Is HTA 172 really THAT unsuccessful?

[turbodish]

Funny, but that's usually my line and I look at TEN year trends, not two or three.

Too many things happen over the span of ten years to be able to pin any given result on any given one-time shock ten years prior. The HTA172 one-time shock happened in Sept 2007. There was an immediate effect that some attribute to other causes. If the other supposed causes quickly go away and the original situation does not return, it is reasonable to attribute the improvement to the one-time shock.

The other supposed causes did in fact go away with no rebound effect to the fatality rate. Now we have a fresh shock happening in the form of a 35% spike in the price of fuel this year. If the theory of some here is correct that the previous drop in fatality rates was in part due to reduced discretionary travel because of high fuel prices, then we should be able to look forward to another significant drop in fatality rates. If we do not get that drop, then that casts doubt on the previously-held premise that fuel prices were at least partly behind the drop.

Didn't we also go 'round and 'round on this one, where ultimately a post was made showing that there is a spike in accidents on weekends, and the days on either side of them? Feel free to peruse our past MASS of discussions on the matter

I just looked at the ORSAR numbers for 2003 through 2007. Overall there's a slight increase in fatalities on Friday through Sunday as compared to weekday rates, but nothing approaching a "spike". Also, let's not forget when prime drinking and driving time is for a significant part of the population - Friday night through Sunday afternoon. That may also be a good part of the reason for difference.

If recreational travel is a factor as you claim, then the 2008 ORSAR numbers when released should show a significant shift in weekend fatality rates vs weekday rates. I don't see any significant shift happening.

Also, recall that gasoline consumption fell by only 1% in 2008. If there was reduced discretionary travel, how much was that travel reduced? Is it realistic to attribute the massive drop in fatality rate on an incremental decrease in travel?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

A search reveals more than 120 threads, in which the term "hta172" ia used. Please feel free to consult one of my posts in them

 

[promac]

What about:

Cellphone use restrictions
Reducing BAC to 0.05
Graduated licencing
Huge improvements in public transportation - especially in the GTA
Greater use of fuel efficient/hybrid automobiles
Higher insurance premiums/mandatory insurance effectively ejecting high-risk drivers from the population
Use of advanced safety technologies - ie information/sensors/devices, airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc
Psychological factors
..........and you could go on and on.

I don't believe there is much evidence of a high correlation between HTA 172 and a decline in motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. On an occurence basis, I could safely assume that HTA 172 offences compared to all others are so rare as to be considered merely anomolous.

 

[aLiveandiNsane]

Got ticketed for 47 over (not proud of it). It sounds rough but there were no cars or ppl around. Except the cop car I conveniently missed. After that I defn. drive slower. 1 year later, exact same spot, same cop.. got ticketed for TEN over. FML.

 

[promac]

Got ticketed for 47 over (not proud of it). It sounds rough but there were no cars or ppl around. Except the cop car I conveniently missed. After that I defn. drive slower. 1 year later, exact same spot, same cop.. got ticketed for TEN over. FML.

And there, you got a slap on the wrist - 3kph more and you would've got a serious anal raping, by comparison - there is no logic to that.

 

[turbodish]

What about:
Cellphone use restrictions
Reducing BAC to 0.05

Cell phone restrictions came after HTA172 was put into force.
The first cut at .05+ BAC and 12 hour suspension came before HTA172.
The second cut at much tougher penalties for .05+ BAC came after HTA172.
No real connection here to the 2008 results.

What about:
Graduated licencing

First cut came before HTA172.
Tougher graduated licensing restrictions came after HTA172.
No real connection here to the 2008 results.

What about:
Huge improvements in public transportation - especially in the GTA
Greater use of fuel efficient/hybrid automobiles
Higher insurance premiums/mandatory insurance effectively ejecting high-risk drivers from the population

The first two have been incrementally improving for quite some time now, before and after HTA172. There is no one-time "shock" effect arising out of them that would explain a sudden impact on fatality rates in 2008.

Insurance repercussions have always been there with the effect of ejecting high risk drivers from the "insured driver population". Whether those drivers actually ever left the roads is another story altogether.

What about:
I don't believe there is much evidence of a high correlation between HTA 172 and a decline in motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. On an occurence basis, I could safely assume that HTA 172 offences compared to all others are so rare as to be considered merely anomolous.

I think the difference is that HTA172-types of deliberately-chosen driving habits are far more likely to result in fatality than lesser deliberately-chosen driving habits.

