HTA 172 is still unconstitutional -- anyone had issues with standing on pegs?

[yodude]

cop is the only one outa line here? you sound like a cop magnet, gimme a break

i don't even care what the cop is yammering on about,

if it was me, id be thinking either wtf? or fy & your beeping, period

oh really? cell phone use bothers you to the extent that you are fully justified in beeping away with hand to ear motions whenever you feel like or come across it???

then the argument that starts with plaintiff wails of repeated "i don wanna argue" umm, then stfu, punk, fancy cam, utube whatever,

btw, cops can use cell phones, don't like it? too bad, oh, you're a clairvoyant??

punk as@ beeb happy cam dude with 'tude going to utube of course with cop crap is lucky it was a cop that stepped out

for most folks, beeping away behind someone at an intersection means 'hurry up, get going', doesn't matter who it might be, even a granny

so cop steps out & vents, or has a little road rage chit chat with punko, big deal

guy steps out with a visible gun & you ask if a Cop? as a citizen i say fy, lucky he was in a good mood, before you started with your beep beep crap

.... and with cops commonly acting like the one in the video below
[video=youtube;oZPWYd07h-A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZPWYd07h-A[/video]

 

[griff2]

You are getting an infraction for this post. And I will explain why.

Before HTA 172 took effect, I took it upon myself to CHECK what a common speed of traffic was on that road. And yes, you can criticize that I wasn't using a police radar gun; I was using the digital speedometer on my own bike, which is known to read very close to 7% high, which allows me to back-calculate the actual road speed by dividing what was observed by 1.07, which I did. And yes, you can criticize my sample size of about 15 vehicles ... but I didn't want to have a local resident call the cops about a motorcycle travelling up and down that road repeatedly (even though it has a stock muffler, etc) and get MYSELF a speeding ticket for doing whatever speed the vehicle I was following was doing.

Not one vehicle in my sample went lower than 80 km/h there. NOT ONE. A couple were between 80 and 90. Two were 100 - 105. The rest were between 90 and 100. One of the vehicles that was between 95 and 100 was a dump truck.

There is zero difference in width of lane, shoulders, straightness, etc between other similar roads (with posted 80 zone) and that section (posted 50 zone). There are only a couple of driveways until about 1 km south of there.

As for myself?

I am not the problem on that road. Reason: I know it's a fishing hole. I've seen cops there. I'm the guy going 70 holding up other traffic there. I'll take a 20-over ticket there if it comes to that; methinks the cop will more likely wait for someone going 30 or 40 over.

You issuing an infraction for that comment is pretty sad. Other people speeding on that road is not justification for anyone else speeding on that road, yourself included, any more than it would be at any other bendy road like the Forks, River Road, etc. Other roads having higher limits is also no justification.

But mostly, this infraction is unjustified and quite petty.

 

[Neil_V]

cop is the only one outa line here? you sound like a cop magnet, gimme a break

i don't even care what the cop is yammering on about,

if it was me, id be thinking either wtf? or fy & your beeping, period

oh really? cell phone use bothers you to the extent that you are fully justified in beeping away with hand to ear motions whenever you feel like or come across it???

then the argument that starts with plaintiff wails of repeated "i don wanna argue" umm, then stfu, punk, fancy cam, utube whatever,

btw, cops can use cell phones, don't like it? too bad, oh, you're a clairvoyant??

punk as@ beeb happy cam dude with 'tude going to utube of course with cop crap is lucky it was a cop that stepped out

for most folks, beeping away behind someone at an intersection means 'hurry up, get going', doesn't matter who it might be, even a granny

so cop steps out & vents, or has a little road rage chit chat with punko, big deal

guy steps out with a visible gun & you ask if a Cop? as a citizen i say fy, lucky he was in a good mood, before you started with your beep beep crap

I've been pulled over once in the last 10 years, so no, not a cop magnet haha...

Anyway this is not me.. and I'm getting the feeling you think it might be. Sorry if I'm mistaken.

Now with that cleared up, do you have anything to add to the discussion at hand; or are content with launching this little personal attack?
Finally, I'll bring this back to relevance with your comment

so cop steps out & vents, or has a little road rage chit chat with punko, big deal

Road rage can result in an s.172 charge in Ontario, and surely carries penalties throughout North America. But honking your horn does not met the legal requirement afaik, however, stepping out of your vehicle to confront another motorist does... So, as law enforcement officers are supposed to uphold the laws they enforce, yeah, his little fit is a big deal, that's why I posted it.

