I guess you could bunny hop it.
In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
I guess you could bunny hop it.
Or you could be looking more than 100m down the road ahead of you and stop with plenty of room to spare.
Griffin
Well-known member
Okay, that was classic. Made me LOL.
We seem to be having even more arguments than usual where reasonable, smart, openminded people (like me) are trying hard to convince narrowminded, uninformed, foolish people (the ones I don't agree with) that their position on the subject is correct. While it is slightly entertaining I do hope everyone realizes that they have virtually 0 chance of changing anyone's minds about this stuff.
turbostats said:
The graph from your Ontario links shows a clear trend since the 80’s that the numbers of fatalities are going down and not due to a new law being in place at all. It also includes everything not just speeding incidents.
If anything I would attribute that to vehicles being safer. The rest of the years in any province fluctuate enough to show there’s no real relation to one rule or another.
So your pitch is flawed and cannot yet again be verified at least not in the near future or at all.
You where just posting yesterday that deaths were going up, how can you be boosting 172 as working if that’s the case?
Now, what would be fun to see would be a comparison between how many 172 cases where issued vs dangerous driving charges.
OPP press releases are no form of raw data dude, I hate to say it but even you should know that. I'm sure it would look great on fat tino if there was no impact of the crooked law he helped implement.
overlordjd
Well-known member
I certainly realized that, but well said. :lmao:
It’s interesting enough that people who implemented graduated licensing would attribute the reduction in road fatalities with that, but then this is not an argument about graduated licensing.
This thread has been very entertaining.
overlordjd
Well-known member
The graph from your Ontario links shows a clear trend since the 80’s that the numbers of fatalities are going down and not due to a new law being in place at all. It also includes everything not just speeding incidents.
If anything I would attribute that to vehicles being safer. The rest of the years in any province fluctuate enough to show there’s no real relation to one rule or another.
So your pitch is flawed and cannot yet again be verified at least not in the near future or at all.
You where just posting yesterday that deaths were going up, how can you be boosting 172 as working if that’s the case?
Now, what would be fun to see would be a comparison between how many 172 cases where issued vs dangerous driving charges.
OPP press releases are no form of raw data dude, I hate to say it but even you should know that. I'm sure it would look great on fat tino if there was no impact of the crooked law he helped implement.
Finally, someone else gets it.
You can chose any changes you want to and quote those stats as reasons why there are less road fatalities.
Higher Gas price
recession
safer vehicles.
Now a good question would be has their been a lower number of accidents since the implementation of 172, but then again you would still not be able to link the trend to that one single action.
Cars SUDDENLY got a whole lot safer in 2007? EVERYBODY suddenly traded in their old "less safe" cars for your supposedly uber-safer cars that year? You're really reaching on that one.
Also, if that is your argument, then it must be that those suddenly uber-safer cars didn't go on sale in Nova Scotia until the following year when they enacted their tougher law. And BC had to wait for those uber-safer cars until last Septermber 2010.
None of that argument of yours makes any sense at all. Try again.
Overall traffic fatalities are down even if motorcycle deaths in Ontario are up above the expected average that one would expect at this time of year. Part may be due to some riders thinking HTA172 doesn't apply to them because they think they can outrun the police if need be. Oh wait, one rider died doing exactly that. Others died doing HTA172-eligible crap before any cop had a chance to see or go after them. Half went down all by themselves without any help from others.
And yes, some died for minor non-HTA172 riding errors, while others died at the hands of other road users despite doing nothing wrong at all in their riding. Nobody ever said that ALL motorcycle crashes are from riding stupid.
When OPP media releases reference raw numbers from one year vs raw numbers for the same period in the previous year, that is comparative data. It may not be in a nice tidily prepared report, but it still gives a basis for comparison between the referenced years as long as the yardstick for numbers gathering is consistent between the two periods.
Last edited:
And the same challenge to that theory applies. Safer vehicles has already been address in my previous posts. Civilian vehicles didn't suddenly get better overnight, and the civilian vehicle fleet didn't suddenly get swapped out en masse just before each province started enforcing their tougher laws in the different years that each chose to start enforcing those laws.
Also, higher fuel prices and the recession hit across the entire country at about the same time, not years apart. They didn't suddenly have an impact only when the laws toughened up in each province mentioned.
Try again.
Last edited:
Griffin
Well-known member
Some fire services people in Ontario claim that the drastic reduction in fire losses over the last decade or so are related to changes in legislation. It could be true (it's not but it could be) but there is no causal relation demonstrated. Changes in the number of people that smoke, particularly indoors (a major cause of fire deaths), improved construction, less dense occupancy rates in buildings, improved education and a ton of other factors are never considered by these folks because they have an agenda which is served by a simplified representation of the "facts" illustrated by the statistics.
