Is HTA 172 really THAT unsuccessful?

[jc100]

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.

How do you know nobody is around? Are you psychic? You know for sure no one is going to cross the road, no one is going to turn into your lane, no truck has just exploded it's tires all over the highway, no crash is just ahead of you around the bend closing the road and no deer has just decided to amble across three lanes of a highway.

Oh, and a competence/ability based system would be great, but do you mean the ability to drive/ride safely or race? Because those two can actually be extremely different, one involves taking calculated risks and the other involves avoiding risk altogether.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

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.

It's patently obvious that comment is directed at me. Show me where I've done that.

I've also stated that if you see the need for mentorship, provide it. That hasn't happened yet, has it?

 

[viper84737]

How do you know nobody is around? Are you psychic? You know for sure no one is going to cross the road, no one is going to turn into your lane, no truck has just exploded it's tires all over the highway, no crash is just ahead of you around the bend closing the road and no deer has just decided to amble across three lanes of a highway.

Oh, and a competence/ability based system would be great, but do you mean the ability to drive/ride safely or race? Because those two can actually be extremely different, one involves taking calculated risks and the other involves avoiding risk altogether.

You don't need to be psychic at all! Evolution gave us these things called senses to help us to find things we like and avoid things we don't like. Generally I'd use my sight first, to determine where people are or aren't. I understand your point. Life has risks, the successful among us take them (not blindly and unnecessarily for the sake of taking risks) but society tries to eliminate them as opposed to embracing them. You look at a road like Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga. Speed limit 60 km/h. 6 freaking lanes. When nobody's around, you can easily, EASILY go 90 km/h on it, as I have been doing for the past 15 years (primarily in a car, and more recently on a bike). You can see for kilometers around you in both directions, and it's so open on both sides that if a car is going to surprise you by jumping out of a storefront driveway or gas station, you'll see it 700 hours before it happens. Is it unsafe to go 90 km/h on Burnhamthorpe? Hell no. Will you get your butthole probed deeply by the long shlong of the law? You bet. This discrepancy is what I oppose.

Regarding competency, I mean the freedom to operate at higher levels and having looser limitations than the average person, when you've demonstrated that time after time, you are above that average on a regular basis. Look at people just ONE standard deviation above the mean (by some measure -- any measure). They're doing battle with the limits set for 84.1% of the total population below their level of competence. If they're TWO standard deviations above the norm, they're doing battle with limits set for 97.7% of the population. Limit according to ability, not to the mean! This will also allow people to IMPROVE! If you set the soft limit at something like 80% of the hard limit, eventually the ability will grow and people will improve their skills. Why hold society back when you can help those who are willing to advance do so?

 

[CruisnGrrl]

It's patently obvious that comment is directed at me. Show me where I've done that.

I've also stated that if you see the need for mentorship, provide it. That hasn't happened yet, has it?

My observations on dankyyz is that he likes to complain about people complaining about the way the government is dismantling our rights and freedoms one by one. I think he would benefit from being a victim of a corrupt cop (though it comes to mind that he might convince himself that the cop was right).

 

[FiReSTaRT]

My observations on dankyyz is that he likes to complain about people complaining about the way the government is dismantling our rights and freedoms one by one. I think he would benefit from being a victim of a corrupt cop (though it comes to mind that he might convince himself that the cop was right).

CG, you have to realize that anyone complaining about erosion of our basic human rights, unjust laws and the creep of police powers/surveillance of law-abiding citizens is a damn hippie and should stop smoking weed. Same goes for anyone striving for any system of government other than dictatorship.. The sooner you realize those things, the better you'll get along with people on this board

 

[promac]

My observations on dankyyz is that he likes to complain about people complaining about the way the government is dismantling our rights and freedoms one by one. I think he would benefit from being a victim of a corrupt cop (though it comes to mind that he might convince himself that the cop was right).

Mr. Barnes, aka Johny Sombrero would agree - cops violate peoples rights, unchecked and at their unfettered discretion - there's no accountability, so it's only going to get worse.

 

[jc100]

You don't need to be psychic at all! Evolution gave us these things called senses to help us to find things we like and avoid things we don't like. Generally I'd use my sight first, to determine where people are or aren't. I understand your point. Life has risks, the successful among us take them (not blindly and unnecessarily for the sake of taking risks) but society tries to eliminate them as opposed to embracing them. You look at a road like Burnhamthorpe in Mississauga. Speed limit 60 km/h. 6 freaking lanes. When nobody's around, you can easily, EASILY go 90 km/h on it, as I have been doing for the past 15 years (primarily in a car, and more recently on a bike). You can see for kilometers around you in both directions, and it's so open on both sides that if a car is going to surprise you by jumping out of a storefront driveway or gas station, you'll see it 700 hours before it happens. Is it unsafe to go 90 km/h on Burnhamthorpe? Hell no. Will you get your butthole probed deeply by the long shlong of the law? You bet. This discrepancy is what I oppose.

