Typically, only a single rule is being enforced when they're on highway robbery detail, sitting with their radar guns. Our roads would be a lot safer if they enforced other rules such as signaling, right of way and cell phones.
Now THIS is how you complain.
- Thread starter OpenGambit
- Start date
Typically, only a single rule is being enforced when they're on highway robbery detail, sitting with their radar guns. Our roads would be a lot safer if they enforced other rules such as signaling, right of way and cell phones.
Here ya go. The full quote
So you're complaining I "misquoted" you saying that TPS traffic unit is overwhelmed, yet you say they should probably allocate more resources to it. Nice use of semantics.
Your sig line is just one example of your pathetic and bitter pettiness.
Yes, I did say that. I've also said that it's no more acceptable for hooligan riders and drivers to endanger the lives of impaired drivers than it is for impaired drivers to endanger the lives of others, including hooligan riders and drivers.
Of course you don't choose to seize on that. But then again, distortion and stalking personal attack is your stock in trade, isn't it?
I added a new one. Again, it's a direct quote.........semantics aside, of course.
WTF, you just told us that I make it sound like half the cops are sitting writing traffic tickets, when all I said was "too many".
I nor anyone else has complained that they abandoned investigating crime.
Where is the problem? Seriously? I'm sorry but if you still don't understand then just recuse youself from the thread, or at the very least stop making about your imaginary enemies.
I think I've shown amply who's out of touch with reality.
I said you were suggesting it. Read please. It's just English.
You're trying to place any traffic law breaking act on the same moral plane as someone who breaks a criminal law, when the latter is knowingly and willingly inflicting harm on a person, while the former is merely trying to get home after work. You have a very twisted mind sir.
Confirming my point, taking words out of their original context. My my.
Then explain why when you call in a break-in and no one was injured they don't send officers to take notes or finger prints. They just mark it in their records for insurance purposes. I'd rather have police officers collecting evidence to help catch thieves then catching people for minor speeding violations in transition areas.
Speed traps in school zones = smart enforcement
Speed traps in closed access roads with artificially low speed limits or transition zones = waste of resources
Why are more speed traps set up in transition zones then school zones?
Shaman
Well-known member
Ah yes, the turbo-debate method. Skip all debate which is nakedly impossible to counter and pick out a select one that can be ridiculed or twisted to his purposes. Joined by turbo-math, turbo-logic, turbo-rules and turbo-ethics.
Last edited:
Um, no. I'm saying that most rational societies place greater priority on dealing with issues that have the most potential to cause injury to life and limb. Whether or not the specific act that creates that injury is criminal or not matters only when it comes time to penalty. Petty crime to property is more a nuisance than a threat to life and limb, and that's why it tends to receive lower priorities of attention.
Speaking of just trying to get home, that brings us back to a certain van driver. Eleven dead in that one. That one is rather exceptional in terms of number of victims, but how many other needless injury and deaths arise because someone is merely just in a hurry trying to get home from work, or to work, or anywhere else for that matter?
Violent crime is far from being the greatest risk facing us as individuals. The greatest risk of unintentional personal injury and death that most of us will ever face in our lives will come on the roads at the hands of either our own poor driving choices or that of others. View the Rider Down section for examples of each. While it's very magnanimous of you to try to excuse the poor driving choices of others, they still need to be dealt with.
Highway enforcement would have had no effect on this incident you keep bring up. Anything short of 'checkpoints' where everyones paperwork and vehicles are inspected would have made a difference.
That is the problem with traffic enforcement it actually has little effect on lives saved. Advances in car technology has had more of an effect on saving lives then police enforcement.
The form of traffic enforcement that is prevalent now does not save lives! Obscured license plates? Artificially low speed limits?
But they sure do generate revenue. The real motive here is so transparent it's laughable. You'd agree if you had a sense of humour.
More will die than any speed trap can ever stop. Read that again. And again please. A few more times. Thank you.
Again, traffic enforcement today largely does not address any of the risks.
When are you going to start making comments that are relevant to the discussion?
Obscured license plates should be ignored? Why? Shouldn't vehicles be readily identifiable to help ensure owners are accountable for the way their vehicles are being used?
Artificially low speed limits do not save lives? Define "artificially low", especially in a densely-populated high-traffic city environment like Toronto's. Also, if lives are not being saved, then why does Ontario have the lowest per km driven fatality rate in North American and I think most (if not all) of Eurpope as well?
Drivers who break traffic laws should carry a good part of the cost of enforcement. If you object to handling over your money in such fashion, there is a simple way to avoid paying into that revenue stream.
Ok, I read it. Are you saying that letting people speed with impunity as they wish will not increase crashes and fatalities? I think that's called denial.
I've addressed just about everything you've tried to raise, and often with facts that can be verified and that are relevant to the discussion. You respond with slogans and unsubstantiated musings that often do not make sense.
Maybe, maybe not. One thing is for sure - in the absence of any threat of enforcement, many people will simply disregard any traffic law that they find inconvenient, including stop signs and red lights. On the flip-side, when faced with increased probability of enforcement, people tend to comply more closely with traffic laws.
This reminds me of ABS in cars. When it first came out, rear-end crashes in ABS-equipped cars were significantly less than in non-equipped cars.
After a few years (and before ABS became pretty much universally applied to cars), there was almost no difference at all between ABS-equipped and non-ABS-equipped cars. Look up risk homeostasis and risk compensation to see why.
Don't get me wrong - today's cars are better than ever before, but the human body is still the limiting factor. No matter how well the car can take a hit, the body's internal organs can only take so much in the way of crash forces before the adult version of shaken-baby syndrome results in fatal internal injuries.
Last edited:
it's been shown that a cardboard cut out of a police officer or cop car is more effective for slowing people down than a cop hiding in the bushes like a peeping tom. it generates less revenue though. A kid with a sign stating "cop ahead" will slow traffic down and the cop will not be handing out any tickets and will eventually move on. much safer than some peeping tom jumping out of the bushes with a radar gun.
These are perfect illustrations of the irrational responses you've been turbodishing out in this discussion. It can't be any clearer that you don't intend to discuss the matter rationally. I will keep watching your posts in case you ever decide to say something relevant but until then I feel I am perfectly justified in bowing out from this exchange with you for now.
So I left around 11am and drove from lakeshore on Bathurst all the way north to Sheppard and back, then took the Gardiner to 3rd lane and back.
I saw 2 cars go through red lights (one girl almost hit a caby while running the red) 3 cars caught in front of me, one lady trying to make a left into oncoming one way traffic and saw many other stupid driving errors, didn't see a single cop driving patrolling the road...
however, did see 3 police cars parked off Bathurst with a radar (3 POLICE cars), I also saw 1 police car parked on the shoulder at the express lane on the gardiner right after Islington, there was hardly any shoulder and he was parked there, even my fiance said "wow that is dangerous, putting people in danger just to catch speeders" and she doesn't share the distaste I have for cops.
To serve and protect! And put others in danger....**********
I saw 2 cars go through red lights (one girl almost hit a caby while running the red) 3 cars caught in front of me, one lady trying to make a left into oncoming one way traffic and saw many other stupid driving errors, didn't see a single cop driving patrolling the road...
however, did see 3 police cars parked off Bathurst with a radar (3 POLICE cars), I also saw 1 police car parked on the shoulder at the express lane on the gardiner right after Islington, there was hardly any shoulder and he was parked there, even my fiance said "wow that is dangerous, putting people in danger just to catch speeders" and she doesn't share the distaste I have for cops.
To serve and protect! And put others in danger....**********
Last edited:
fixed
Given that a good many places don't even require front license plates at all, and the front plate isn't required to be illuminated at night, and motorcycles don't require front plates anywhere, including Ontario, that would suggest that they're not that important.
If a cop is following a car in traffic, they're seeing the rear one. If they're approaching someone from the opposite direction, normally there's not enough time to read a front plate.
And a snowplow ... ? ? ? I spotted a totally illegal one today at a Timmies ... the mounting brackets for the snowplow interfered with where the front license plate normally is on that truck, so it didn't have one. Scoundrels, all of them!
No one is suggesting that speed limits ought to be 80 km/h in dense, narrow streets in downtown Toronto. But 50 or 60 km/h on rural roads - even those without many driveways nor sharp corners nor any other particularly unusual hazards?
you're delusional
what's that they say about insanity....doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result?....you may wanna stop posting cause you're apparently losing it
the rule of the road to any sane person is not crashing or getting killed.....traffic enforcement has SFA to do with it....getting home in one piece has everything to do with it
running red lights over inconvenience because of zero enforcement??????
I would bet large that you have a family member planted due to a bonehead driver because nobody in thier right mind would stretch as far as you do on the subject
Then given that people are still managing to crash, kill and injure themselves, we still have entirely too many insane drivers and riders on the road. Without enforcement, how are you going to deal with them?
That only works with strangers driving through unfamiliar areas. The locals catch on real quick to the cut-outs.