The reason I mention that is to show exactly what is being done by those that state HTA 172 has made our roads safer. There has been no detailed analysis that demonstrates a causal affect of the legislation in any improvement to road safety. Why would they bother? Just repeating it again and again is all the sheep need to believe it.
The reason I mention that is to show exactly what is being done by those that state HTA 172 has made our roads safer. There has been no detailed analysis that demonstrates a causal affect of the legislation in any improvement to road safety. Why would they bother? Just repeating it again and again is all the sheep need to believe it.
Turbo are you smoking dope dude? look at the graph dude, YOU posted that not me.
Your numbers include eveything from pedestrians, bicycles to ATV's dude did you even read your links?
turbodude said:
So there's no link between 172 and their actions...doesnt go far for what you where trying to explain. If would of they wouldnt of been speeding.
turboduderino said:
It's again just a "figure" might also be a well timed figure for political reasons like something called funding.
I get your point m8t but their your links not mine.
overlordjd
Well-known member
even when the argument makes sense, some people are just too narrow minded to see any other reasons.
There is justification to linking a significant change in outcomes to the timing of a significant shock effect like greatly-toughened legislation. All the other things you speak of may have an effect as well, but those effects would be marginal and accumulate only gradually over time.
With respect to low fatalities following the implementation of tougher traffic laws, you can argue coincidence when it happens in one locale. However, now there are three locals implementing very similarly-toughened laws in vastly different parts of the country at different time intervals, and "coincidentally each has come out showing the drastic lowering of traffic fatalities in the immediate aftermath of their implementation.
Ontario implements in 2007, and fatalities plummet immediately afterwards.
Nova Scotia implements in 2008, and fatalties nose-dive.
BC implements in 2010, and fatalities nose-dive.
That's three for three with respect to aftermath results of a shock to the system. That certainly works in favour of the argument that each province's toughened traffic laws are indeed the prime instigator behind lowered fatality rates in each of those provinces. What other significant shocks happened in each of those provinces (and only in those provinces) at precisely the individual times of tough law implementation in each of those provinces? None that I'm aware of.
which is it? either the hta is convincing people to ride slower or the people are trying to run from police... is this more turbostats that go which ever way you decide works for your turbospin on turbopropagands?
KrazyBones
Well-known member
I never said i want to make up laws. Im saying the laws should be fair. Speed limit should be 120 on the highway and 100 on country roads. There should not be a racing law.
Pedestrians and people on bicycles use the road and get smoked by people driving motorized vehicles. Is that not a traffic death? But ok, take their numbers out. Does it really change anything?
Regarding the graph, I did look at it, and the graph does show a distinct drop for 2008, the first FULL year that HTA172 was in effect. However, try looking at a different set of numbers, one that is a more meaningful measure of risk and one that accounts for changing numbers of licensed drivers and distances travelled by those drivers.
You want the fatality rate per 100 million or billion km travelled. That's the more accurate comparative measure between years and the one where the lowered fatality rates in Ontario really stand out. It shows a hell of a drop in the chances of getting smoked for every km you travel.
From the ORSAR reports:
Ontario
Year "fatalities per billion km driven"
--------------
2010 ?
2009 4.2
2008 4.6 First full year of HTA172
2007 5.5 HTA172 enforcement begins at end of Sept 2007
2006 5.3
2005 5.5
2004 6.6
2003 6.0
2002 7.1
2001 6.0
2000 6.0
Grow up. They're not turbostats, turbospin or turbo propaganda. They are published data. If you have data to counter then by all means do so. Otherwise, work on growing up.
HTA172 is convincing most rational motorists to slow down. Read the threads here and you'll see plenty of evidence to that effect.
Those who don't are the ones who figure they won't get caught, and the courts are full of people who thought just that. There will also always be those who figure they have it in them to run, with or without HTA172 in play. It's safe to say that riders as a group are more likely to run, in part because certain riders convince themselves and each other that they are able to. Read the threads here for examples of that. Sucks bad for them though when they get caught, and sucks even worse when they get scraped up.
KrazyBones
Well-known member
I have no data on this but i am 100% sure that the number of people running from police on bikes has increased after the racing law was passed.
Holmes
Well-known member
But the HTA 172 is not just about speed and thats the problem. If a cop feels like it they can seriously **** up the next few years of your life. That is just plain wrong, I came a ****-hair away from the 172 on monday... it makes me sick that I was at the mercy of some d-bag behind a badge and a gun. They should not have this power and this law should not exist.
