GP_RZ
Well-known member
I Totally agree! If you have a pulse you may drive here in Ontario. Should be more time on testing on road and on skid pad:blob8:.
|
|
|
What can you do about bad drivers?
- Thread starter photobiker
- Start date
I Totally agree! If you have a pulse you may drive here in Ontario. Should be more time on testing on road and on skid pad:blob8:.
On page 2 there is an e-mail template that can be used to be sent to your local MPP and the Minister of Transportation to let them know of the problem.
If you just complain about bad drivers on a forum as is the Canadian way and end it at that then things will not change; if thousands of us send messages to politicians they may do something.
If you just complain about bad drivers on a forum as is the Canadian way and end it at that then things will not change; if thousands of us send messages to politicians they may do something.
Good points. Except I would hate to wake up the Politicians into doing something for us. Besides just loving themselves once the elections are over.
Especially, motorcycle licenses, one must flush up every time you use the toilet or something.
It'd be great to see bikes hit the skid pad, but would insurance cover it?
There are two other threads on this site where people are discussing how they would like to be able to legally filter thru traffic. How about we work together to get rid of all of the unskilled drivers and riders who can't stay in their own lanes first, then work on the aggressive drivers and riders and after that let's worry about legal filtering. I don't feel comfortable filtering in California; no way I would ride between Ontario fools.
It all starts with us writing to our local MPP and also the Minister of Transportation reminding them that driving is a privilege.
It all starts with us writing to our local MPP and also the Minister of Transportation reminding them that driving is a privilege.
XenoVibe
Well-known member
It's not about safety, it's about generating cash.
You guys don't seem to understand how easy it is to get a driver's licence in Ontario and what is the solution to this grave problem. Government can make as much "cash" if not more by making sure that Driver Testing is properly performed and that laws other than " speeding" are enforced with the result being safer roads.
Currently a private contractor is administering driver testing in Ontario. The government gets a cut of each test. The tests both knowledge and skill are too easy to pass. There are Drivetest centers in Ontario with a pass rate of 90%. If the tests are administered properly most people will fail the first attempt. Those individuals then have a choice: study and possibly pass the next try or keep failing and keep paying. The government benefits by increasing revenue and we benefit by keeping people that don't care about knowing how to drive properly off of our roads.
Currently a private contractor is administering driver testing in Ontario. The government gets a cut of each test. The tests both knowledge and skill are too easy to pass. There are Drivetest centers in Ontario with a pass rate of 90%. If the tests are administered properly most people will fail the first attempt. Those individuals then have a choice: study and possibly pass the next try or keep failing and keep paying. The government benefits by increasing revenue and we benefit by keeping people that don't care about knowing how to drive properly off of our roads.
XenoVibe
Well-known member
Nothing. You are at a disadvantage when it comes to safety and following them can only escalate the issue unless there is an actual attempt to cause you harm on purpose. Even if you capture said event on camera, you can submit it to the local authorities but it is doubted that they will seriously investigate unless there are multiple incidents and someone has actually suffered from it.
In September 2014 I met with the Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca; the meeting was to bring to his attention the issue of driver actions on our roadways and how this affects safety and what I felt were the short-comings of the MTO programs in affecting safe motor-vehicle usage. I came away from that meeting unsatisfied with his answers. Subsequent attempts for follow-up meetings with the Minister of Transportation have been unsuccessful (avoiding).
In researching information regarding road safety prior to and post to the meeting with Minister Del Duca I discovered much information regarding the inadequacies of MTO policies and procedures.
Government of Ontario is proud of stating that Ontario is ranked as being one of North America’s safest jurisdictions regarding motor-vehicle related deaths. Problem with that statement is that motor-vehicle manufacturers have played a very important part in reducing motor-vehicle related deaths from the ever improving vehicle safety features. Also, Ontario has a lower percentage of register two-wheelers (motorcycles, scooters etc.) as a percentage of total registered vehicles than most of the other jurisdictions it compares itself to. Also, the majority of Ontario riders don’t typically ride twelve months of the years. If you remove motorcycle/scooter deaths from the calculation, Ontario’s safety ranking drops significantly (this fact has not elicited any MTO response).
MTO has in effect several driver control programs which were enacted to deal with problem drivers/riders. Changes have been enacted to these programs officially and unofficially which has made them in my view (and Auditor General) less effective. The three particular programs which I will talk about are Collision Repeater, Demerit Points, and Senior Driver License Renewal.
