone!! That's not even a slap on the wrist. What kind of BS is that?
hwybear wrote:
Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.
The way I see it... personally I support capital punishment in certain cases... if someone commits an act of first-degree murder, they shouldn't be given ANY chance of parole. Certain other offences should warrant life in the slammer, none of this 25 years with hope of release after 15, but because you spent a year at the Don Jail we'll release you with time served.
If someone is going to be released out into public again, they should complete a full rehabilitation program before release. Otherwise, if they're a risk to re-offend, the only thing they'll do in the penitentiary is learn more anti-social behaviour (they're surrounded by other criminals) and commit another crime the second they're out. No rehab completion = no release. Also if someone gets into fights or does other stuff while in prison, re-arrest them, try them and extend the sentence!
Oh here's another thing that got me going: While I support presumption of innocence and human rights, etc., giving Kelly Ellard a fourth shot at trial was asinine. Both she and Warren Glowatski should be spending the rest of their life in the Crowbar Hilton. He spent a mere 7 years in jail for killing someone!! That's not even a slap on the wrist. What kind of BS is that?
TDRIVE NO! :lol: No car has a most efficient speed much higher than 100 km/h. Low RPMs do not equal "most efficient" - there is a formula based on piston velocity and stroke length that calculated the most efficient engine speeds. Can't remember it right now, but for most cars it is in the 2200-3000 RPM range. I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.
tdrive2 wrote:
Squishy no.
That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.
A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".
No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.
Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.
Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.
Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.
Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.
No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.
For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.
try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.
TDRIVE NO!
No car has a most efficient speed much higher than 100 km/h. Low RPMs do not equal "most efficient" - there is a formula based on piston velocity and stroke length that calculated the most efficient engine speeds. Can't remember it right now, but for most cars it is in the 2200-3000 RPM range.
I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.
Personal experience.. In Europe, where the speed limits are generally more reasonable, I rarely found myself doing more than 5 over the limit. Over here I literally have to force myself not to do more than 20 over on most streets, with 2 exceptions.. 1) School/park zones when the kids are out 2) 3-4 streets where the speed limits have been reasonably set for a change.. Actually it's funny.. They lowered the speed limit to 40 on my street recently and nobody goes over 40 anyway.. Talk about a waste of tax dollars. Now south-western US is pretty sweet. Over there I also rarely find myself doing more than 5 over. We're too nannyish here.
Personal experience.. In Europe, where the speed limits are generally more reasonable, I rarely found myself doing more than 5 over the limit. Over here I literally have to force myself not to do more than 20 over on most streets, with 2 exceptions..
1) School/park zones when the kids are out
2) 3-4 streets where the speed limits have been reasonably set for a change.. Actually it's funny.. They lowered the speed limit to 40 on my street recently and nobody goes over 40 anyway.. Talk about a waste of tax dollars.
Now south-western US is pretty sweet. Over there I also rarely find myself doing more than 5 over. We're too nannyish here.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Actually you're referring to several different studies. The one on surface streets was done for the US FHWA by Parker et al in 1992. Their conclusion, as you said, was that changing speed limits on surface streets by as much as 20 mph had a minimal effect on speed or safety. The one regarding freeways that you're citing was done by the IIHS, which has been historically opposed to speed limit increases. (Gee I wonder if being funded by insurance companies has anything to do with it.) It tried to paint a picture that, if you raise speed limits, people will just go exponentially faster; however, the methods it used were somewhat questionable. The IIHS study has been disputed. The NHTSA and several other gruops found that raising the speed limit, while it did bring speeds up slightly, it was not by much. It actually promoted greater compliance with the speed limit. In Saskatchewan, for example, a study found that raising the speed limit by 10 km/h resulted in a 4 km/h increase in the average speed. In Michigan and Texas, raising the speed limit by 10 MPH resulted in a 3 MPH increase in the average speed. In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit. :shock:
Squishy wrote:
I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.
