Where is the Media afterwards?

[hedo2002]

Now you are talking TWO different offences. You stated below an "ILLEGAL left turn" That is a VERY different charge from UNSAFE left turn. In the event of an ILLEGAL left turn that results in a collision, the driver "could" be charged with both offences. However, in our overcrowded court system the crown will simply deal one of them away for a guilty plea.

In Ontario, all Ontario car insurance companies must abide by FDR set out in the insurance act. FDR puts the left turner at 100% fault. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 668, s. 12 (5).

With respect to stiffer penalties, left turn collisions are typically severe whether bike or caged and the penalty relatively minor. You haven't made a case for the charge and penalty to be more severe based on the outcome -- it works that way for a lot of violations.

Lets look at an example where an at fault driver makes an illegal left turn. First situation he collides with an oncoming dumptruck, in the other he hits a pedestrian crossing the street. I have trouble with the notion an at fault driver faces the same charge for running into a dump truck and running over a person. One is vulnerable road user, one is not -- is it the pedestrian's fault for not wearing a dump truck when she crosses the street?

I do agree that motorcyclists need to take care of their own safety as much as possible. I also agree that motorcycling is inherently dangerous. I also believe when we drive cars, we sign accept some responsibility for safe operation on roads we share with vulnerable users.

Escalating fines won't solve the problem, but larger fines and substantial consequences might save a few lives and provide enough of a lesson that bad decisions are not repeated by careless drivers..

Seems to me like a more 'appropriate charge' needs to be laid, not just unsafe left turn or what not, but negligence causing harm/death or dangerous driving. (yes i know DD is inherently more difficult to prove).

Someone died. They didn't bump their head on the steering wheel, or have a limb broken from impact, they died. Penalties for all vehicles should be weighed against the result.

The system does not, nor IMHO, should it deliver differing penalties for the same offence, based solely on the "choice" of conveyance, by the person injured.

IF the turn was so egregious, and callous, then the system allows for the laying of different offences, IE dangerous driving causing injury, or dangerous driving causing death. IF the ONLY offence that is applicable is unsafe left turn, then the penalty should remain the same for ALL, regardless of the outcome. As a comparision, a driver makes an unsafe left turn in the city where the speed limit is 50 km/h and the other cage driver sustains minor injuries, the fine is $85. Now if all else being equal, EXCEPT the road speed limit is 80 KM/h and the other driver sustains serious injuries or dies, the fine is, (and rightfully so), $85. The actions of the driver making the turn were exactly the same in both circumstances, therefore the penalty also should be exactly the same.

To have differing penatilies, for the same offence, is simply not permitted in our system, nor should it be, as it then gives the judge the opportunity to punish a person more harshly then another. IF, a charge is to reflect the "outcome" then just as with dangerous or impaired, it is seperate charges for no injury, bodily injuries, or death. so for left turns, there would need to be additional sections added to the HTA, for the penalties to be refelctive

 

[MRR11.6]

To have differing penatilies, for the same offence, is simply not permitted in our system, nor should it be, as it then gives the judge the opportunity to punish a person more harshly then another. IF, a charge is to reflect the "outcome" then just as with dangerous or impaired, it is seperate charges for no injury, bodily injuries, or death. so for left turns, there would need to be additional sections added to the HTA, for the penalties to be refelctive

Spend some time in court, judges give different penalties all the time for the same offence daily. People get punished more harshly than others all the time.

 

[GreyGhost]

Spend some time in court, judges give different penalties all the time for the same offence daily. People get punished more harshly than others all the time.

In my experience, JP's often go down from the rack rate fine. I have never seen one go up (and doubt they have that power).

 

[MRR11.6]

In my experience, JP's often go down from the rack rate fine. I have never seen one go up (and doubt they have that power).

I have seen several cases where the officer reduced speed and at trial the JP convicted for the full speed. Other than that the legislated maximum fine is all that may be levied.