 

[Neil_V]

You issuing an infraction for that comment is pretty sad. Other people speeding on that road is not justification for anyone else speeding on that road, yourself included, any more than it would be at any other bendy road like the Forks, River Road, etc. Other roads having higher limits is also no justification.

But mostly, this infraction is unjustified and quite petty.

85th percentile study would suggest otherwise, and in a reasonable jurisdiction, would result in an appropriate change to what is clearly an arbitrarily low limit.

 

[yodude]

oh ya man, a huge deal, might ask yourself who cares? why? cos if it comes from you, personally, i could care less,

gonna report this too????

here are some fundamentals for ya,

if you can't tolerate a smidgen of the medicine that you love to dole out, then cred is a dream

the beep happy cam biker utube vid punk kid is lucky it turned out to be a cop in a good mood

don't waste anyone's time with a cop stepping out vs joe blow,

or cite case law arguments?

umm "surely carries penalties throughout North America"???

"afaik" ??

I've been pulled over once in the last 10 years, so no, not a cop magnet haha...

Anyway this is not me.. and I'm getting the feeling you think it might be. Sorry if I'm mistaken.

Now with that cleared up, do you have anything to add to the discussion at hand; or are content with launching this little personal attack?
Finally, I'll bring this back to relevance with your comment



Road rage can result in an s.172 charge in Ontario, and surely carries penalties throughout North America. But honking your horn does not met the legal requirement afaik, however, stepping out of your vehicle to confront another motorist does... So, as law enforcement officers are supposed to uphold the laws they enforce, yeah, his little fit is a big deal, that's why I posted it.

 

[griff2]

85th percentile study would suggest otherwise, and in a reasonable jurisdiction, would result in an appropriate change to what is clearly an arbitrarily low limit.

It's really funny. So many here decry just how awful most Ontario drivers are, but they form a large part of the 85th percentile you speak of. If those drivers are really so bad, why would you expect their speed-selection judgement to be any better than other aspects of their driving abilities?

In any case, the problem with the 85th percentile rule on a road like the one BrianP suggests could be seen as reasonably "100ish" is that it takes into account only the "comfort" of vehicle operators, and nobody else.

BrianP's example road is a local road that has a mix of different types of road users, not just motorized vehicles. The 85th percentile takes in absolutely no input from other road users who would be affected by the vehicle speeds on that road, such as:

• those who actually live in one of the many homes and farms on that road
• those who use the road for a bicycling route (did you notice the share the road signs?)
• slow-moving farm equipment using the road and entering the road from the field access driveways opening onto that road
• horse traffic
• pedestrians who have no sidewalks and as a result must walk either on minimal shoulders and even on the edge of the pavement where even the minimal shoulders do not exist.

Those other road users count too, and their needs are taken into account through the use of risk- and environment-based criteria used by most GTA municipalities in arriving at appropriate speed limits for a given road.

Those limits rightfully do not take into account the wishes of track-day junkies looking for a quick fix before the next track day, or the local street racer crowd looking to make like the next Senna (in more than one way). They can face 172 for all I care.

 

[Neil_V]

It's really funny. So many here decry just how awful most Ontario drivers are, but they form a large part of the 85th percentile you speak of. If those drivers are really so bad, why would you expect their speed-selection judgement to be any better than other aspects of their driving abilities?

In any case, the problem with the 85th percentile rule on a road like the one BrianP suggests could be seen as reasonably "100ish" is that it takes into account only the "comfort" of vehicle operators, and nobody else.

BrianP's example road is a local road that has a mix of different types of road users, not just motorized vehicles. The 85th percentile takes in absolutely no input from other road users who would be affected by the vehicle speeds on that road, such as:

• those who actually live in one of the many homes and farms on that road
• those who use the road for a bicycling route (did you notice the share the road signs?)
• slow-moving farm equipment using the road and entering the road from the field access driveways opening onto that road
• horse traffic
• pedestrians who have no sidewalks and as a result must walk either on minimal shoulders and even on the edge of the pavement where even the minimal shoulders do not exist.

Those other road users count too, and their needs are taken into account through the use of risk- and environment-based criteria used by most GTA municipalities in arriving at appropriate speed limits for a given road.

Those limits rightfully do not take into account the wishes of track-day junkies looking for a quick fix before the next track day, or the local street racer crowd looking to make like the next Senna (in more than one way). They can face 172 for all I care.

The cries for better drivers almost exclusively revolve around poor driving within Toronto and moreover rarely is speed the issue being discussed. As for your bullet points, particularly the first, if we take into account the outlandish wishes of every special interest NIMBY group, we'd eventually have to close the roads to motorized traffic completely. Focus on what the road was built for in the first place; and let's be honest, most of those "concerns" are covered by other legislation.