Actually you're referring to several different studies. The one on surface streets was done for the US FHWA by Parker et al in 1992. Their conclusion, as you said, was that changing speed limits on surface streets by as much as 20 mph had a minimal effect on speed or safety. The one regarding freeways that you're citing was done by the IIHS, which has been historically opposed to speed limit increases. (Gee I wonder if being funded by insurance companies has anything to do with it.) It tried to paint a picture that, if you raise speed limits, people will just go exponentially faster; however, the methods it used were somewhat questionable.
The IIHS study has been disputed. The NHTSA and several other gruops found that raising the speed limit, while it did bring speeds up slightly, it was not by much. It actually promoted greater compliance with the speed limit. In Saskatchewan, for example, a study found that raising the speed limit by 10 km/h resulted in a 4 km/h increase in the average speed. In Michigan and Texas, raising the speed limit by 10 MPH resulted in a 3 MPH increase in the average speed. In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit.
Interesting study...but they have a one liner in their summary: "Further studies need to be conducted to analyze the overall effects of speed limit changes on accidents" Has that further study happened yet? Maybe you can dig that out from where you got the above. Said it would take about 3yrs, study was in 2004.
Interesting study...but they have a one liner in their summary:
"Further studies need to be conducted to analyze the overall effects of speed limit changes on accidents"
Has that further study happened yet? Maybe you can dig that out from where you got the above. Said it would take about 3yrs, study was in 2004.
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects? Sounds good.....until they throw in that collision stats were not considered
Squishy wrote:
IIHS! Okay, I'll have to erase that study from my memory banks.
Overall, raising the posted speed limit has had a lesser effect on driver speeds than anticipated.
I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects?
Sounds good.....until they throw in that collision stats were not considered
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
If the average vehicle speed increases by very little, then shouldn't the collision stats be affected by an equally small amount? It sounds as if going to a 110 km/h had little effect on driving speeds; it just brought more drivers into compliance with the law.
If the average vehicle speed increases by very little, then shouldn't the collision stats be affected by an equally small amount?
It sounds as if going to a 110 km/h had little effect on driving speeds; it just brought more drivers into compliance with the law.
We were talking average speeds only..........Brainwashed ticket tosser :D _____________________________________/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ _____________________________________I bet that gets erased.....! Those damn engineering numbers keep getting in the way of some good ole' fashioned ticket tossing......YooooHooooo, Fantino, McGuinty....yep you 2 over here now, I wanna talk to you. :!:
hwybear wrote:
Sounds good.....until they throw in that collision stats were not considered
We were talking average speeds only..........Brainwashed ticket tosser
_____________________________________I bet that gets erased.....!
Radar Identified wrote:
In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit. Shocked
Those damn engineering numbers keep getting in the way of some good ole' fashioned ticket tossing......YooooHooooo, Fantino, McGuinty....yep you 2 over here now, I wanna talk to you.
http://www.OHTA.ca OR http://www.OntarioTrafficAct.com
Not to my knowledge, BUT here's a report showing the collision trends in Saskatchewan, including the period before and after they raised the limits to 110. http://www.sgicanada.com/sgi_pub/road_s ... on%201.pdf The key one to look at is figure 1.3 on page 4. Around 2000, before they raised the limits, it seems as though there was a steep upward trend in fatal collisions on Saskatchewan's provincial and rural roads. The limit was raised in 2003. It was trending upwards both before and after the limit was raised. The "rural roads" did not have any speed limit change, so if the speed limit change had an effect, it should've showed the provincial highways with either a spike or a drop versus "rural roads." So I would say that, looking at the trend graph, the speed limit change on the provincial highways did not have any marked effect on fatalities, because there was no change in the year-over-year trend. That's just my opinion though... Overall collisions in Saskatchewan appear to be rising, partly due to the fact that there is an influx of population to the province, and also Saskatchewan has the highest rate of drunk driving in Canada. None that I'm aware of. I wish they would, though. Many US states that raised their Interstate speed limits saw a reduction in statewide fatalities, a few stayed the same, some saw an increase (North and South Dakota).
hwybear wrote:
Has that further study happened yet? Maybe you can dig that out from where you got the above.