It's been mentioned several times by other posters here - traffic on the highways isn't as fast as it used to be. Lower speeds and predictable driving/riding equals more ability to successfully adjust and react to unexpected events ahead. That in turn means that crashes that may have been unavoidable at higher speeds are now avoidable, and a crash that now does not happen provides the absolute best improvement to fatality and injury rates. Even if a crash should still happen, lower speeds mean lower potential crash forces, and that too has a positive effect on reducing potential for serious injury and death.

 

[alaywa]

I gotta agree on this one. As much as I babble about the UK this and that, one thing I did notice and agree with and gotthrough was the process of "graduating" to a big bike out in the UK.

At 24 no one would insure me for an R of any type. Had to go through a 600S first, insurance dropped, then checked with insrance first for a 600R (couldn't get insurance on a 1000R), then spent some time on that, then finally the 1000R.

In all my riding out there I had never seen anyone under 25 on a 600R or higher. And riders were a mature bunch, the mean age somewhere in the 30s with people riding waaaaaaay past marraige, kids and white hair.

They learn and pay respect to the risks, and it isn't treated like a Sunday pose and rip.

I walked right into that defacto graduated system when I moved from Canada, when at the time 16 + M1 + 1000R = A OK! There is and was something seriously wrong with that, and I certainly don't mind the abolition of this attitude.

Do I still pop the odd wheelie?....I can't publicly admit to that. But I certainly have been put through the maturation process and I agree with it looking back.

So stopping people from exceeding the posted limit by 50KPH has, in your mind, somehow NOT affected things like tboning left hand turners? Has there been some suspension of inertia and velocity i missed in the news? It's just not the case man.

AND....the people who have been riding 30 years are NOT the problem. It's the new kids. The dolts who have to be treated like...well KIDS, because they are not being manufactured with some of the common sense we had taught to us. And then call this a nanny state. Possibly accurately.

Oh...and there are like a few million more of them in the GTA then when we enjoyed our freedoms on the road. So if you want your insurance reduction, go shake down some 22year sitting petulantly on an R1 at any timmies near you.

 

[turbodish]

And there, you got a slap on the wrist - 3kph more and you would've got a serious anal raping, by comparison - there is no logic to that.

The 50 kmph over cut-off is a simple and well-defined line in the sand. Without a well-defined line in the sand, then you can argue that if 47 over is somehow not so bad, then neither is 50 over because it's not that much more than 47 over. If 50 over is not that bad, then neither is 53 over because the two of them are not that far apart. Where do you finally draw the line and stop such rationalizations?

 

[caboose56]

Let's put it this way. Ontario enjoyed a sharper drop in the downward trend line than anywhere else.

That's quite a feat, especially given that Ontario was already one of the lowest, if not the lowest, jurisdiction in North America as far as fatality per km driven rates goes. It's relatively easy to improve when you're dealing with an abysmally poor record, but when your record is virtually the best in the pack, additional improvements usually become harder to achieve.

You can quibble and bring up things like weather, population density, but that is not unique to Ontario. Also, Ontario is a pretty big province. Once you get more than 30 km away from the Toronto city core, density starts to take on a sharp downward trend.

Bad weather is another factor that is hardly unique to Ontario. Besides, bad weather has little effect on the bulk of our driving. You still have to get to work, you still have to get to shopping and services. Goods still have to be shipped. Bad weather may have an effect on your trip to the beach, but there are still plenty of recreational travel that is weather-independent.

This is reflected in the actual gasoline consumption stats for Ontario that show a drop of only 1% in the volume of gasoline sold in Ontario for 2008, and part of even that little drop might be attributable to a move to more fuel-efficient vehicles. Also, that drop in volume rebounded back and then some in the very next year.
The effect of bad weather in reducing traffic volume was negligible. Offsetting that however was the increased risk of crash that comes with driving on wet roads with reduced traction and visibility because of rain.

And gas prices is somehow an Ontario thing? The same high oil prices that raised our fuel prices were also a factor in raising fuel prices in every other market in North America. Where is their corresponding drop in fatality rates to match what Ontario enjoyed?

Total gasoline volume sales on their own don't mean anything.

How did the population of Ontario change over those years? How many more vehicles were registered over the course of those years? What was the average yearly km driven per driver over those years?

Extrapolating a trend of average kms driven year-to-year based on one variable when no other variables are static is a pretty flimsy argument.

 

[V-Tom]

Doubling of speed means braking distances increase four times. Slower traffic would have a lot better chance of being able to brake enough to avoid t-boning you.

The same applies to force of impact. Doubling of speed means that impact force increases four times. Even if they do still hit you, a hit by a slower vehicle tends to be more survivable than a hit by a faster vehicle.
...

You need to fill this in by explaining why the fastest highways also have the lowest fatality rates, and why on faster highways slower drivers get into more crashes.

..Tom

 

[turbodish]

Total gasoline volume sales on their own don't mean anything.

How did the population of Ontario change over those years? How many more vehicles were registered over the course of those years? What was the average yearly km driven per driver over those years?

Extrapolating a trend of average kms driven year-to-year based on one variable when no other variables are static is a pretty flimsy argument.

I'm not sure that any of that really makes all that much difference as far as the net effect goes. Gasoline sales, absent a major change in the composition (and hence fuel consumption) of the province's vehicle fleet, are a rough indicator of kilometers travelled by all persons in the province. It makes little difference if those trips are made by a fewer people putting on more kms, or more people putting on fewer kms, because either way the net effect on overall traffic volume is still about the same.

 

[turbodish]

You need to fill this in by explaining why the fastest highways also have the lowest fatality rates, and why on faster highways slower drivers get into more crashes.

..Tom

Speed differential issues still apply no matter where you are. If a driver doing 200 kmph runs into the back of someone doing 90 kmph on the 401, where does the primary fault really lie?

Our faster highways have lower crash rates because there is fewer opportunity for conflicting traffic movements on them. No cross streets, no pedestrians or bicylcles, no vehicles pulling into and out of driveways, everyone travelling in the same direction, separation by space or barrier between roadside highway structures and traffic, and separation from oncoming traffic by a wide median or cement barrier. The lack of those and other conflicts is why we can have higher speeds on limited access highways, assuming that we don't defeat the safety dividend of such things by exceeding their design protections through excess speeds.

However, that said, the laws of physics still apply with respect to braking ability, high speed maneuverability and crash avoidance, and when all goes south, crash forces. So too are there limitations to human perception, processing, and reaction time.

Encounter an unexpected situation in front of you while travelling at 100 kmph. Encounter the same situation at 150 kmph and again at 200 kmph. Which do you think you would be able to more easily react to and then successfully brake or maneuver to avoid a crash?

And let's say that you are not successful and find yourself in a crash. What initial travelling speed do you think would give you the best chances of survival or minimized injury? That's why speed is a factor on even our safest highways.

Then there is the issue of those idiots among us who insist on travelling at limited-access highway speeds on busy town and city streets that do not have those designed-in protections offered by our 400-series highways, and where there is cross traffic, pedestrians, driveways, etc.

 

[V-Tom]

The 50 kmph over cut-off is a simple and well-defined line in the sand. Without a well-defined line in the sand, then you can argue that if 47 over is somehow not so bad, then neither is 50 over because it's not that much more than 47 over. If 50 over is not that bad, then neither is 53 over because the two of them are not that far apart. Where do you finally draw the line and stop such rationalizations?

The question is why is a line needed to be drawn in the first place?

..Tom

 

[V-Tom]

Speed differential issues still apply no matter where you are. If a driver doing 200 kmph runs into the back of someone doing 90 kmph on the 401, where does the primary fault really lie?

Our faster highways have lower crash rates because there is fewer opportunity for conflicting traffic movements on them. No cross streets, no pedestrians or bicylcles, no vehicles pulling into and out of driveways, everyone travelling in the same direction, separation by space or barrier between roadside highway structures and traffic, and separation from oncoming traffic by a wide median or cement barrier. The lack of those and other conflicts is why we can have higher speeds on limited access highways, assuming that we don't defeat the safety dividend of such things by exceeding their design protections through excess speeds.
...

You constantly suggest speed is bad while at the same time giving excuses for the fastest roads having the lowest fatality rates. It’s quite a contradiction! Let’s face it, speed is only a small part of the equation and perhaps a fairly unimportant part of things. The initial impetus for “Street Racing” was that high speeds caused some fatalities; and these fatalities were very dramatic and got a lot of news coverage. The truth is that historically very few fatalities have been caused by high speed driving, I believe it was on the order of 4 or 5 fatalities per year in Ontario vs. thousands that die as a result of more mundane crashes. It seems an inordinate effort is given to something that has been and still is a small part of the overall safety issue.

..Tom<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

 

[dankyyz]

No no son. YOU having some car pull out in front of YOU (going 50 over) because the cager did not think anyone would be dumb enough to exceed by that much. You look. You see a bike 300 yards away, and think...cool...safe to make my turn. When in FACT some ultramaroon on his GSXR1K is actually doing 100k in a 50k zone.

That is what i was talking about. Not your imaginary swerve/avoid scenario. A for effort however.

Explain pls how is this supposed to work? So somebody T-boining me doing speed limit vs 50 over is supposed to help me??? How many times have you heard of left turn accident because of excessive speed, rather than running a red light?