Your last line is just sensationalist bull. I would imagine the people in Brian's example were simply travelling at what the average, normal, level headed citizen deems reasonable. That says a whole lot more then paragraphs of rhetoric.

 

[Neil_V]

oh ya man, a huge deal, might ask yourself who cares? why? cos if it comes from you, personally, i could care less,

gonna report this too????

here are some fundamentals for ya,

if you can't tolerate a smidgen of the medicine that you love to dole out, then cred is a dream

the beep happy cam biker utube vid punk kid is lucky it turned out to be a cop in a good mood

don't waste anyone's time with a cop stepping out vs joe blow,

or cite case law arguments?

umm "surely carries penalties throughout North America"???

"afaik" ??

Google it man; I don't have time to hold your hand. If you find something that refutes what I've said, bring it to the table. That would be far more constructive then rambling on about how much you dislike me.

FYI twas not I who reported you, so if you got beef, take it elsewhere.

 

[griff2]

The cries for better drivers almost exclusively revolve around poor driving within Toronto and moreover rarely is speed the issue being discussed. As for your bullet points, particularly the first, if we take into account the outlandish wishes of every special interest NIMBY group, we'd eventually have to close the roads to motorized traffic completely. Focus on what the road was built for in the first place; and let's be honest, most of those "concerns" are covered by other legislation.

Your last line is just sensationalist bull. I would imagine the people in Brian's example were simply travelling at what the average, normal, level headed citizen deems reasonable. That says a whole lot more then paragraphs of rhetoric.

Focus on what that road was built for in the first place? Open your eyes and look at it. It isn't a regional highway. It isn't the 401 or 407. It isn't a race track, nor a test track, nor an appropriate route for non-resident commuter traffic to deke around traffic on nearby main arterial roads.

It's a local road of minimal width and no shoulders in many places. People living on that road and others like it have a reasonable right to expect that traffic speeds will be appropriate for the kind of road it is and for all of the users including non-motorized users who have no alternative but to use that road on a daily basis.

Rural traffic concerns addressed: Motorcycleviolations are one of the main concerns identifiedby rural residents of North Halton. North Haltonwas identified on a motorcycle enthusiasts’ website as an ideal location to test the performance ofvarious motorcycles.Working with the community, police identifiedthe preferred routes and targeted them for highenforcement. In addition, police motorcycleswere deployed in the area to provide for both enforcementand education of the motorcycling community.After a short period, the actions of thepolice were noted on the web site. The site wasupdated to identify that although rural Halton wasa scenic area to ride, it was not an area to test theperformance of the motorcycle as enforcementwas likely to result. This project was well receivedby the community and resulted in enhancedsafety on the rural roads.

For many years the residents of rural Burlington have expressed concerns regarding the speedstravelled by vehicles in their communities. Speed enforcement projects have occurred annuallyunder various names (BEARS in the Woods, BRRaKE). Speed enforcement on rural roadways hasindicated that a significant portion of the problem is from commuters using rural routes to avoidmore heavily travelled main thoroughfares such as Highway 401, Highway 6, Highway 403, QEW,and Dundas Street. The continuing volume of complaints indicates that drivers continue todisobey speed limits and have little regard for the safety of the people who reside in thesecommunities. During July, officers from the District Response unit initiated the Reduce RuralRoads project where officers issued 460 provincial offense notices for driving related offencesalong these rural roadways, 363 of those were for speeding. Officers will continue to patrol therural roads to deter drivers from speeding along these roadways.

 

[Neil_V]

Focus on what that road was built for in the first place? Open your eyes and look at it. It isn't a regional highway. It isn't the 401 or 407. It isn't a race track, nor a test track, nor an appropriate route for non-resident commuter traffic to deke around traffic on nearby main arterial roads.

It's a local road of minimal width and no shoulders in many places. People living on that road and others like it have a reasonable right to expect that traffic speeds will be appropriate for the kind of road it is and for all of the users including non-motorized users who have no alternative but to use that road on a daily basis.

Travelling down an country road at 80-100kph is not racing; not even close

I would imagine many of those travelers live or visit the area on the regular and are not just taking the least convenient route possible. Such convoluted arguments....

In Hamilton an entire ward has been reduced to 30kph. Just walking around the area, no one, and I truely mean no one, is adhering to that limit. Are all those people outta towners? Just passing through? Highly unlikely as the area is boardered by water on two sides and there is only one semi arterial route... Speed limit is unreasonable, and the majority of LOCAL residents ignoring it shows us as much; but yeah, let's continue to pander to small vocal minority groups.