The Collision Repeater program as was initially created was supposed to deal with individuals who habitually are involved in collisions. When an individual driver is involved in 3 or more collisions in any two year period and at least 2 of the three they have been determined to be at fault (including the most recent) they are supposed to be flagged and have to take part in a 3-part test (eye sight, knowledge, and driving/riding) plus they are supposed to have an interview with a Driver Improvement Councillor to discuss their driving habits. MTO changed the policy so that only those drivers which are convicted in a court of law related directly to the collision are part of the program. Just because you are not convicted in a court of law doesn’t mean you didn’t cause the collision. Auditor General of Ontario recorded that over a two-year period using the original definition over 900 drivers would have had to take part in the program, but by using the modified definition only 50 were flagged. This policy of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is as we are painfully aware rather contrary to how HTA 172 is written and implemented!
The Demerit Points program is supposed to change the behaviour or habitual HTA transgressors. During the interview with the Driver Improvement Councillor they have many tools to try to get drivers to change their behaviours including immediate license suspension. Auditor General noticed that license suspension had always (typically) been used very infrequently and then became used extremely rarely (historically used 1.2% down to 0.1%). When asked MTO stated that license suspension was used rarely as their modified policy was to use other more effective remedial actions; although the research that I have found shows that license suspension is the most effective remedial action to get drivers to change their driving behaviours.
The Senior Driver License Renewal Program is supposed to make certain that only drivers which are able to safely operate a motor vehicle continue to drive. Changes have been made that in my view have diminished the effectiveness of the program. Until 1986 any driver in Ontario having reached the age of 80 was supposed to take part in the program, which was made up of an eye test, a knowledge test, a driving test, and a 90 minute information seminar covering the effects of aging on driving. In 1986 the government of Ontario removed the automatic driving test requirement as they felt that it did not effectively weed out for mental impairment (actuality costing government too much as road test was free to seniors). In May of 2014 significant changes implemented; knowledge test no-longer required; information seminar reduced to 45 minutes rather than 90 minutes. MTO claims that the program is just as effective as the Driver Improvement Councillor which is providing the group session can at their discretion demand knowledge test and driving test. We know how tough Driver Improvement Councillors can be with drivers, will they be any tougher with seniors?
On page two of the thread I have a letter which you can use (cut and paste) and send to the Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca at sdelduca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org. If people take the time to write this individual, something positive may happen; if no-one takes part, the guarantee is that the situation will only get worse.
In researching information regarding road safety prior to and post to the meeting with Minister Del Duca I discovered much information regarding the inadequacies of MTO policies and procedures.
Government of Ontario is proud of stating that Ontario is ranked as being one of North America’s safest jurisdictions regarding motor-vehicle related deaths. Problem with that statement is that motor-vehicle manufacturers have played a very important part in reducing motor-vehicle related deaths from the ever improving vehicle safety features. Also, Ontario has a lower percentage of register two-wheelers (motorcycles, scooters etc.) as a percentage of total registered vehicles than most of the other jurisdictions it compares itself to. Also, the majority of Ontario riders don’t typically ride twelve months of the years. If you remove motorcycle/scooter deaths from the calculation, Ontario’s safety ranking drops significantly (this fact has not elicited any MTO response).
MTO has in effect several driver control programs which were enacted to deal with problem drivers/riders. Changes have been enacted to these programs officially and unofficially which has made them in my view (and Auditor General) less effective. The three particular programs which I will talk about are Collision Repeater, Demerit Points, and Senior Driver License Renewal.
The Collision Repeater program as was initially created was supposed to deal with individuals who habitually are involved in collisions. When an individual driver is involved in 3 or more collisions in any two year period and at least 2 of the three they have been determined to be at fault (including the most recent) they are supposed to be flagged and have to take part in a 3-part test (eye sight, knowledge, and driving/riding) plus they are supposed to have an interview with a Driver Improvement Councillor to discuss their driving habits. MTO changed the policy so that only those drivers which are convicted in a court of law related directly to the collision are part of the program. Just because you are not convicted in a court of law doesn’t mean you didn’t cause the collision. Auditor General of Ontario recorded that over a two-year period using the original definition over 900 drivers would have had to take part in the program, but by using the modified definition only 50 were flagged. This policy of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is as we are painfully aware rather contrary to how HTA 172 is written and implemented!
The Demerit Points program is supposed to change the behaviour or habitual HTA transgressors. During the interview with the Driver Improvement Councillor they have many tools to try to get drivers to change their behaviours including immediate license suspension. Auditor General noticed that license suspension had always (typically) been used very infrequently and then became used extremely rarely (historically used 1.2% down to 0.1%). When asked MTO stated that license suspension was used rarely as their modified policy was to use other more effective remedial actions; although the research that I have found shows that license suspension is the most effective remedial action to get drivers to change their driving behaviours.