Not to my knowledge, BUT here's a report showing the collision trends in Saskatchewan, including the period before and after they raised the limits to 110.
The key one to look at is figure 1.3 on page 4. Around 2000, before they raised the limits, it seems as though there was a steep upward trend in fatal collisions on Saskatchewan's provincial and rural roads. The limit was raised in 2003. It was trending upwards both before and after the limit was raised. The "rural roads" did not have any speed limit change, so if the speed limit change had an effect, it should've showed the provincial highways with either a spike or a drop versus "rural roads." So I would say that, looking at the trend graph, the speed limit change on the provincial highways did not have any marked effect on fatalities, because there was no change in the year-over-year trend. That's just my opinion though... Overall collisions in Saskatchewan appear to be rising, partly due to the fact that there is an influx of population to the province, and also Saskatchewan has the highest rate of drunk driving in Canada.
Squishy wrote:
I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects?
None that I'm aware of. I wish they would, though. Many US states that raised their Interstate speed limits saw a reduction in statewide fatalities, a few stayed the same, some saw an increase (North and South Dakota).
Why are some so worried about raising the limit. Lots of other countries drive 120-130 on old shitty roads. Infact the MTO can go put the limit to 180 if they want to. I wont drive that fast though. Ill keep it under 140. So even if they raise the limit to 120 and the flow of traffic in the left lane is 120-130. Well same again ill just pull over to the right if it doesn't work. They pay for their gas just like we do. I wonder if they put the limit to 140 or removed it how fast people would actually drive. Anyways our low speed limit is making lane discipline hell. If you crash at 110 or 130 your not anymore or less dead. The speed isnt the big issue its the large difference's in the speed and the lane discipline.
Why are some so worried about raising the limit.
Lots of other countries drive 120-130 on old shitty roads.
Infact the MTO can go put the limit to 180 if they want to.
I wont drive that fast though.
Ill keep it under 140.
So even if they raise the limit to 120 and the flow of traffic in the left lane is 120-130.
Well same again ill just pull over to the right if it doesn't work.
They pay for their gas just like we do.
I wonder if they put the limit to 140 or removed it how fast people would actually drive.
Anyways our low speed limit is making lane discipline hell.
If you crash at 110 or 130 your not anymore or less dead.
The speed isnt the big issue its the large difference's in the speed and the lane discipline.
Lane discipline has little to do with our speed limit - it's the lack of laws and lack of enforcement, along with a general selfish driving attitude from major urban areas like Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, etc., that is spreading like a cancer. When I first learned to drive (admittedly earlier than 16 :wink: ), changing lanes without signalling was an insult meant to tell the driver behind you that they are doing something wrong. Now it's just lazyness. Back then, when you saw a driver after sundown with no taillights on, you flash your highbeams at them and they understood what that meant! Now they slam on the brakes and give you a "How dare you!" look as you pass them. I once followed a Matrix across Toronto (from Greenwood all the way to Islington on Bloor-Danforth) at 4 am, flashing my lights at him at every red light. At least he gave me a wave of apology after it took him driving across an entire city to realise that he had no lights on (and no, he wasn't flipping me off :lol: ). Bookm is absolutely right - we don't need more laws, we need to change people's attitudes and their education. If people don't want the government to nanny the heck out of us, stop being douchebags. The key word is 'if'. As you drive faster, the distance you travel while you react increases, and the rate of information you need to process increases. You make it sound as if there are no disadvantages to an increased speed limit; however, there are both benefits and disadvantages, and that is why a study specific to Ontario is needed.
tdrive2 wrote:
Anyways our low speed limit is making lane discipline hell.
Lane discipline has little to do with our speed limit - it's the lack of laws and lack of enforcement, along with a general selfish driving attitude from major urban areas like Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, etc., that is spreading like a cancer. When I first learned to drive (admittedly earlier than 16 ), changing lanes without signalling was an insult meant to tell the driver behind you that they are doing something wrong. Now it's just lazyness. Back then, when you saw a driver after sundown with no taillights on, you flash your highbeams at them and they understood what that meant! Now they slam on the brakes and give you a "How dare you!" look as you pass them. I once followed a Matrix across Toronto (from Greenwood all the way to Islington on Bloor-Danforth) at 4 am, flashing my lights at him at every red light. At least he gave me a wave of apology after it took him driving across an entire city to realise that he had no lights on (and no, he wasn't flipping me off ). Bookm is absolutely right - we don't need more laws, we need to change people's attitudes and their education. If people don't want the government to nanny the heck out of us, stop being douchebags.
tdrive2 wrote:
If you crash at 110 or 130 your not anymore or less dead.
The speed isnt the big issue its the large difference's in the speed and the lane discipline.
The key word is 'if'. As you drive faster, the distance you travel while you react increases, and the rate of information you need to process increases. You make it sound as if there are no disadvantages to an increased speed limit; however, there are both benefits and disadvantages, and that is why a study specific to Ontario is needed.
It's not about a lack of enforcement. It's more about the wrong focus on enforcement. Speeding is easy to prove, "speed kills" brainwashing campaigns have been successful and the revenue generation has been solid. Even big municipalities can make some cash after all the expenses and most of it is from speeding tickets. That's why unsafe drivers these days justify everything with "i'm not a speeding street-racer." A little bit o/t but have you guys noticed that fewer people turn on their headlights now that just about every car has drl's?
It's not about a lack of enforcement. It's more about the wrong focus on enforcement. Speeding is easy to prove, "speed kills" brainwashing campaigns have been successful and the revenue generation has been solid. Even big municipalities can make some cash after all the expenses and most of it is from speeding tickets. That's why unsafe drivers these days justify everything with "i'm not a speeding street-racer."
A little bit o/t but have you guys noticed that fewer people turn on their headlights now that just about every car has drl's?
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
You would be shocked, maybe not, how many people I stop for not having their headlights on, but parking lights and DRL at the same time. Begin to wonder how these people get their licence when they do not know how to turn on their lights. Classic example: stop vehicle with daytime running lights. (DRL) DR - see they are on, point to road in front of car ME - using flashlight, see my little flashlight on the road which is brighter than your headlights DR - my lights are not that good ME - no your lights are not on DR - no, see, I turn the switch and my brights come on :roll: **walk around to driver side** ME - ok, turn your lights on DR - ok, they are on ME - this symbol here, it is "parking lights" DR - well if I turn it to here (light symbol), these are my highbeam, see the blue light ME - yes, now just put your low beams on (they turn the switch back to parking.... :x ), OK, turn the switch back to the lights DR - but that's my highbeams ME - ok watch this (as I move the signal indicator and the highbeams turn off and now with low beams) DR - how did you do that :shock: :shock: :shock:
FiReSTaRT wrote:
A little bit o/t but have you guys noticed that fewer people turn on their headlights now that just about every car has drl's?
You would be shocked, maybe not, how many people I stop for not having their headlights on, but parking lights and DRL at the same time. Begin to wonder how these people get their licence when they do not know how to turn on their lights.
Classic example: stop vehicle with daytime running lights. (DRL)
DR - see they are on, point to road in front of car
ME - using flashlight, see my little flashlight on the road which is brighter than your headlights
DR - my lights are not that good
ME - no your lights are not on
DR - no, see, I turn the switch and my brights come on
**walk around to driver side**
ME - ok, turn your lights on
DR - ok, they are on
ME - this symbol here, it is "parking lights"
DR - well if I turn it to here (light symbol), these are my highbeam, see the blue light
ME - yes, now just put your low beams on (they turn the switch back to parking.... ), OK, turn the switch back to the lights
DR - but that's my highbeams
ME - ok watch this (as I move the signal indicator and the highbeams turn off and now with low beams)
DR - how did you do that
Above is merely a suggestion/thought and in no way constitutes legal advice or views of my employer. www.OHTA.ca
I don't find that shocking.. All sorts of "interesting" people are on the roads.. Here are a few examples from my life experience.. 1) Old lady, just short of being legally blind, afraid of her own shadow. When she detects a car heading in her direction, she pulls over to the right, waits for the car to pass, merges back onto the road and keeps going at half the speed limit. 2) A "lady" doesn't look while shooting across 2 lanes and side-swipes me badly. Her response was: "How can it be my fault? I signalled!" 3) Ask any random 10 people about what they should do when it starts raining or gets foggy and 7 of them won't mention anything about lighting. Of course, all of these people will tell you that speed kills.
I don't find that shocking.. All sorts of "interesting" people are on the roads.. Here are a few examples from my life experience..
1) Old lady, just short of being legally blind, afraid of her own shadow. When she detects a car heading in her direction, she pulls over to the right, waits for the car to pass, merges back onto the road and keeps going at half the speed limit.
2) A "lady" doesn't look while shooting across 2 lanes and side-swipes me badly. Her response was: "How can it be my fault? I signalled!"
3) Ask any random 10 people about what they should do when it starts raining or gets foggy and 7 of them won't mention anything about lighting.
Of course, all of these people will tell you that speed kills.
What kind of a man would put a known criminal in charge of a major branch of government? Apart from, say, the average voter.
Am really confused about this one, this morning i got a reduced speeding ticket (80km speed in 60 zone), and in the ticket the cop wrote 10km over the speeding limit.. and it has the 'R' code in it.. and the cop said i need to pay this and it doesn't have any points on it..
im fine with paying the ticket which is only 40 dollars but my biggest concern, will it show in my record ? or only tickets…
I got a ticket for driving with handheld device in Oct 2015 and I had requested for a trial. Yesterday I received the notice of trial (notice is dated 26-Jan-2017, court of trial is Newmarket, ON) and trial date is Mar 8, 2017. Today, I have sent in a registered request for disclosure (i.e on 29-Jan-2017).
Need some help here for the 1st time speeding ticket?
Sunday morning 12:10am when I was going home from work I was doing bit speeding on Gardiner. I was going with about 130km/h. I know its fast. I always take the same way and I know where the cops hide. They always hide entrance of the highways. If I will do speeding I always look my back and did look this time too. I took gardiner…
I just have a question in regards to the summons Under Part 1 I received for an rear end accident:
I was driving on the 2 lane road, and the car in front of me suddenly stopped, I had seen the car, and so I started to brake, however I heard noise from the back and looked int o the rear view mirror and saw a huge "truck" so I decided to go right, took the feet out of brakes but couldnt…
I have searched and I know the general rule is no, barring criminal charges or tresspassing. So let me use 2 specific issues I have.
1) I have some business in some area malls after hours. Once I have pulled into the mall lot on the way to the closest door I rarely stop at stop signs unless there is a car or person nearby. (i do not carelessly speed, i do show caution, just do not fully stop) Can…
In June at 401 London and Wellington I got hit twice, speeding which I didn't realize I was doing and cell phone. The Officer made me open my purse and show him my phone. I was going to meet a Rep of my Company in Kitchener, he called I answered. WRONG! The Officer wasn't even nice. My record was clean and he slapped me twice. I sat in the car and sobbed for 20 minutes as I was scared out of…
I wanted to "reply" elsewhere...but the more appropriate areas were "locked" to replies....so, here are a couple of questions...from a newbie to this site:
1. Who ARE you? (I'm a little edgy about conversing on a forum whose ownership is not stated anywhere on an "About" page") No offense intended whatsoever. Just like to know who I'm talking with/in front of.......your honor!