 

[griff2]

Travelling down an country road at 80-100kph is not racing; not even close

I would imagine many of those travelers live or visit the area on the regular and are not just taking the least convenient route possible. Such convoluted arguments....

When the posted limit is 50km, travelling at 80 and 100 is way out of line as far as the people actually living on those narrow, local roads are concerned.

For many years the residents of rural Burlington have expressed concerns regarding the speeds travelled by vehicles in their communities. Speed enforcement projects have occurred annually under various names (BEARS in the Woods, BRRaKE). Speed enforcement on rural roadways has indicated that a significant portion of the problem is from commuters using rural routes to avoid more heavily travelled main thoroughfares such as Highway 401, Highway 6, Highway 403, QEW,and Dundas Street. The continuing volume of complaints indicates that drivers continue to disobey speed limits and have little regard for the safety of the people who reside in these communities. During July, officers from the District Response unit initiated the Reduce Rural Roads project where officers issued 460 provincial offense notices for driving related offences along these rural roadways, 363 of those were for speeding. Officers will continue to patrol the rural roads to deter drivers from speeding along these roadways.

 

[Flywheel]

When the posted limit is 50km, travelling at 80 and 100 is way out of line as far as the people actually living on those narrow, local roads are concerned.

A country road would suggest an 80 km/h limit, no? Just as a city/town street would suggest 30-50 km/h. I'm pretty sure Mr. Five didn't just advocate riding double the limit through crowded neighborhoods.

 

[griff2]

A country road would suggest an 80 km/h limit, no? Just as a city/town street would suggest 30-50 km/h. I'm pretty sure Mr. Five didn't just advocate riding double the limit through crowded neighborhoods.

Not necessarily, especially given the increasing residential density occurring many country roads. Just because you are able to stay on the road while doing x kmph doesn't mean that such is the proper speed limit. It's not just about cars or motorcycles, but everything else about the environment surrounding a given road.

TAC engineering formulas take into account driveway intrusions, variety of motorized and non-motorized road users, pavement width and surface type, shoulder width, roadway alignment/topography/sightlines, and residential density when determining optimal speed limits. The result of this is that a lot of rural roads that would once have had a blanket 80 km limit are now being given lower limits of 50, 60, and 70 km.

 

[Neil_V]

Except the reality is, most limits are lowered as a result of complaints from a few residents. Even forgetting the road users who are not local, this is still a minority voice imposing it's will on the majority unjustly. Most of North America is moving forward with increasing limits back to pre-1970's oil crisis levels, if not higher, and here we are in Ontario talking about lowing them....

 

[griff2]

Except the reality is, most limits are lowered as a result of complaints from a few residents. Even forgetting the road users who are not local, this is still a minority voice imposing it's will on the majority unjustly. Most of North America is moving forward with increasing limits back to pre-1970's oil crisis levels, if not higher, and here we are in Ontario talking about lowing them....

The reality is that speed limits are often lowered where residential density has increased, and even in the land of the 85th percentile.

New Law Allows Cities To Lower Speed Limits To Promote Ped, Bike, And Neighborhood Safety

A new law explicitly authorizes cities to consider residential density and pedestrian and bicyclist safety when setting speed limits. The law states: "When conducting an engineering and traffic survey, local authorities...may consider...Residential density...[and] Pedestrian and bicyclist safety."

Under former law, speed limits were set at the 85th percentile speed, rounded down to a multiple of five miles per hour, with no legislatively authorized consideration given to other users of the street, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, children, the elderly, or residential uses.

As traffic engineers themselves freely admit, the flaw in the 85th percentile approach is that drivers are traveling at a speed they feel is safe for themselves. That speed is not necessarily safe for other road users like pedestrians and bicyclists. High speeds (over 25 mph) directly correlate with motorists' failure to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, high injury rates, injury severity, lack of perceived walkability, and high noise levels.

For the last several years, San Jose's traffic engineers have declined to lower speed limits, saying that the process was "out of their hands." As a consequence, many San Jose neighborhoods now suffer from excessive speed limits (such as 35 mph) on residential streets. And even higher actual speeds, in the 40-45 mph range.

In contrast to San Jose's hands-off policy, some cities like Los Gatos would vigilantly prevent "percentile speed creep" through active enforcement.

Walk San Jose has already heard complaints about excessive speed limits from many neighborhoods: Spartan Keyes, Naglee Park, Northside, Mayfair, Shasta Hanchett, Rose Garden, Cambrian, Willow Glen, Almaden Valley, Evergreen, East San Jose, Berryessa, West San Jose, South University Neighborhood, and Japantown, among others.

