In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.

Forum Sponsor
Griffin said:
Interesting to note that NONE of those objectives is to improve safety on the highways. Just look at the first objective. It is to increase fines. Okay, so they achieved that. They apparantly weren't even trying to reduce speeding, just increase fines. Crazy stuff.
Click to expand...

the safety part is in the preamble I would say

"Ontario’s roads are among the safest in North America. Our roads and highways will be even safer through Bill 203, which targets drinking drivers and street racers. This legislation: "
 
OpenGambit said:
Our cops aren't like commission salesman that get a cut off every conviction but have to give that commission back when the person gets acquitted.
Click to expand...

But is there not a financial incentive to charge as many people as possible to rack up the overtime in court appearances?
 
KrazyBones said:
Yes you are happy with it so the majority is happy with it. 99% of the population doesn't care one way or the other. Not until they or their children get their car taken away.
Click to expand...
Well, HTA172 has been running for almost 4 years now and well over 99% of Ontario's driving population still hasn't had their car taken away from them at any point during those almost 4 years. Obviously no secret trick involved in either them or their children avoiding it.
 
mma01 said:
But is there not a financial incentive to charge as many people as possible to rack up the overtime in court appearances?
Click to expand...

Is there not a financial incentive to keep as far away as possible from the line marking HTA172 territory when you are out riding or driving? Why would you want to come close to that line and risk being cut by it?
 
mma01 said:
But is there not a financial incentive to charge as many people as possible to rack up the overtime in court appearances?
Click to expand...

I suppose if thats your position you would argue that there is coercion because they might lose their job if they never gave out any tickets...

If your starting position is that cops are corrupt and are out there to screw you, there isn't a legal system out there that is going to "protect" you enough.
 
Griffin said:
Interesting to note that NONE of those objectives is to improve safety on the highways. Just look at the first objective. It is to increase fines. Okay, so they achieved that. They apparantly weren't even trying to reduce speeding, just increase fines. Crazy stuff.
Click to expand...
Increased fines tend to act as increased deterrent. With HTA172, the roadside suspension and impound are intended to do the same, and this principle is explicitly outlined in the HTA itself - "are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty".

There's your stated objectives - promote compliance and safeguard the public.
 
OpenGambit said:
the safety part is in the preamble I would say

"Ontario’s roads are among the safest in North America. Our roads and highways will be even safer through Bill 203, which targets drinking drivers and street racers. This legislation: "
Click to expand...

No. That isn't an objective. It's a statement of hope.

An objective would be: "wherease it has been statistically illustrated that exceeding the speed limit by 50 kph increases accidents and/or fatalities and/or injuries (none of which has been done, by the way) this legislation will target speeders exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 kph and will result in fewer people routinely exceeding the speed limit by this margin. This will in turn reduce accidents and/or injuries and/or fatalities by X amount." Planners for this legislation would know how many people are currently exceeding the limits by this margin as part of their rationalization for promoting the legislation. Then, to assess whether the legislation was successful they measure the reductions of people speeding by this margin and report on it quarterly.

None of that has ever, nor will it ever, be done. Because all the sheep need to be told is "speed kills".
 
turbodish said:
Increased fines tend to act as increased deterrent. With HTA172, the roadside suspension and impound are intended to do the same, and this principle is explicitly outlined in the HTA itself - "are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty".

There's your stated objectives - promote compliance and safeguard the public.
Click to expand...

That is a very poor objective, from a program evaluation and planning point of view. How is it promoting compliance? How is that safeguarding the public? By how much? Over what period of time? It's meaningless rationalization for Fantino's view that people shouldn't drive fast.
 
Griffin said:
No. That isn't an objective. It's a statement of hope.

An objective would be: "wherease it has been statistically illustrated that exceeding the speed limit by 50 kph increases accidents and/or fatalities and/or injuries (none of which has been done, by the way) this legislation will target speeders exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 kph and will result in fewer people routinely exceeding the speed limit by this margin. This will in turn reduce accidents and/or injuries and/or fatalities by X amount." Planners for this legislation would know how many people are currently exceeding the limits by this margin as part of their rationalization for promoting the legislation. Then, to assess whether the legislation was successful they measure the reductions of people speeding by this margin and report on it quarterly.

None of that has ever, nor will it ever, be done. Because all the sheep need to be told is "speed kills".
Click to expand...

Nah... its clearly a stated objective. whether the method to achieve the objective makes sense to you or not is something else.
 
turbodish said:
Well, HTA172 has been running for almost 4 years now and well over 99% of Ontario's driving population still hasn't had their car taken away from them at any point during those almost 4 years. Obviously no secret trick involved in either them or their children avoiding it.
Click to expand...

Well i have not had mine taken away and i do 50 over all the time too.
 
Griffin said:
That is a very poor objective, from a program evaluation and planning point of view. How is it promoting compliance? How is that safeguarding the public? By how much? Over what period of time? It's meaningless rationalization for Fantino's view that people shouldn't drive fast.
Click to expand...
You're confusing overall objective with the various yardsticks by which progress towards that overall objective is made and evaluated. To most people the precise minutiae is less important than the ultimate goal.

We're at A and want to get to B. Most people could care less about the precise details and the route taken. They just want to get on the bus and leave the details to the bus company and driver, just so long as they get to B in a relatively efficient and safe fashion.
 
turbodish said:
Increased fines tend to act as increased deterrent. With HTA172, the roadside suspension and impound are intended to do the same, and this principle is explicitly outlined in the HTA itself - "are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty".

There's your stated objectives - promote compliance and safeguard the public.
Click to expand...

How can you argue that 172 is just. If you are accused of a crime we will punish you right away!!!!!Deterrent to keep our children safe!
 
Griffin said:
Your missing my point but arguing is useless.
Click to expand...

Your point I chose not to address, it simply doesn't affect the fact that the premable to the legislation states the objective of the legislation. I have no intention of debating how good the legislation is at achieveing that objective. You said that there is no mention of safety as the objective, thats just wrong.
 
turbodish said:
You're confusing overall objective with the various yardsticks by which progress towards that overall objective is made and evaluated. To most people the precise minutiae is less important than the ultimate goal.

We're at A and want to get to B. Most people could care less about the precise details and the route taken. They just want to get on the bus and leave the details to the bus company and driver, just so long as they get to B in a relatively efficient and safe fashion.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused at all. I actually write legislation. But again, arguing with anyone about this stuff is useless.

And btw the expression is "I could NOT care less". Saying you could care less indicates that you do, in fact, care.
 
KrazyBones said:
How can you argue that 172 is just. If you are accused of a crime we will punish you right away!!!!!Deterrent to keep our children safe!
Click to expand...
So you have a problem with "keeping our children safe"?

In any case, by your previous post it's obvious enough that the HTA172 repercussions do not pose enough of a deterrent to work on you. If so, then you obviously don't think they're harsh enough.
 
turbodish said:
So you have a problem with "keeping our children safe"?

In any case, by your previous post it's obvious enough that the HTA172 repercussions do not pose enough of a deterrent to work on you. If so, then you obviously don't think they're harsh enough.
Click to expand...

So do you think 172 punishment is too harsh, too lax? What would turbo make the law if turbo had the power?
 
KrazyBones said:
So do you think 172 punishment is too harsh, too lax? What would turbo make the law if turbo had the power?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't make it a blanket 50-over. I'd work on either a straight formula of 50% or more over, or do brackets. 20-over in a 40 or less zone. 30-over in a 50 or 60 zone. 40-over in a 70 or 80 zone. 50-over in a 90 or 100 zone.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom