The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread | Page 285 | GTAMotorcycle.com

The Bad Drivers of Ontario Thread

No an excuse to disobey traffic laws but I wonder in these cases the accuracy of the GPS when it comes to no left turn etc. It sends them down the path and then when they get there....

Sort of like when people are sent down abandoned roads. I know Google Maps has tried to do that to me many times when you get into rural areas in Canada. OK that was a road allowance, but it is not a functioning road.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
Unassumed Road, as in no one will assume responsibility for it.
Click to expand...
Unassumed are normally new roads that haven't been transferred to municipality yet. Road allowances are interesting as standard of maintenance is lower but municipality normally provides some seasonal maintenance. Almost never plowed, rarely inspected or proactively maintained but if you call and tell them it is damaged (normally washed out) they will come and fix it.
 
My terminology might be incorrect... what I am talking about are roads that exist on the maps and may have at one time been a dirt road (road allowance was cut) but are completely overgrown. Some even still have stop signs where they cross other real roads but there is no way to drive down that road with anything but a capable 4X4, even then some are not passable. They appear on various GPS/maps and they will send you there.... obviously no street view.

When I had my Jeep we used to frequent the ones around Niagara for fun. These days I am alarmed at what some apps think are existing roads!

If they got that wrong, I imagine things like no left/right turns etc. are a mess.
 
backmarkerducati said:
My terminology might be incorrect... what I am talking about are roads that exist on the maps and may have at one time been a dirt road (road allowance was cut) but are completely overgrown. Some even still have stop signs where they cross other real roads but there is no way to drive down that road with anything but a capable 4X4, even then some are not passable. They appear on various GPS/maps and they will send you there.... obviously no street view.

When I had my Jeep we used to frequent the ones around Niagara for fun. These days I am alarmed at what some apps think are existing roads!

If they got that wrong, I imagine things like no left/right turns etc. are a mess.
Click to expand...
I have gotten waze to fix a few of those. There was no way in hell anything bigger than an atv was able to cross some things they had labeled as roads. Any "road" is valid for navigation so it would try to send people there.
 
GreyGhost said:
I have gotten waze to fix a few of those. There was no way in hell anything bigger than an atv was able to cross some things they had labeled as roads. Any "road" is valid for navigation so it would try to send people there.
Click to expand...
Keep the windows open a crack and make a u turn when you hear banjos.
 
backmarkerducati said:
No an excuse to disobey traffic laws but I wonder in these cases the accuracy of the GPS when it comes to no left turn etc. It sends them down the path and then when they get there....

Sort of like when people are sent down abandoned roads. I know Google Maps has tried to do that to me many times when you get into rural areas in Canada. OK that was a road allowance, but it is not a functioning road.
Click to expand...
I have no experience with commercial vehicle GPS units. I know they are supposed to keep semis off the tail of the dragon etc. Buying an auto version and running it in a big rig can get you in trouble.

Do you plug in the truck dimensions so the unit can calculate potential turning problems or height restrictions?
 
nobbie48 said:
SUV drives over sidewalk and kills a person lying on the sidewalk, takes a runner.

toronto.citynews.ca

Police locate driver after SUV fatally struck man sleeping on sidewalk in downtown Toronto

A man has died after being struck by an SUV while he was lying on a sidewalk in downtown Toronto on Tuesday morning, police say.
toronto.citynews.ca toronto.citynews.ca
Click to expand...
We need to start treating hit and run much differently. Until the penalties are an order of magnitude higher than almost any other charge, people will keep running as they have little to lose (and concurrent sentences if they get caught).

www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
 
GreyGhost said:
We need to start treating hit and run much differently. Until the penalties are an order of magnitude higher than almost any other charge, people will keep running as they have little to lose (and concurrent sentences if they get caught).

www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
Click to expand...
Stiffer extreme penalties can bring on the unintended consequences of more people running and doing more damage.

There's a balancing act of the potential of getting caught, the level of punishment and the cost of doing the right thing, driving carefully.

IMO, driving on the sidewalk was either murder or DUI.

If enforcement was 100% effective, the level of punishment could be increased to any level. There is no escape. You are screwed. It's my stick a finger in a light socket analogy. It immediately hurts every time and is 100% unbiased. Even people that have never had a shock are terrified of electricity.

Can we achieve that level of enforcement? I think not.

Our next best option is better driver training. Should I have posted that in the Jokes thread?

In urban settings we need 24/7 judges that can rule on police evidence and immediately send drivers off to jail. No HTA 172 punishment without trial. Yeah, yeah, yeah legalese right to their attorney who happens to be in Fiji for a month blah, blah, blah. That brings up my decimation theory that if enough people get hammered hard the story gets out to their friends and it may scare some of them straight.

If some guy in Kapuskasing got thrown in jail it doesn't scare me as it's too far away. If my neighbour gets jailed I'm going to be more cautious.

Isn't is about time we gave some rights to the victims?

We've done it with the family reform act. The courts don't care about who cheated on who. It's all about the kids getting a chance at life in the best way possible because they are the most innocent in the mess.
 
nobbie48 said:
Stiffer extreme penalties can bring on the unintended consequences of more people running and doing more damage.

There's a balancing act of the potential of getting caught, the level of punishment and the cost of doing the right thing, driving carefully.

IMO, driving on the sidewalk was either murder or DUI.

If enforcement was 100% effective, the level of punishment could be increased to any level. There is no escape. You are screwed. It's my stick a finger in a light socket analogy. It immediately hurts every time and is 100% unbiased. Even people that have never had a shock are terrified of electricity.

Can we achieve that level of enforcement? I think not.

Our next best option is better driver training. Should I have posted that in the Jokes thread?

In urban settings we need 24/7 judges that can rule on police evidence and immediately send drivers off to jail. No HTA 172 punishment without trial. Yeah, yeah, yeah legalese right to their attorney who happens to be in Fiji for a month blah, blah, blah. That brings up my decimation theory that if enough people get hammered hard the story gets out to their friends and it may scare some of them straight.

If some guy in Kapuskasing got thrown in jail it doesn't scare me as it's too far away. If my neighbour gets jailed I'm going to be more cautious.

Isn't is about time we gave some rights to the victims?

We've done it with the family reform act. The courts don't care about who cheated on who. It's all about the kids getting a chance at life in the best way possible because they are the most innocent in the mess.
Click to expand...
You gave me an idea. Make hit and run conviction an automatic financial responsibility for victim and their family. Stay and you face the driving charges but not the lifetime of financial consequences.
 
GreyGhost said:
You gave me an idea. Make hit and run conviction an automatic financial responsibility for victim and their family. Stay and you face the driving charges but not the lifetime of financial consequences.
Click to expand...
Add a massive reward for the snitch and show them what paranoia feels like.

Down side: In the case of a stolen car the thief is probably broke to start with.
 
GreyGhost said:
We need to start treating hit and run much differently. Until the penalties are an order of magnitude higher than almost any other charge, people will keep running as they have little to lose (and concurrent sentences if they get caught).

www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
Click to expand...
Article updated, driver located...no charges laid....yet?
 
Mikedezo44 said:
Article updated, driver located...no charges laid....yet?
Click to expand...
Given that the person struck was sleeping on the sidewalk, it's possible that the driver didn't know what they hit. They had to know that they hit something, however, and shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.
 
GreyGhost said:
We need to start treating hit and run much differently. Until the penalties are an order of magnitude higher than almost any other charge, people will keep running as they have little to lose (and concurrent sentences if they get caught).

www.cp24.com

Toronto, Canada and Global Breaking News – CP24

Most recent News News business news stories and video from CP24
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com
Click to expand...
IMHO, A hit and run should be considered "manslaughter" not "Vehicular Manslaughter"

Manslaughter: is covered under s. 234 of Canada's Criminal Code states that If you commit an unlawful act that causes the death of another person, you could be convicted and imprisoned for life. Unlike murder, death in manslaughter is not planned, and there is no intent to kill.
Unlike Vehicular manslaughter

Section 320.13 states that anyone who operates "a conveyance A motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person" faces a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Given that the person struck was sleeping on the sidewalk, it's possible that the driver didn't know what they hit. They had to know that they hit something, however, and shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. Very very good chance that they hit something (sign, building, garbage can, etc). Very very high probability that they get a hit and run charge, the question is around causing death. If you lay the causing death charge, the defence can argue the driver didn't know a person was hit.