Assemblymember Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara), authored the bill. She says she introduced the bill "at the request of local residents who are worried about pedestrian and bicycle safety in their neighborhoods. Local authorities should have the discretion to consider the safety of their residents when setting speed limits."

San Jose's Department of Streets & Traffic has indicated that, if requested, it will perform a survey of a residential street to determine if lowering a speed limit is sensible, given the flexibility provided by the new law.

One speed limit has already been lowered - on Penitencia Creek Road. Ultimately, a decision to lower a speed limit is up to the City Council - but the Council will probably heavily weigh the recommendations of the city traffic engineers.

http://moderntransit.org/gw/4b.html

 

[Neil_V]

let me just remind you what started this

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/De...e!8m2!3d43.544789!4d-79.8199986!6m1!1e1?hl=en

SOOOOOO densely populated. A 50kph limit there is a result of complaint, full stop.

... also that highlighted bit, I'm sure justifying their job has nothing to do with that opinion. Seems like you would need a whole lot less man power if you simply monitored the average driver and their ability to drive according to conditions, including all of the above mentioned risk... Kind of like the LRT project manager in Hamilton releasing results of his model study that "prove" there will be no increase in congestion once built.. so his model says

 

[griff2]

let me just remind you what started this

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/De...e!8m2!3d43.544789!4d-79.8199986!6m1!1e1?hl=en

SOOOOOO densely populated. A 50kph limit there is a result of complaint, full stop.

... also that highlighted bit, I'm sure justifying their job has nothing to do with that opinion. Seems like you would need a whole lot less man power if you simply monitored the average driver and their ability to drive according to conditions, including all of the above mentioned risk... Kind of like the LRT project manager in Hamilton releasing results of his model study that "prove" there will be no increase in congestion once built.. so his model says

Look just a little further down the road. Houses. "Share the road" signs with a bicycle on it. Look at the farm field access. Width of road. Road shoulders, or not.

As for the average driver and their supposed ability, the average driver thinks they are a better driver than the average driver.

 

[Neil_V]

Look just a little further down the road. Houses. "Share the road" signs with a bicycle on it. Look at the farm field access. Width of road. Road shoulders, or not.

As for the average driver and their supposed ability, the average driver thinks they are a better driver than the average driver.

You can't be serious!! It's nearly 3 km to the next cross road with few distinguishable homes from the overhead view (one small section 2 km up the road with about 6 - 8 ). Share the road sign? What on earth does that have to do with the speed limit? Farm field access? Like darn near every other rural road in Southern Ontario? C'mon . There are zero visibility issues and the road is plenty wide to safely pass bicyclist who, if you're honest, take a quarter of the lane regardless of what shoulder they may or may not have.

90% of the dirt roads I travel have 80kph limits and are narrower in many cases. They have farms, and homes, and local walkers, teens on mountain bikes... It doesn't take much in the way of critical thought to see your argument fall to pieces.

edit

That last line..... So, you think the rest of the road users are too stupid to act responsibly in most situations?

 

[griff2]

90% of the dirt roads I travel have 80kph limits and are narrower in many cases. They have farms, and homes, and local walkers, teens on mountain bikes... It doesn't take much in the way of critical thought to see your argument fall to pieces.

edit

That last line..... So, you think the rest of the road users are too stupid to act responsibly in most situations?

Then you should operate on those other roads that have higher speed limits.

This particular road is posted at a particular limit. It is clearly posted as such. No doubt that part of the rationale for that limit is to discourage heavy and fast through traffic from using that road. There is a major arterial road just a little over 1 km to the east that is built to standards that can far more safely support higher speeds and traffic loads than this particular road is.

Judging from many of the arguments that show up here on a regular basis, I think that too many road users are far too self-centered and arrogant to consider anyone else who may use or live on any given road.

 

[Neil_V]

Then you should operate on those other roads that have higher speed limits.

This particular road is posted at a particular limit. It is clearly posted as such. No doubt that part of the rationale for that limit is to discourage heavy and fast through traffic from using that road. There is a major arterial road just a little over 1 km to the east that is built to standards that can far more safely support higher speeds and traffic loads than this particular road is.

Judging from many of the arguments that show up here on a regular basis, I think that too many road users are far too self-centered and arrogant to consider anyone else who may use or live on any given road.

So, the city, all on its own, decided they didn't want traffic on that road and lowered the limit? Or, more likely a few residents complained and now everyone else must adhere to please a few self-righteous whiners....

Your last paragraph shows your usual contempt; moreover, the argument is fundamentally flawed.