You are coming off of a highway exit and there are 3 lanes: right hand lane for right hand turn; middle lane for left AND right turn (but no straight thru since it is only a three-way intersection); and left lane for left hand turn. You are first in the middle lane, signalling to make a right.
CAN YOU make a right hand turn from the middle lane on a red if the traffic is clear?
Hey everyone first off I'd like to say great website, I have been reading and it is very useful
I'm posting today as I'd like to get some feedback on my situation and have a couple of questions. Please excuse the vagueness in some areas - I don't want my case to be identifiable given the small town.
So I was driving up north and was pulled over by an OPP SUV for doing 31 over. Cop drove past me,…
Hello! I'm under 16 currently and really want to drive. I know that section 37(1) says you have to be 16, but I've read that the HTA does not apply when you are in private property, so does that mean I can drive in a parking lot if I wanted to?
I was heading northbound on my bike downtown on friday. After the east/westbound lights went red and after a long pause I decided to get a head start and proceed before the light changed to green. About a block north of me an officer stepped out of an unmarked cruiser and pulled me over and gave me a $180 ticket. Now I see on this site that I should have been given points for it..but…
Got a ticket Saturday for insecure load. The officer was a real jerk and unfair. I had nothing hanging out the sides and the load wasn't that high. Just taking some junk to the dump. I was doing 40 on Ashley St in Foxboro, 4 ways on taking my time and nothing was going to fall out. I'm thinking about fighting it. Anyone experienced this before?
So I got convicted of a dui.. I have been riding my bike in the snow and taking the bus. I am a driving enthusiast and I will be going to the race track all summer but I NEED to drive something right now!
I have done lots of research and even an electric assisted bike that a 16 year old can drive legally on the road is not an option to someone with a dui suspension.
Hey this is my first ticket so as much information that people can provide will be appreciated. I was making the drive home going around 90kph(in a 80) behind what I knew was an undercover police car. The cop abruptly pulled to the side and pulled back in behind me to pull me over. Now I reduced my speed to below 80 when the cop pulled to the side but he claimed he had me clocked at 109kph and…
So I was heading home to today and I was in the left lane of the off ramp, some lady cut across her lane of traffic and across the off ramp median and hit the back side of my car! After a few meters of bumping (I was dazed and confused) I stopped the car.
I call 911 and was told to move the car to the shoulder.
Cop comes, interviews both of us, and lets the lady go! The cop proceeds to give…
An undercover cop, well not sure if he was even a cop to be honest, maybe a constable pulled me over after I passed him shortly after a construction zone. He asked me if I was in a rush and said that he was going 105 and I was going 120. It seems mostly from our conversation that he was pissed off that I passed him, because he never told me that I was speeding. None the less the ticket says…
I got this ticket last year in toronto and received court date recently.
Basically I parket on a street where there are marked spots for car parking but they were all faded with only the white edges showing. I assumed I was in the correct spot when I got out. I never noticed the fire hydrant in the bushes.
When I returned I saw the ticket and then noticed the fire hydrant and when I to the…
I would like to know if anybody could tell me what "V" stands for on the Code section of the Form 4. I think that it will be useful to understand what information is on this form in order to make a decision on what option we should chose.
I recently received a ticket for red light fail to stop under section 144 (18) of the Highway Traffic Act at the intersection of Dupont St. and Dufferin St. in Toronto with a set fine of $150 and total payable of $190. I think I entered the intersection on a yellow, however that is not the way the officer saw it. During the traffic stop the officer was polite bordering on friendly…
Got my first ticket last Thursday and I have a couple of questions. I was driving westbound on Moore St. (west of Bayview) and made a left onto a residential street at a 4-way stop sign. It was my first time driving through that area - was driving my girlfriend to a wisdom tooth surgery.
The police were set up to catch people, as that intersection had a no left turn sign from 7-9 am (buses…
), OK, turn the switch back to the lights