 

[dankyyz]

Or any ONE given one as they are all the same. I know. I know. Touche....

A search reveals more than 120 threads, in which the term "hta172" ia used. Please feel free to consult one of my posts in them

 

[turbodish]

The initial impetus for “Street Racing” was that high speeds caused some fatalities; and these fatalities were very dramatic and got a lot of news coverage. The truth is that historically very few fatalities have been caused by high speed driving, I believe it was on the order of 4 or 5 fatalities per year in Ontario vs. thousands that die as a result of more mundane crashes.

The issue isn't so much "high speed" driving as it is excessive speeding that creates speed differentials between the excessive speeder and other traffic at legal or at least much closer to legal speeds that increases the potential for crashes significantly. The excessive speeder puts others at risk of collision. When that crash involving other road users happens, the speed differential and in some cases the extreme speed makes the outcome that much worse.

You say that only 4 or 5 crashes each year would have been attributable to high speed driving. Do you consider someone who crashes while doing, say, 100 in a 50 as being high speed driving? If so, the numbers would jump rather dramatically from what you assume. Prior to HTA172, police attributed grossly excessive speed as a significant causation or aggravating factor in many more collisions than your 4 or 5. Grossly excessive speed is still a factor in crashes, but not quite as much as pre-HTA172 given the chilling effect that law has had on many who would have risked an expensive but still relatively simple speeding ticket in past, but who now are unwilling to risk the suspension and impound that now accompanies doing so.

 

[promac]

The 50 kmph over cut-off is a simple and well-defined line in the sand. Without a well-defined line in the sand, then you can argue that if 47 over is somehow not so bad, then neither is 50 over because it's not that much more than 47 over. If 50 over is not that bad, then neither is 53 over because the two of them are not that far apart. Where do you finally draw the line and stop such rationalizations?

The problem is, on one side of the line, you are innocent until proven guilty and there is reasonable punishment. On the other side, you are guilty and subject to cruel and unusual punishment in comparison..........and still punished more severely, even if proven innocent. Next thing you know, we'll be subject to road-side executions. The street racer going 150kph over the limit is no worse off than the motorist merely "stretching his legs" going 55kph over the limit - which is quite easy to do. Doing 55kph over the limit in a 40kph zone is a lot more dangerous than doing 55kph over in a 100kph zone. Forget the HTA 172.........if you get caught going 50kph over the limit, you should go before a provincial court judge and if convicted, the judge should use his discretion to determine the appropriate level of punishment given the circumstances.

 

[dankyyz]

Because a certain part of our population cant handle the responsibility of life without a few.

i'm constantly surprised by the response on this subject from moderators on a motorcycle message board. Defending the right for riders to do what they want, even in the face of laws being put in place and insurance skyrocketing because new riders are blowing it for THEMSELVES.

I'd use the word mentor-ship again, but it is either ignored or used as fuel for the Nanny State argument.

The question is why is a line needed to be drawn in the first place?

..Tom

 

[viper84737]

this. it's guilty until proven innocent and it's unconstitutional. The fact that the law is so poorly written and is wide open to police interpretation is what worries me.

Bingo.

Also, what's the harm in speeding when nobody's around? If the speed limits are too low on any given road, and it's open and there's nobody on it, I claim it's more dangerous because it gets boring and doesn't keep you alert. Imagine being forced to drive at 60 km/h on the 401 instead of the limit of 100 km/h. Do you think people would be MORE happy or LESS happy as a result?

There's a reason speed limits aren't obeyed here, and it's because some guy 40 years ago decided it was good fora 2,500 kg car with **** tires and **** braking technology which had a driver who isn't as fast thinking as people are today thanks to things like video games, etc, to travel faster than said limit. We've improved everything except the corresponding speed limits.

Furthermore, one may argue that's all bunk, so my secondary suggestion is to allow people to speed when there are no, or markedly fewer, by some standard, vehicles around. Have a tiered speed limit system.

FURTHERMORE STILL, smaller, lighter vehicles are indeed more agile and responsive, and can slow down at greater rates than larger, bulkier vehicles, and should not be punished by the lowest common denominator (larger vehicles). Give them a little more leeway when it comes to limiting their speeds. An extra 10-15 km/h leeway won't be disastrous to anyone except the ticket fee collectors.

The only reason this isn't implemented is because people have to stop and THINK about stuff, and that's a no-no, in politics. Let's just pander to the lowest common denominator at all times and the giant sheeple society is packed full of will simply go back to complaining about stuff instead of thinking of solutions or executing them.

We need some competence/capability-based system rather than a single system that reduce the satisfaction of the capable because of the incapable. Easy on paper, hard to implement, but only because people are unwilling to think.