No.
The argument is that some variable X is sometimes true. X being that speeding is relatively harmless. Your counter argument was one particular situation in which X is not true. A valid counter argument would have to be that X is never true.
|
|
|
Is HTA 172 really THAT unsuccessful?
- Thread starter knowledge
- Start date
No.
The argument is that some variable X is sometimes true. X being that speeding is relatively harmless. Your counter argument was one particular situation in which X is not true. A valid counter argument would have to be that X is never true.
Semantics, I think the argument being put forward is that X is always true. I presented situations where it wasn't. Valid counter argument in the case described. Regardless....I agree with you in your case, and I, unsurprisingly agree with myself in my case.
That was kinda my point. People start to get frustrated with the traffic pressure, then start to do stupid things.
I see a huge increase in congestion on the 400 series. In the last year or two I think two laws have created this increase in congestion and messed up the smoother flow of the highway. I believe the street racing law has scared people from obeying the law that says you must turn out to the right immediately after passing a car. The result is that cars are more likely to linger in the left lane driving at unrealistically slower speeds and causing backups behind them. At the same time, the speed limiter law on trucks has meant that the right lane has become almost useless for travel. I used to commute down hwy 400 from hwy 9 to hwy 7 every day. I mainly rode or drove in the right lane and in my car set my cruise at 110 kph actual speed. It isn't possible to do that anymore and I either have to ride/drive much slower in the right lane or go to the left lane and drive at the normal speeds of 130 to 145 kph and then slow down heavily when reaching a clump of cars that are travelling much slower there. And in that situation the likelihood of getting rear ended by cars has gone up hugely.
I have pretty much stopped using the 400 when possible as a result and now ride on less congested (but statistically more dangerous) secondary roads to commute.<O
</O..Tom
Last edited:
Can any of the guys defending this law tell me:
How can someone driving a minivan hit me from behind so hard while speeding downtown (under 50) and cause 14k damage and writte off my bike while almost killing me and only gets a careless charge that will be demoted so a slap in the hand, while someone driving 150 on a series 400 hwy get their car impounded and huge fines...The minivan guy got to drive back home, no impound fees, no license suspension?
Like that song says "it's all about the money money money"
How can someone driving a minivan hit me from behind so hard while speeding downtown (under 50) and cause 14k damage and writte off my bike while almost killing me and only gets a careless charge that will be demoted so a slap in the hand, while someone driving 150 on a series 400 hwy get their car impounded and huge fines...The minivan guy got to drive back home, no impound fees, no license suspension?
Like that song says "it's all about the money money money"
I see a huge increase in congestion on the 400 series. In the last year or two I think two laws have created this increase in congestion and messed up the smoother flow of the highway. I believe the street racing law has scared people from obeying the law that says you must turn out to the right immediately after passing a car. The result is that cars are more likely to linger in the left lane driving at unrealistically slower speeds and causing backups behind them. At the same time, the speed limiter law on trucks has meant that the right lane has become almost useless for travel. I used to commute down hwy 400 from hwy 9 to hwy 7 every day. I mainly rode or drove in the right lane and in my car set my cruise at 110 kph actual speed. It isn't possible to do that anymore and I either have to ride/drive much slower in the right lane or go to the left lane and drive at the normal speeds of 130 to 145 kph and then slow down heavily when reaching a clump of cars that are travelling much slower there. And in that situation the likelihood of getting rear ended by cars has gone up hugely. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<o
I have pretty much stopped using the 400 when possible as a result and now ride on less congested (but statistically more dangerous) secondary roads to commute.<o
..Tom
An officer, sitting at 410 and 407, could lay at least 20 non speed-related HTA172 charges per hour.
Not to mention when one limited truck is in the Centre lane and the other limited truck is in the right lane it forces all traffic through 1 lane. What is the point of having a 3 lane highway when all traffic is forced into one lane at points.
Traffic congestion has gotten much much worse. It is almost like a parking lot out there and I find officers are so caught up with speed enforcement they are giving drivers a pass on much more subtle but hazardous driving.
I wasn't in Canada at the time but how come the GTA populace (and Ontario in general) rolled over and got royally shafted with the whole 407 privatisation thing, seems there wasn't much of an outcry? Would opening that road to the non-paying public, or at least reducing the toll, make things any easier?
Viper provided one example of a road where visibility is very good, the road itself is straight and traffic is minimal. He didn't make a blanket statement that "X is always true".
It's not semantics. Your counter argument is flawed. Sorry. Based on your (what i believe to be) misinterpretation of what's being said, I would agree with you that X is not always true. I think you lost the scope of what you were trying to argue.
Well-known member
I'm goona go out on a limb here and say it's because most people in Ontario don't give a **** about anything unless it's directly effecting them, then they ***** for 10min and continue what they were doing previously.
what was the fine prior to stunting for crazy speeds (50-100km/h over)? obviously you were forced to go to court to s some d but what where the actual repercussions?
Last edited:
The congestion I am talking about isn't to do with volume of trafic, but rather how these laws have had an effect on the normal freer flow of the traffic.
..Tom
There was somewhat of an outcry, but not much. It's one of the few things, done by the Harris government, that I disagree with.
It's questionable whether throwing it open would actually have much of a positive effect. Every time that new capacity is added, it fills. Just look at all the extra lanes that have been added to the 401, over the years. They were filled virtually from the day they were opened.
viper84737
Well-known member
Bingo. Spineless Canadians at their finest. It's also that there's so much diversity here that people don't all think on the same page, so people aren't aware of others who support their ideas. We're a niche forum here, of maybe a few hundred active people. That's not enough to change anything. Get it over 10,000, get the news involved (something mainstream like CP24 or the Toronto Star) and all of a sudden it's a voting issue and it gets tackled.
Organizing motorcyclists is like herding cats; virtually impossible and you always end up with claw-marks.
Shaman
Well-known member
So true.
Well-known member
thats because I'm on the edges of bad assery!!!! until my mom tells me to clean my room.
viper84737
Well-known member
It's not just motorcyclists, it's organizing any sort of sheeple who wait for directional cues from their peers.
That's not quite the case, I've found. The issue is apathy. Lots of people talk a good game but, when the chips are down, they fold like a cheap shirt. That's why politicians and special interest groups use fear, rather than trying to organize people.
viper84737
Well-known member
I agree wholeheartedly. Fear won't motivate non-sheeple, though. Politicians' fearmongering never scares the independent thinker.
Might want to look at Viper's post before the one you quote....you might find some wooly, bed covering-like statements there. That's the one I was looking at. Starts with "what's the harm..."...my reply was "how do you know...". Pretty sure that's not a flawed argument.
|
|
|
|
|