Regarding competency, I mean the freedom to operate at higher levels and having looser limitations than the average person, when you've demonstrated that time after time, you are above that average on a regular basis. Look at people just ONE standard deviation above the mean (by some measure -- any measure). They're doing battle with the limits set for 84.1% of the total population below their level of competence. If they're TWO standard deviations above the norm, they're doing battle with limits set for 97.7% of the population. Limit according to ability, not to the mean! This will also allow people to IMPROVE! If you set the soft limit at something like 80% of the hard limit, eventually the ability will grow and people will improve their skills. Why hold society back when you can help those who are willing to advance do so?

I don't think humans have yet developed the senses to see very well in the dark or to see around corners and those situations get worse the faster you go. As for your competencey quote, again, we have that, it's called a drivers licence and if you show competency (although agreed, the current test is a joke) you get the privelage of being allowed to operate vehicles on the road for means of transport. It's not a licence to play or go faster.

 

[jc100]

I love that we now live in a "dictatorship", this is funny. I disagree with the politics of the country at times like a lot of other people but you need to be careful with the level of hyperbole, I think the line between anarchy and dictatorship is pretty fuzzy and very narrow for a few people here.

 

[caboose56]

I don't think humans have yet developed the senses to see very well in the dark or to see around corners and those situations get worse the faster you go. As for your competencey quote, again, we have that, it's called a drivers licence and if you show competency (although agreed, the current test is a joke) you get the privelage of being allowed to operate vehicles on the road for means of transport. It's not a licence to play or go faster.

So don't speed when its dark or around blind corners.

On straight country roads lined with open fields on bright sunny days with perfect visibility and no traffic... if you can't drive a modern vehicle 50 over the speed limit you really have no business being behind the wheel.

There are certain times and places that 50-over is perfectly harmless. Providing an example of a time and place when it is not perfectly harmless is not a valid argument.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

I love that we now live in a "dictatorship", this is funny. I disagree with the politics of the country at times like a lot of other people but you need to be careful with the level of hyperbole, I think the line between anarchy and dictatorship is pretty fuzzy and very narrow for a few people here.

We're not there yet, but we're slowly getting there... Several new additions to the argument:
1) Routine surveillance of our telecommunications (especially when Harper passes the bill where your ISP will be obligated to install equipment that stores their clients' Internet traffic data for 2 years and is obligated to hand it over to the police without a warrant)
2) The police are able to pull you over even if they have no reasonable grounds to suspect that you're breaking the law (that used to be en-vogue in the Soviet Union)
3) Our Charter rights are getting slowly eroded and we're getting new laws where you get punished by the cops before you hit the courtroom
Considering Harper's love for the failed "justice" system that they have south of the border, I wouldn't be surprised that we start seeing random police checkpoints on a routine basis. Yes, the line is fuzzy, and I don't think we're there yet, but I think we're getting there at a solid pace.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I love that we now live in a "dictatorship", this is funny. I disagree with the politics of the country at times like a lot of other people but you need to be careful with the level of hyperbole, I think the line between anarchy and dictatorship is pretty fuzzy and very narrow for a few people here.

What we live in is pretty damned far from being a dictatorship, but we must be vigilant in order to insure that our rights aren't stolen away. Lately, the problem has been what I refer to as "governance by sound bite"; politicians jumping on the latest hot-button topic, in an effort to garner votes, whether or not it can be demonstrated that such new legislation would be effective, or even if the perceived problem actually exists.

I'm a firm believer in due process. If this law had been passed, with all penalties occurring after a finding in a court of law then I might gripe about the wording, but ultimately I would have little problem with it. The rule of law is necessary, for the operation of a just society. So is the PROCESS of law.

 

[V-Tom]

I'm a firm believer in due process. If this law had been passed, with all penalties occurring after a finding in a court of law then I might gripe about the wording, but ultimately I would have little problem with it. The rule of law is necessary, for the operation of a just society. So is the PROCESS of law.

It might also be pointed out hat before HTA172 was passed police had the option of taking you in front of a Justice of the Peace and asking that the car be impounded, the driver's license suspended, etc. The officer could give evidence as to why this should be done and you had the right to say your peace. The JP, a third party, could then make the decision as to whether it was justified or not. This process seemed fair to me.

..Tom

 

[mxs]

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.

Don't be ridiculous, with examples like that .....

What happened to the left turner's ability to read that the opposing vehicle is obviously traveling much faster then thought and thus is not safe to make such a left turn. If you cannot do that much (difference between 50 and 100), you should not be on the road. But I have never seen accident (or heard of) like that, it's usually a red line runner, but not because a speed differential. Try a different example, because this one is not very good one .... ;-)

"C" for your effort son ....

Again, don't read into it, like you many times do, that I agree with people doing 100 in 50 zone. Obviously most people here don't. I just very much doubt that there's a link between 50 over and number of accidents .....

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Motorcycles, and other small vehicles, are notoriously difficult to judge the speed of.

 

[promac]

Again, don't read into it, like you many times do, that I agree with people doing 100 in 50 zone. Obviously most people here don't. I just very much doubt that there's a link between 50 over and number of accidents .....

I don't buy it either. I think changing demographics would have more of an impact and perhaps even a huge increase in enforcement, but that could have been accomplished without HTA 172. There are just too many other variables that haven't been considered.

 

[jc100]

It might also be pointed out hat before HTA172 was passed police had the option of taking you in front of a Justice of the Peace and asking that the car be impounded, the driver's license suspended, etc. The officer could give evidence as to why this should be done and you had the right to say your peace. The JP, a third party, could then make the decision as to whether it was justified or not. This process seemed fair to me.

..Tom

Circular argument....before HTA172 how many people gave a rats *** about going 50 over? Hindsight is always 20:20 but in this case it seems to win out again.

 

[jc100]

So don't speed when its dark or around blind corners.

On straight country roads lined with open fields on bright sunny days with perfect visibility and no traffic... if you can't drive a modern vehicle 50 over the speed limit you really have no business being behind the wheel.

There are certain times and places that 50-over is perfectly harmless. Providing an example of a time and place when it is not perfectly harmless is not a valid argument.

..and providing an example where it is harmless isn't a valid one either. I agree with you, if you can't drive in a straight line on a straight road you have no business driving, whatever the speed is within reason but reason is the key here isn't it.

When I look at my speedo I'm doing roughly the national speedlimit of my home country the UK and I've never been hassled for doing that on Canadian roads....I find that's perfectly fair to be honest and I think most people are fine with that.

What I can't understand are the arguments that better drivers should be able to go faster on our roads....that's nuts, everyone thinks they are the best driver in the world don't they? Back to square one unless we get european style driving tests with 40-50% failure rates for unsafe drivers.

 

[jc100]

We're not there yet, but we're slowly getting there... Several new additions to the argument:
1) Routine surveillance of our telecommunications (especially when Harper passes the bill where your ISP will be obligated to install equipment that stores their clients' Internet traffic data for 2 years and is obligated to hand it over to the police without a warrant)
2) The police are able to pull you over even if they have no reasonable grounds to suspect that you're breaking the law (that used to be en-vogue in the Soviet Union)
3) Our Charter rights are getting slowly eroded and we're getting new laws where you get punished by the cops before you hit the courtroom
Considering Harper's love for the failed "justice" system that they have south of the border, I wouldn't be surprised that we start seeing random police checkpoints on a routine basis. Yes, the line is fuzzy, and I don't think we're there yet, but I think we're getting there at a solid pace.

OK...1) Is a little scary but are you sure there are absolutely no checks and balances built into this?
2+3) Laws like this have existed forever in all parts of the world democratic or not depending on who's rights might be violated...the masses or the individuals. They certainly existed in France when I was there and had to produce my "papers" all the time. This was ultra-socialist, ultra liberal France with different prices on cinema tickets depending on if you were employed or unemployed by the way.

I'm still not concerned about my rights being eroded right now as I just don't see it. I'm still able legally to walk down the street with no ID in my pocket (try that in a few countries). I can get in my car and drive wherever I like, enter into arguments on the internet and exercise my right to free speech where I like. Do I think Harper is a right wing, controlling, anti-media, in-bed-with-the-religious-nutbars, anti alternative energy, pro-oil culture kind of knob...yes....but there's no SWAT team at my door waiting to taser the **** out of me and cart me off to mine salt in some in the middle of nowhere work camp for saying it. Hold on...someone at the door.....

 

[GayManLoveIsOK]

This Bill 203 rule that passed is a load of crap, my insurance went up when i moved, yet i have no convictions, so it's ain't doing jack all for reducing anything...putting the power of judge, jury and executioner in the popo's hand at the side of the road is just ridiculous, you need more checks and balances for this sort of justice...i ride dependent on the road conditions...in the car i'm wrapped in a dage, on a bike, i don't sit around constantly watching my mirrors as to who's passing me...i had a police officer threaten me with bill 203 and it thoroughly p!ssed me off...he couldn't tell from the distance i was ahead of him and "thought" or "looked like" i was lane splitting...stupid @ss popo was threatening me with jail time, potential for a $10K fine and impoundment of vehicle and fees associated with and suspension of license because he couldn't see straight...and you wonder why some folks give them a run for the money...rant over...

 

[dankyyz]

It's patently obvious that comment is directed at me. Show me where I've done that.

I've also stated that if you see the need for mentorship, provide it. That hasn't happened yet, has it?

Not just you Rob. But your moderation "style" does not allow anything but the most antiseptic rebuttal on anything you feel "just". Paul supports it.

The motorcycling "newcommers" on this site are being fed the wrong ideas about how to view motorcycling, so some (you included) can stump your personal gripes.

Calling people out on issues to which mods on this site have personal agendas does not work. Suggesting that people actually own up to their mistakes (real or imagined) is NOT approved of here. So mentor-ship is not likely to ever happen.