That would at least be some of it as idle accounts that never post anything, but read improbable amounts, stand out like a sore thumb.
|
|
|
The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread
- Thread starter Boots
- Start date
Not a chance. I'd decline my ballot first.Vote NDP next election
But they're the only party that will promise you
You made a ridiculous pie in the sky "why can't we have both?" post in response to my statement about having to make sober choices in regards to effective/Bang For Your Buck enforcement, It deserved a caustic "well vote NDP and get a free unicorn too, then" reply.
Last edited:
Not really. You're asking for targeted sweeps. Those ar epretty useless, in the long run. Patrol and charge, don't sit in a "fishing hole."But they're the only party that will promise you
You made a ridiculous pie in the sky "why can't we have both?" post in response to my statement about having to make sober choices in regards to effective/Bang For Your Buck enforcement, It deserved a caustic "well vote NDP and get a free unicorn too, then" reply.
Sounds like his complaint is a good option for old school enforcement. Pull a very visible chain tight across the road. If you hit the chain, you get tickets as you obviously weren't in enough control (speeding, crap brakes, low attention, etc). I prefer that approach to radar by a mile. Pay attention in a vehicle with good tires and brakes and you can safely go faster.
Sure. Just move the horse racing gates from Mohawk and stick them at the lights on Guelph Line, instead.
Yet you're applauding having a patrol car sit in a "fishing hole" waiting for cyclists to roll a stop sign so they can be ticketed, which does nothing more than temporarily appease the NIMBY rich people in the neigbourhood that complained to the rich
You'll not be able to point to anywhere that I did that. I applauded cyclists finally getting well deserved tickets. I would prefer that this be done by roving patrol cars.
I would have liked to have taken a similar picture in Brampton years ago but it was four brand new vehicles with take down lights. I'm sure if I stopped to take the shot there would be some justification for them to make my life miserable.But they're professionals.
Semantics. And poaching rec cyclists in a residential enclave on a weekday morning is still low hanging fruit.
Or are you going to say it's no different than running an unfit 25 ton vehicle with no license or insurance on busy main roads?
Sure. When the gates open the first car to move gets charged under HTA 172 for out accelerating.
Seriously though, we need better penalties coming down from the benches as well as the added enforcement.
I sort of agree with you but dislike the concept of making cyclists free to do anything they want. I also want turns enforced, right into right etc. From the law makers make turn signal usage mandatory. Make solid line discipline mandatory as well.
Right now too many drivers only follow three laws, excessive speeding, red lights and DUI. To them the HTA could be written on a standard business card. IIRC it's 295 pages.
Sure, but the problem is that (as has been proven by past performance) higher penalties result in higher benefits. That's where the 'multiples of pre-sentence custody' credit thing came from. For every take, there's a give. I had that debate with a criminal lawyer, many years ago, and he well and truly schooled me. Fixed penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime? At least double credit for being stuck in the sardine can that is Mimico.
Hardly semantics.
I'm going to say an offence is an offence and if they see it, they should deal with it. If they're posted up like that for cyclists, then they miss the trucks. If they're sitting down the road from a gravel pit then they miss the cars blowing red lights. Being unpredictable results in better, more effective, and more even handed policing.
I will admit to somewhat having it out for cyclists, having dealt with their entitlement far too often. They are required to follow street signs, and yet I've had them riding straight at me, the wrong way, on one way streets. They ride abreast instead of single file, blocking entire lanes. and refuse to move to the right as required by HTA 148 (which also requires sufficient space be given cyclists, but does not permit them to block the road). They pass vehicles on the right, who are clearly signalling a right turn. They ride on sidewalks, just 6 feet away from separated bicycle lanes. They ride in crosswalks (HTA 144(29)). The number of times that I've almost been taken out by a cyclist in a crosswalk, who was either riding in the crosswalk or crossing it while I was in it, are too numerous to detail. Only once has anyone been stopped for doing that and it was right in front of Ryerson University, where two bicycle officers happened to be 10 feet from me when it happened.
*EDIT* - You want an example of how police could set up a fishing hole and probably easily cover all of the shortfalls in the Toronto budget? Put one officer at each corner of the Yonge-Dundas scramble. Ticket every person who starts crossing the intersection when the countdown has started on the walk signals. Nail every cyclist who rides through the intersection when the walk signals are on. The bonus funds would be from nailing every driver who turns in any direction, when the scramble isn't engaged (through traffic only permitted).
Last edited:
That'd stating the obvious. A paragraph lamenting cyclists commiting crimes like not using signals, not riding single file, not using bike lanes that are present. The overloaded unfit trucks with unlicensed drivers and no insurance? Crickets. Tells me you assign them at best equal, more likely less than equal weight. I feel sorry for you.
Last edited:
My concern about overly severe sentences is that they might result in more hit and runs. If what the driver did means 25 years in the slammer why not try to get away. Do high speed chases cause more collateral damage?
Putting a person into a nothing to lose situation isn't too far off the American system.
The three strikes laws of some US jurisdictions has simple merit. First offence, you made a mistake. Second offense, you're a slow learner. Third offense, you're incorrigible and locked up for life.
You end up with just under 1% of the population in expensive room and board paid for by the taxpayer. Bad economics in my books. There have been cases of the third strike being the theft of a bicycle.
Easy question but tough to answer: What do you do with revolving door criminals?
Sure, why debate when you can just belittle.
I think that you just paraphrased "Rob's Law of Unintended Consequences." Unfortunately, I lost that page from my website in a server crash.
You equate cyclists not signaling to overloading a dump truck. There is nothing to debate with you. And on that note, I'm done. It's not worth expending the energy to hit the keys.
|
|
|
|
|