 

[raginduck]

Spend some time in court, judges give different penalties all the time for the same offence daily. People get punished more harshly than others all the time.

I would think that the person was a cop.. that he's probably spent a little time in court.

 

[raginduck]

I have seen several cases where the officer reduced speed and at trial the JP convicted for the full speed. Other than that the legislated maximum fine is all that may be levied.

that's pretty typical when the offender contests a ticket, goes to trial.

 

[Mad Mike]

Now you are talking TWO different offences. You stated below an "ILLEGAL left turn" That is a VERY different charge from UNSAFE left turn. In the event of an ILLEGAL left turn that results in a collision, the driver "could" be charged with both offences. However, in our overcrowded court system the crown will simply deal one of them away for a guilty plea.

I fail to see any linkage to the original point here.

...To have differing penatilies, for the same offence, is simply not permitted in our system, nor should it be, as it then gives the judge the opportunity to punish a person more harshly then another. IF, a charge is to reflect the "outcome" then just as with dangerous or impaired, it is seperate charges for no injury, bodily injuries, or death. so for left turns, there would need to be additional sections added to the HTA, for the penalties to be refelctive

Go sit in a court room for a day, it will educate you. I was in a room recently and caught a few sentencings, judges routinely dispense different penalties based on circumstances and outcomes. I saw two boys sentenced for care and control, one was fined $1000 and 12 months driving prohibition, the other 18 months and $1200 -- the difference according to the judge was 'aggravating circumstances'. In a drunken state one boy bragged he was a 'better drunk driver' than his buddy, that was caught on the police record and used against him.

The difference is some crimes have set penalties, some are set by judges based on circumstances and outcomes. My feeling is that any careless act that results in harm, whether the harmed is vulnerable or not, deserves harsher punishment.

 

[hedo2002]

Just a refresher, being an excopper, i can assure you both I have spent considerably more time sitting in court rooms than I suspect either of you have!

Mad Mike did you even both to read my post? I stated that for offences such as Dangerous or impaired driving, they already have differing penalties, based upon things like severity. Not to mention Care and Control is a CRIMINAL code offence, and there is NO SET FINE. Unsafe left turn, (which is what this thread is about is a Highway Traffic Act offence, and as such DOES have a set fine, ($85). As for your "feelings" who gives a crap, about them? We are talking the LEGAL system, not the "touchy feely" system,> again either you didn't read my posts in this thread or you have a serious issue with comprehension. I stated, the fine is the set fine regardless of weather the person, (injured party), is driving a big rig, a cage, a motorcycle, a bike, walking, or being pushed in a stroller. I stated if people want stiffer penalties, (which everyone is for UNTIL it is them, on the receiving end), then there would need to be new sections/legislation written.

Under the current system, IF a JP entered a finding of guilt on a charge of unsafe left turn and then stated, because you injured a rider, I am NOT going to fine you the set fine of $85, but I am going to fine you $1,000. THAT would be grounds for successful appeal, and in all likelihood, a finding of not guilty, due to the JP's error.

Lastly, just exactly what do you think will be accomplished by a higher fine, AFTER, the fact of the collision? As rightly, stated earlier no one in their right mind says "you know what I am going out today and purposely turn left in front of a biker and hope that SOB gets really messed up or better yet dead." Therefore, a higher fine is NOT going to be a deterrent.

How many times has the penalties for distracted driving been increased, yet most still use their phones. How many times has the "normal" fines for impaired driving been increased over the decades, yet people still do it.

So, until the system changes, NEW legislation is written and then voted into law, the setr fine for an unsafe left turn will remain at $85, regardless of the severity to the other party. IF your so exercised about that I guess you could run in the next provincial leadership of your fav party, get elected as leader, then run in the provincial election, become premier, and then pass the required legislation... Given the motorcyclist are a small minority of road users, until you accomplish all that, things will continue on their current path.

Spend some time in court, judges give different penalties all the time for the same offence daily. People get punished more harshly than others all the time.