EDIT:
Cops are even teeing up that defense. Was the driver someone that gets police favor? Time will tell.

"Toronto police Insp. Jeff Bangild said officers will continue to review video surveillance from the area to determine what caused the crash.

He says they have not ruled out the possibility that the driver was unaware they struck someone."
 
Last edited:
Looking at the intersection (Wellington and Scott) and the details in the reporting. The person was sleeping on a grate. This is the only grate I see anywhere near the intersection (galvanized one just past the last bollard) that does not have bollards or other fixed obstacles between it from the road.

Capture.JPG

If that is it, there is no curb and they are basically sleeping on the edge of the road (Scott). I still don't understand how they did not see them (vehicle too large for their skill-set?) and how they did not know they were dragging "something".
 
Jampy00 said:
IMHO, A hit and run should be considered "manslaughter" not "Vehicular Manslaughter"

Manslaughter: is covered under s. 234 of Canada's Criminal Code states that If you commit an unlawful act that causes the death of another person, you could be convicted and imprisoned for life. Unlike murder, death in manslaughter is not planned, and there is no intent to kill.
Unlike Vehicular manslaughter

Section 320.13 states that anyone who operates "a conveyance A motor vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or railway equipment in a manner that, having regard to all of the circumstances, is dangerous to the public and, as a result, causes the death of another person" faces a maximum penalty of up to 14 years in prison.
Click to expand...
Nope. Potential life sentence. The 14 year sentence maximum is for dangerous operation causing injury.

Punishment in case of death

320.21 Everyone who commits an offence under subsection 320.13(3), 320.14(3), 320.15(3) or 320.16(3) is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of,

  • (a) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000;
  • (b) for a second offence, imprisonment for a term of 30 days; and
  • (c) for each subsequent offence, imprisonment for a term of 120 days.
  • 2018, c. 21, s. 15
Marginal note:Aggravating circumstances for sentencing purposes

320.22 A court imposing a sentence for an offence under any of sections 320.13 to 320.18 shall consider, in addition to any other aggravating circumstances, the following:

  • (a) the commission of the offence resulted in bodily harm to, or the death of, more than one person;
  • (b) the offender was operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle or in a contest of speed, on a street, road or highway or in another public place;
  • (c) a person under the age of 16 years was a passenger in the conveyance operated by the offender;
  • (d) the offender was being remunerated for operating the conveyance;
  • (e) the offender’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the offence was equal to or exceeded 120 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood;
  • (f) the offender was operating a large motor vehicle; and
  • (g) the offender was not permitted, under a federal or provincial Act, to operate the conveyance.
 
backmarkerducati said:
Looking at the intersection (Wellington and Scott) and the details in the reporting. The person was sleeping on a grate. This is the only grate I see anywhere near the intersection (galvanized one just past the last bollard) that does not have bollards or other fixed obstacles between it from the road.

View attachment 64363

If that is it, there is no curb and they are basically sleeping on the edge of the road (Scott). I still don't understand how they did not see them (vehicle too large for their skill-set?) and how they did not know they were dragging "something".
Click to expand...
I was recently in something very similar to the vehicle in question, on my way back from the airport after a trip. Couldn't see a bloody thing that wasn't essentially straight out, in front. I'd be surprised if the bollards were even readily visible, if not to the side.
 
Vehicle in question appears to be a Ford Expedition full-size SUV or something of that sort. There's a whole 'nother discussion about how such vehicles have gotten too big, with hoodlines that are too high, and with poor outward visibility. The thick A-pillars for crash integrity and airbags to cushion the vehicle's occupants also block forward visibility, and this problem isn't isolated to full-size SUVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom