|
|
|
Stunt Driving.... Need Help!!!
- Thread starter Vamz
- Start date
It depends. Would it significantly reduce injuries, fatalities, pollution, traffic and wear on vehicles/infrastructure? A tall order, but if it did, then yes. While you won't cull the turkeys with a speed limit change, it could reduce the bottlenecks that result in impatient drivers who might take dangerous risks. I certainly saw it every day commuting downtown--heavy snowfall restricting traffic to a steady 40km/h got me home in the same time as the yo-yo traffic during the summer. Personally, I doubt any sort of change will bring insurance rates down. There's no effective competition and the government is far to cozy with insurers. The only reason a for-profit business gives an inch is because a competitor is about to steal their lunch.
Dresden
Well-known member
Exactly - as long as "Safety" regulations makes companies and the government money, we will continue to be "Safetied" up the ***.
And the reason most of these "Safety" regulations pass is because of nannies like PrivatePilot have this attitude of been better than most so they must regulate to bring people down to his standard.
Anyways, none of this or whatever we write or argue about will change anything so "Not my circus, not my monkeys"
Last edited:
Dresden
Well-known member
I nominate you for troll of the year. Well deserved! A1
Edit:
Upon reading the above - are you serious? This is in the top two dumbest things I've ever heard. I'm actually speechless. You must be a Obama/Bernie Sanders supporter!
Last edited:
Got some proof to back this up?
A study from the California DMV from June 2000 entitled "Using Traffic Conviction Correlates to Identify High-Accident-Risk Drivers" (source) suggests otherwise. One of the results reads:
"The results of the analyses are consistent with those of prior traffic safety research,with all of the models indicating that increased accident involvement was associatedwith the following:
– Increased prior citations
– Increased prior accidents
– Having a commercial driver license
– Being young
– Being male
– Having a physical or mental condition on record
– Having a driver license restriction on record"
(emphasis mine.)
One of the conclusions of the report reads:
"The results indicate that the relative risk levels for groups of individuals can bepredicted from prior driving records. However, the ability to predict whichindividuals will be involved in accidents is extremely low"
So while the ability to predict which individuals will be involved in an accident is low the relative risk is nonetheless correlated with prior driving records.
I take your naive, ad-hominem attack on PP as words written by someone who's never lost anyone due to the negligent, reckless actions of another. I sincerely hope that you and your family never face the sort of thing that, say, Marco Muzzo foisted upon the Neville-Lake family in September.
Seems like it often takes a tragedy like that for certain people to grow up and realize why "safety"regulations do more good than harm.
Lol, I didn't know you were given to such histrionics!!!! The ISIS bit I threw in there as a gag. Anyway don't miss your big opportunity to explain why 200-300km/h vehicles need to be a consumer option. Or why the consumer wants its. What about 400km/h? Is that getting stupid yet? Higher?
Dresden
Well-known member
So with that line of thinking, guns kill people, people don't kill people, right?
Inreb pls.
The only way forward is to continually improve. If we didn't have cars capable of 300 kmh speeds, we wouldn't have the safety standards of today. But that's a different tangent.
Bottom line is, it's up to the driver to control themselves and not need a babysitter.
OK, you don't want to debate. Fine.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Have to grade the OP with a D- for situational awareness.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
...
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
Sigh. Did you even read what you posted?
The results of that study indicate that "the ability to predict which individuals will be involved in accidents is extremely low". In other words, insurance companies cannot predict who will have claims based on past speeding tickets.
The same study (from California) also says:
There is an "increased number of citations associated with":
• Increased prior citation frequency
• Being young
• Being male
• Increased prior accident frequency
• Having a commercial driver license
• A higher percentage of Blacks residing within a ZIP-Code area
• Having one or more P&M conditions on record
• A higher median income within a ZIP-Code area
• A higher percentage of Hispanics residing within a ZIP-Code area
This means: prior tickets are a predictor of future tickets. Young + male = more tickets. Prior accidents are a predictor of future tickets (not the other way around!). Commercial drivers get more tickets. And last but not least, if there are many blacks or hispanics around, they get more tickets.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
So funny that you used Marco Muzzo as an example - correct me if I am wrong, but he has only one speeding ticket in his record. Based on only one speeding ticket, nobody could have predicted that he was going to cause such a tragedy. You have to understands, previous speeding tickets cannot predict the future!
Totally off-topic but: True, to an extent. The number of people dead in Paris would in all likelihood have been lower if they didn't have AK47s.
Same with Columbine. Same with Virginia Tech. Same with Ecole Polytechnique. Same with Sandy Hook. Same with Umpqua CC. And Northern Illinois U. And Nickel Mines. ... etcetera ad nauseum.
You can't simply ignore that guns and rifles are designed and intended specifically to kill living things. Hand guns have little to no use in hunting and are intended to direct deadly force toward other human beings. Many are designed to be concealed, carry many rounds and are able to discharge them very rapidly.
Q: If the "guns don't kill people" argument is not fallacious why are gun advocates not all over stuff like:
- nuclear weapons; they as inanimate objects they don't pose a threat to other people so why are we afraid of Iran getting one? Or North Korea possessing one?
- why can't dad just leave his Glock on the coffee table when he's in the garage and the kids are playing in the living room? Guns don't kill people, right?
- ammonium nitrate in bags doesn't kill people; if I my swastika-tattooed, racist, angry white-guy urban neighbor want tons claiming he wants a really, really green lawn that's no ones business but his own right?
- why don't we allow weapons on planes except in the hands of trained professionals (e.g. "air marshals")? Guns, knives etc. Why does it matter if these things don't kill people?
- why is the pro-gun lobby not up in arms, so to speak demanding land mines, howitzers and the like be made freely available to regular folks for "defending" their properties.
Why do we ban some things or put very stringent regulations on them? Could it be that certain "tools", if you will, no matter how inanimate they may be are nevertheless risky things to have around and, in many cases, make the rapid killing of large numbers of human beings feasible when other "tools" like, say, knives, don't?
Yep. Read it again Marcos. Insurance operates on risk, not specifics.
As well, you said:
"...do speeding tickets have a strong correlation with the occurrence of an actual accident in the future?..."
The study stated:
"The results of the analyses are consistent with those of prior traffic safety research,with all of the models indicating that increased accident involvement was associated with the following:
– Increased prior citations..."
You asked for correlation...well there it is, staring you in the face. You can move the goalposts and now demand that such stats specifically identify the date and time and phase of the moon when an individual will crash if you like but the fact is you have been presented with a study the results of which indicate that prior citations correlate to increased "accident involvement", a direct counter to your original claim that there is no correlation.
Feel free to present your study backing up your assertion. I'm more than willing to read and consider other reports and even change my position based on empirical data but I'm not going to bother picking the flyshit out of the pepper with someone who just does the intellectual equivalent of "I know what you are but what am I?"
They don't have to. The statistics already tell them that individuals with previous citations have a higher risk of accident involvement. They don't target individuals, they target demographics as a result.
Get enough tickets/points and you'll find yourself uninsurable or in facility (aka "high risk") insurance. Why do you think that is?
Kri$han
Well-known member
With this one statement you seemed to prove and disprove your whole statement; if introducing the regulation of 105 km/h worked, we would see less trucks involved in accidents. The truth is we haven't (as you said), idiots just perform idiotic acts slower.
Furthermore, the 105 km/hr regulation is a joke; I invite you to pace any large 18-wheeler in the wee hours of the night, especially outside the city limits of Toronto. You'll see first-hand that practical application of such a heinous regulation is absolutely bogus.
The counter-intuitive answer is more education, less regulation.
So driving 100km/hr on the 401 keeps me and my family safe?
For people that suffer a tragedy, do they stop and analyze how much of that tragedy is the fault of the distracted teenager that was texting and not paying attention to the intersection they just walked into? DO you know how many times people walk in front of my car with their heads down reading their phone oblivious to their surroundings?
The problem is that as soon as something like this happens, people like you cry out loud "please save the children" and powww, let's lower the speed limits and knee jerk react with useless regulations.
Tragedies happen and there are laws to deal with those tragedies, when will enough be enough?
I know who I am and a tragedy will not change my points of view, as other tragedies that have happened to me unrelated to traffic have not changed my point of view on other regulations slowly chocking people's freedom.
For people that suffer a tragedy, do they stop and analyze how much of that tragedy is the fault of the distracted teenager that was texting and not paying attention to the intersection they just walked into? DO you know how many times people walk in front of my car with their heads down reading their phone oblivious to their surroundings?
The problem is that as soon as something like this happens, people like you cry out loud "please save the children" and powww, let's lower the speed limits and knee jerk react with useless regulations.
Tragedies happen and there are laws to deal with those tragedies, when will enough be enough?
I know who I am and a tragedy will not change my points of view, as other tragedies that have happened to me unrelated to traffic have not changed my point of view on other regulations slowly chocking people's freedom.
Excellent point, but the government don't make money out of educating people, they make money out of regulating people.
Educating people will prevent me from tragedies.
Over Regulating people will just force them to ignore said regulations.. i.e 100km/hr speed limit on the 401.
Last edited:
He was also drunk. Why do you think we have drunk-driving laws? Why do you think we, as a society, accept the "Stomping On Liberty" that is RIDE checks?
In actual fact, according to the "...Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General says Muzzo has seven non-criminal offences, including a conviction for driving with a handheld device.". The CBC reports that they were HTA offenses.
Seven. High number of citations...accident. Hmm.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|