I fail to see any linkage to the original point here.

Go sit in a court room for a day, it will educate you. I was in a room recently and caught a few sentencings, judges routinely dispense different penalties based on circumstances and outcomes. I saw two boys sentenced for care and control, one was fined $1000 and 12 months driving prohibition, the other 18 months and $1200 -- the difference according to the judge was 'aggravating circumstances'. In a drunken state one boy bragged he was a 'better drunk driver' than his buddy, that was caught on the police record and used against him.

The difference is some crimes have set penalties, some are set by judges based on circumstances and outcomes. My feeling is that any careless act that results in harm, whether the harmed is vulnerable or not, deserves harsher punishment.

 

[Mad Mike]

Just a refresher, being an excopper, i can assure you both I have spent considerably more time sitting in court rooms than I suspect either of you have!

Mad Mike did you even both to read my post? I stated that for offences such as Dangerous or impaired driving, they already have differing penalties, based upon things like severity. Not to mention Care and Control is a CRIMINAL code offence, and there is NO SET FINE. Unsafe left turn, (which is what this thread is about is a Highway Traffic Act offence, and as such DOES have a set fine, ($85). As for your "feelings" who gives a crap, about them? We are talking the LEGAL system, not the "touchy feely" system,> again either you didn't read my posts in this thread or you have a serious issue with comprehension. I stated, the fine is the set fine regardless of weather the person, (injured party), is driving a big rig, a cage, a motorcycle, a bike, walking, or being pushed in a stroller. I stated if people want stiffer penalties, (which everyone is for UNTIL it is them, on the receiving end), then there would need to be new sections/legislation written.

Under the current system, IF a JP entered a finding of guilt on a charge of unsafe left turn and then stated, because you injured a rider, I am NOT going to fine you the set fine of $85, but I am going to fine you $1,000. THAT would be grounds for successful appeal, and in all likelihood, a finding of not guilty, due to the JP's error.

Lastly, just exactly what do you think will be accomplished by a higher fine, AFTER, the fact of the collision? As rightly, stated earlier no one in their right mind says "you know what I am going out today and purposely turn left in front of a biker and hope that SOB gets really messed up or better yet dead." Therefore, a higher fine is NOT going to be a deterrent.

How many times has the penalties for distracted driving been increased, yet most still use their phones. How many times has the "normal" fines for impaired driving been increased over the decades, yet people still do it.

So, until the system changes, NEW legislation is written and then voted into law, the setr fine for an unsafe left turn will remain at $85, regardless of the severity to the other party. IF your so exercised about that I guess you could run in the next provincial leadership of your fav party, get elected as leader, then run in the provincial election, become premier, and then pass the required legislation... Given the motorcyclist are a small minority of road users, until you accomplish all that, things will continue on their current path.

I read everything you said, not sure you did the same. I'll boil my view down to make it simple:

Dangerous actions should come with harsh penalties. While I agree that nobody heads out saying I'm gonna ruin someone's day with a left turn, there are lots of folks that take left turn risks and do not apply sufficient attention to the task at hand. Left turns are one of the riskiest maneuvers we have to make AND a leading cause of serious injuries - urban intersection crashes account for over half of all driving fatalities and almost three-quarters of serious injuries (Road Safety in Canada) - that's more than drunk or distracted driving. Perhaps it's time to apply a little heat to the matter.

Why not mitigate the risks as best we can?

 

[nobbie48]

You can't penalize someone because of your choice of vehicles. It was your choice to ride a bike instead of driving the safest vehicle possible.
How many serious injuries or fatal collisions would have been nothing more than fender benders... if both parties were driving 5 star rated cages?

So a parent out pushing a baby carriage when a driver runs the kid over should suck it up because the kid wasn't a crash proof cart.

 

[ricplayer]

All of this talk about left turns got me thinking. I was in Ireland this spring and the ratio of roundabouts to intersections was probably 10 to 1. We really need more of these things, everywhere. Every vehicle is moving in the same direction, no head on traffic. Slow speed too.

I am sure accidents happen at roundabouts, but they do remove the left turn, and no one is doing 80kmh through them like we do some intersections.

 

[Trials]

We tend to think of cell phones when we say distracted driving. I wonder how many collisions would take place if all drivers concentrated on just driving. No thinking about what we're going to order when we get to the restaurant. No thinking about the item on sale. No thinking about anything except checking our safety zones and conflicting traffic. No radio. No fun.
...

About the same as me.

 

[Jayv]

The driver that killed Liz pretty much got a slap on the wrist. Media coverage after the accident was non existent.

Highway 9 again... Our own beloved Liz Metcalfe - Lost but never forgotten

 

[Mad Mike]

All of this talk about left turns got me thinking. I was in Ireland this spring and the ratio of roundabouts to intersections was probably 10 to 1. We really need more of these things, everywhere. Every vehicle is moving in the same direction, no head on traffic. Slow speed too.

I am sure accidents happen at roundabouts, but they do remove the left turn, and no one is doing 80kmh through them like we do some intersections.

Stouffville seems to be putting a lot of these in. Not only do they remove the chance of a Tbone or head on, they keep traffic moving.

The small ones without the burms are fun on bikes too!

 

[sburns]

There seems to be a lot of new roundabouts being put in place in newer development neighbourhoods. Some are out in the country almost in the middle of nowhere, like a test or something.
Anyhow many 3rd world countries have these because it's simple infrastructure. No expensive signals etc to keep tabs on or electrify, and it keeps things moving. Sometimes I believe we have too many signals, stops, and small intersections etc. I am sure this adds to driver frustration which leads to poor judgment.

 

[Mad Mike]

There seems to be a lot of new roundabouts being put in place in newer development neighbourhoods. Some are out in the country almost in the middle of nowhere, like a test or something.
Anyhow many 3rd world countries have these because it's simple infrastructure. No expensive signals etc to keep tabs on or electrify, and it keeps things moving. Sometimes I believe we have too many signals, stops, and small intersections etc. I am sure this adds to driver frustration which leads to poor judgment.

Tell me about it. I commute from the east to west side of Markham, approx <12km. The route with the least stops has 28 traffic lights and and 4 stop signs. I could reduce that to 14 lights and 3 stop signs if I took the 407 and paid $8.50/day.

 

[MRR11.6]

Just a refresher, being an excopper, i can assure you both I have spent considerably more time sitting in court rooms than I suspect either of you have!

Retired cop here as well. I doubt you could refresh me on anything and I am not going to have a pissin contest over time spent in court.

 

[raginduck]

So a parent out pushing a baby carriage when a driver runs the kid over should suck it up because the kid wasn't a crash proof cart.

That's quite the jump... We were talking about left hand turners causing accidents with other vehicles.. and you're trying to bring babies in strollers into it!?

 

[nobbie48]

That's quite the jump... We were talking about left hand turners causing accidents with other vehicles.. and you're trying to bring babies in strollers into it!?

An exaggeration but where does one draw the line? SUV vs. carriage, bicycle, motorcycle, small car, another SUV?

Why does the person in the lesser vehicle have to pay for the bad driver's mistake?

 

[koFFey]

I read everything you said, not sure you did the same. I'll boil my view down to make it simple:

Dangerous actions should come with harsh penalties. While I agree that nobody heads out saying I'm gonna ruin someone's day with a left turn, there are lots of folks that take left turn risks and do not apply sufficient attention to the task at hand. Left turns are one of the riskiest maneuvers we have to make AND a leading cause of serious injuries - urban intersection crashes account for over half of all driving fatalities and almost three-quarters of serious injuries (Road Safety in Canada) - that's more than drunk or distracted driving. Perhaps it's time to apply a little heat to the matter.

Why not mitigate the risks as best we can?

While your commented stats are word for word in this document, you left out some important details from this 2011 document about future prevention.

The following are some characteristics of the 2002 to 2004 fatal collisions at intersections:
. urban intersection crashes account for over half of all fatalities and almost three-quarters of serious injuries;
. older drivers (65+) are much more likely to commit an infraction leading to an intersection crash than most other drivers;
. fewer children under 16 are being killed or seriously injured in crashes at intersections compared to 1996-2001;
. 40% of all intersection fatalities involve a driver failing to yield the right of way or disobeying a traffic sign or signal.

Nothing about left hand turns but more so about no or neglecting the rules of the road. Go a little further and this is where the bread and butter of this document lies.

3.8 Vulnerable Road Users Vulnerable road users include pedestrians, riders of motorcycles and mopeds, and bicyclists. They are vulnerable by virtue of their lack of protection if struck by a vehicle. Over the period 2004-2008, 13% of fatalities have been pedestrians, while motorcyclists and bicyclists have accounted for 8% and 2% of fatalities respectively. In total, vulnerable road users account for almost a quarter of traffic fatalities in Canada.
Pedestrians: Some of the characteristics of pedestrian traffic fatalities are as follows:
. 75% of pedestrian traffic fatalities occurred on urban roads;
. 60% of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes were trying to cross the road;
. 35% of fatally injured pedestrians were aged 65 or older even though they represent only 13% of the population;
. 63% of pedestrians killed at intersections were 65 or older; . 6% of fatally injured pedestrians were under the age of 16 and of these, 20% ran out into the street;
. 33% of fatally injured pedestrians were at-fault for the crash;
. 33% of fatally injured pedestrians were struck by a driver who had committed a traffic infraction prior to the crash;
. 60% of pedestrians were killed at night or during dim light conditions when they are not seen by drivers;
. 40% of fatally injured pedestrians had been drinking.
Pedestrians should not assume that drivers see them at intersections and should instead make eye contact with drivers to ensure that they have been seen and that the driver is going to wait until they cross. Young pedestrians 5 to 10 years of age could receive training either at home or at school about how to walk to and from school safely. Seniors could take courses about being safe in traffic. People walking at night should wear light coloured reflective clothing so they can be seen by drivers. Given the high incidence of pedestrians being killed after drinking, bar employees could encourage impaired patrons to take a taxi rather than drive or walk.

Motorcyclists: Some of the characteristics of motorcycle traffic fatalities are as follows:
. 23% of motorcyclists killed in crashes were 25 to 34 years of age;
. fatalities among motorcyclists 45 to 54 years of age increased by 109% between 1996-2001 and 2004-2006 as ridership increased in this age group;
. 64% of fatally injured motorcyclists had committed a traffic infraction prior to the crash;
. 38% of fatally injured motorcyclists had been speeding prior to the crash;
. 33% of fatally injured motorcyclists had been drinking prior to the crash and 25% had BACs over the 0.08 legal limit.

A major problem for motorcyclists is that they are not always visible to the drivers of other vehicles, so they have to be especially careful while riding. While motorcyclist training courses exist in most jurisdictions, motorcyclists need to be trained not only in operating the vehicle safely but also in recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations where they cannot be seen by drivers. Riders could wear protective jackets and pants that are brightly coloured and reflective to increase their visibility and to reduce the risk of abrasions if they fall off of the motorcycle.

So, basically to add to your correct statement, we as riders also need to stop speeding, lane splitting/filtering, riding in bicycle lanes or whatever while driving only during daylight with ATGATT and missing them shots at the bar during a bike meet. Amazing that 64% of killed motorcyclist committed a traffic infraction before getting killed. Now, because we already know that motorcyclist need to know their limits, defensive riding, etc.. wearing gear seems to be lost on a few. How do you suppose we fix this dilemma where we are not getting killed if we are doing everything we can to survive on the road. You can suggest new rules of the road but apparently we are not too good at following them. Especially speeding and weaving in and out of traffic. Facts.