The Senior Driver License Renewal Program is supposed to make certain that only drivers which are able to safely operate a motor vehicle continue to drive. Changes have been made that in my view have diminished the effectiveness of the program. Until 1986 any driver in Ontario having reached the age of 80 was supposed to take part in the program, which was made up of an eye test, a knowledge test, a driving test, and a 90 minute information seminar covering the effects of aging on driving. In 1986 the government of Ontario removed the automatic driving test requirement as they felt that it did not effectively weed out for mental impairment (actuality costing government too much as road test was free to seniors). In May of 2014 significant changes implemented; knowledge test no-longer required; information seminar reduced to 45 minutes rather than 90 minutes. MTO claims that the program is just as effective as the Driver Improvement Councillor which is providing the group session can at their discretion demand knowledge test and driving test. We know how tough Driver Improvement Councillors can be with drivers, will they be any tougher with seniors?
On page two of the thread I have a letter which you can use (cut and paste) and send to the Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca at sdelduca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org. If people take the time to write this individual, something positive may happen; if no-one takes part, the guarantee is that the situation will only get worse.
IMO there is a difference between "aggressive" driving and "dangerous" driving. Only one of which I have a problem with.
There is a difference between aggressive driving and dangerous driving; you don't have to be aggressive to be dangerous. Someone whose path on a blind left turn, turning so short so that they are completely on the wrong side of the road is dangerous but may not be aggressive (unless they had accelerated to turn left before oncoming traffic arrived at their location).
Are you ok with a person being injured every 8.5 minutes or a person dying every 17.6 hours in our province resulting from motor-vehicle collisions? If you are then don't do anything.
People complaining to the Minister of Transportation were (just recently) able to get him to get off his *** and contact Metrolinx about the extremely (for Ontarians) important issue of Metrolinx employees taking guests for free rides (those damn government workers again). How about contacting the Minister of Transportation about something that is actually important such as life?
The way I see it if government and police would get off their little hobby horse of speed being the biggest issue, get away from setting up speed traps and "targeted sweeps", and start enforcing other sections of the HTA with equal zeal, we'd all be a lot more safe.
You are right these two institutions are a significant part of the problem. You can hope for change or you can do something about it. Only if we work together will anything change.
As I have previously posted the Ministry of Transportation has made changes to policy officially and unofficially which has reduced the effectiveness of some of the Driver Control programs. They want to appear to care about road safety while not doing much about it so that this reduces the number of complaints. What shocks me is that the complaints that they have reduced were typically fielded by "bad drivers" claiming that MTO was mistreating them.
Many collisions are minor and therefore emergency services are not dispatched. The individuals then can go to the Collision Reporting Centre (CRC) and do their business. Typically there isn't a charge laid at CRC (but blame is given) therefore this incident will not affect a driver's standing in the current Collision Repeater program; the official policy change has had serious repercussions for safety.
Shaming them (MTO), may (hopefully) have them make changes that make our roads safer not less safe as they have done.
Trust me; I've been ignored by three Ministers of Transportation, to this date
Me too: Wynne, Bradley, and now Del Duca (can't remember who was before Wynne).
Quitting and accepting things as they are currently is not an option as people's lives are being destroyed daily and the economic cost to our society is in the billions of dollars each year.
If politicians want to balance the provincial budget, reducing the number of motor-vehicle collisions will go a long way to doing that; billions and billions saved each year! The sheep need to be shown the light!
Damn, make that "ignored by 6." I forgot Cansfield, Bradley, and Takhar.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also believe that the number of collisions/fatalities continued its long-term trends through implementation of HTA 172, i.e. that legislation didn't make any difference - and this is what myself, and Rob, and plenty of others, predicted was going to happen, for a wide variety of reasons. Enough years have passed that minor statistical hiccups should be averaged out by now.
Governments in Canada seem to operate as elected dictatorships. Nothing you say or do makes any difference unless it happens to be their own butts on the line.
Governments in Canada seem to operate as elected dictatorships. Nothing you say or do makes any difference unless it happens to be their own butts on the line.
Trust me; I've been ignored by three Ministers of Transportation, to this date
If you want change you'll need to wake up about 7 million voters. Unfortunately the "I'm not worried. I drive a big SUV" attitude holds the trump card.
BrownBrady
Well-known member
How about motivating drivers to drive 'sensibly' using a device like Desjardins’ Adjusto? Maybe it could even be a mandatory requirement for new and returning drivers. It measures how quickly the driver accelerates, how hard the driver brakes, how fast the driver drives relative to the speed limit and how the driver turns. Good drivers will receive lower insurance rates and develop better driving habits.
Last edited:
There was an initial bump but that coincided with the economy taking a dump, while gas prices soared. Fewer people on the roads means fewer people dying. The problem is that supporters of HTA 172 think correlation is causation and forget about the many other factors.
|
|
|
|
|