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.
I will be going to trial for my red light camera offence.
I'll be arguing two issues, centered on the fact that there are two essential elements of 144(18) - a) a vehicle approaching the intersection shall stop; and b) the vehicle shall not proceed until green. Both essential elements must be contravened beyond a reasonable doubt to be an offence.
1) My ticket says I (being the owner) am "charged…
I know that the RIDE program has been covered extensively in these great forums, but I have a question about the stop itself:
I recently was stopped for a RIDE Program and the officer asked me to roll the window down all of the way (I had it at half and could easily communicate with them). I told them that I could hear them just fine and they insisted I roll it down all of the way. Again I told…
Not sure the right place for this so if it needs to be moved please do so.
I was stopped today for 15 over the speed limit, I gave all the documents to the officer and he said he could not accept a photocopy of my ownership only the original I had a photo copy front and back and I had my plate sticker number with it.
he gave me a ticket for HWY ACT Section 7(5)(a) he said only the original would…
Hey! I'm from Sudbury Ontario. Hope that general talk is fine for this subject
I am very serious about looking for exact ruling about underfacing lighting
Section 14 clearly states:
Red and blue lights to the front restricted
(14.1) In addition to the lighting requirements in this Part, a police department vehicle may carry lamps that cast red and blue lights, but no other motor vehicle shall carry…
i was driving my dad's car when i was caught by the red light camera in Brampton. My dad would've to take time off work to go ask for a trial and then go to one.
Can i represent him? if yes, what do i need to do?
I was pulled over and told I went through a red light during a right turn. I learned through a friend who is a police constable that the one who pulled me over is new to the job (under a year, and possibly even the first month or two of real duty).
I was given a ticket for $180. I have some questions:
(1) Is this offense automatically associated with 3 demerit points? I see no mention of them on…
I got a ticket for 'Disobey Stop Sign' in November of 2013 (in York Region), requested disclosure and went to court in August of 2014. At my first appearance, I did not plea but requested an ajournment to to consult legal advice. The JOP set the next appearance in September.
I contacted a paralegal about my options. He told me that on my next appearance, if the police officer did not show, the…
I had a trial and found guilty, but the trial seemed to go wrong since the beginning.
The JP asked me if i am intending to take the stand- I said NO.
I asked how to submit my evidence-documents and photos.
JP said-i have to take the stand if i want to submit evidence.(Now i am finding this is wrong-i could introduce my evidence during cross examination and my defense would be much stronger)
Ottawa, Canada (AHN) - Beginning Tuesday, or April Fool's Day 2008, fines on Quebec drivers caught overspeeding will be doubled. It is not only the money penalty that will go up, but also demerit points.
The new law, Bill 42, is similar to Ontario's street racing rule. It stipulates fines for motorists who drive at over 40 km/h at under 60 km/h zones, speed at 50 km/h at 60 to 90 km/h areas and…
Make big trucks go slower and the roads will become safer.
Obvious, isn't it? It's also obvious when you look out the window that the world is flat.
Last Monday, truckers in Ontario tried to mount a convoy to Queen's Park to show their opposition to electronic speed limiters. These devices, electronic chips in trucks' engine management systems, restrict speeds…
I was out on a four lane highway around Orangeville Ontario and I noticed a school bus coming south (I was going north). I kept my eyes on the bus in case it was going to stop. As I approached it, it was slowing down a little, but no lights, and especially no arm with the STOP sign. As I was just about to pass the bus, I still did not see the lights, nor did I see the STOP sign.
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,…
Driving on a 80km/hr highway the car ahead hits the brakes and slows to 55, l slow down right behind him no reason to slow down traffic was moving between 80 and 90. I notice the driver is on the phone and looking through papers on the passenger seat. He begins to start to go a opp officer drives by doing 80 plus in oncoming lane turns around and says l was following to close. Told him what was…
My son was making a right turn at the intersection he had a green so slowed down looked and proceeded into the turn. It was pouring rain and the was a big pool of water as he got arround the curb. He tried to keep the car going sharp right however it slid into the car making a left turn. the lane he was turning into is very narrow and at a very busy corner. He paniced and left the scene only…
I had an collision the other day. I was turing left and ran into a car going straight in the opposite direction. The insurance company has already determined that I'm at fault, since I made the left turn. But I'm wondering whether I should go on trail and at least I might get rid of the ticket. The ticket was under 142(1)
I was told that if I go on court, both the guy I hit and the officer who…
question for a friend of mine.....says she got a 3 day suspension for giving a A on a roadside. Thing is she wasnt driving. She is a g2 driver and the car was parked in a parking lot, she just ran out to get something and turned the car on. Can a 3 day be issued if you arent driving on a highway - (I've read for impaired it doesnt matter, but 3 day isnt criminal)? And is there any way to…
I can't find the category for this post so I'm posting it here.
Two questions...
1. Are golf carts considered a 'vehicle' under the Highway traffic act? I know carts can't drive across roads or on roads but if you try to bring one from the USA into Canada they are considered a 'vehicle'.
2. If you are on private property are you allowed to carry 'opened' alcohol in your golf cart? I know golf…
I got pulled over (along with about 10 other cars) for going through a road closed sign. I had just pulled out of a parking lot pretty much right beside the road closed sign, and with about 4 cars behind me there wasn't much I could do but go through, so I think I have a good chance of fighting it. However, on my ticket under the Signature of issuing Provincial Offences Officer, it's left…
I was driving westbound on Hwy. 8 earlier this month in North Dumfries Township, approaching the Cambridge city limits. The weather was clear and the roads were dry. I noticed a vehicle on the shoulder on my side of the road, pointing towards me. This didn't concern me right away, as it is a rural area and I sometimes see vehicles doing mail delivery. The vehicle then started accelerating and…
I was pulled over yesterday in a community safety zone and told I was doing 84 in a 50. When i passed the officer I looked at my odometer and I was only doing 64. I was given a summons on the spot to appear in court at the end of June. Do I have any chance in this if it comes down to his word over mine. I was in the car alone but have travelled these same roads every day, twice a day for 6 years…
who is at fault when :a) a passenger opens door and jumps out of vehicle onto the road with traffic. b) he gets hit by a car travelling in the adjoining lane. c) traffic lights were green. d) pedestrian crossing was further up and indicated "no crossing" light e) the vehicle that he exited from leaves the scene as soon as accident occurred. f) no charges have been laid after police filed report…
), OK, turn the switch back to the lights
