Whitby Accident Victim Identified

[backmarkerducati]

Forum Sponsor

My unscientific poll suggests absolutely the opposite to yours. Again, just because you say so don't make it right. Saying anyone opposed to your point of view is a mindless apathetic sheep that deserves what they get is precisely the type of thinking a nice man called Torquemada used to use. ie, you don't believe what I believe therefore you must be wrong.

Ever thought that perhaps the reason politicians don't do anything about the law is that there maybe as many people, or more, in favour as against? You have to at least accept that possibility as distasteful to you as it may seem.

Also I really don't think the majority of the population believes the police force are rotten to the core. As has been pointed out there are bad apples everywhere. You have to ask though, if you have a lot of experience with the police...why is that? There's only three reasons really:

1. You are a police officer
2. You are being persecuted and harassed
3. You do things contrary to the laws of the country/province that catch their attention

I think the politicians were genius in branding the law "Stunting" and "Racing" which makes the general public very warm, fuzzy, and happy.

I had a great conversation with my sister regarding the law. At first she was totally for getting all those crazy punk (I am using some artistic license here) stunters and racers off the road. I then explained that if you are driving 95 in an 80 zone and you hit a town with a 40 zone you are now a "street racer." If you are going 120 on the highway and hit a 50 zone at the bottom of the off-ramp before dropping enough speed you are a "street racer."

From what I have seen reported on these charges (hardly scientific I will admit) this cover a good number of the charges. Some poor middle age schmuck that did not brake fast enough when the speed limit dropped. The general public is not looking past the name to see how it impacts people's lives.

 

[V-Tom]

Funny...civilised societies all have laws that we as the general public do not individually make up. What makes us a civilised society is the fact that the vast majority of us follow those laws. We have places for the people that don't follow the laws...paid for, oddly, by the people that do.
...

And oddly enough the vast majority of drivers acknowledge that the speed limits are wrong. They do this by routinely speeding almost all the time. The only time most drivers don't exceed the speed limit is when there is too much congestion to allow it.

Most peoople drive at speeds that are safe and reasonable for the conditions at hand. The limits don't reflect this.

..Tom

 

[jc100]

I think the politicians were genius in branding the law "Stunting" and "Racing" which makes the general public very warm, fuzzy, and happy.

I had a great conversation with my sister regarding the law. At first she was totally for getting all those crazy punk (I am using some artistic license here) stunters and racers off the road. I then explained that if you are driving 95 in an 80 zone and you hit a town with a 40 zone you are now a "street racer." If you are going 120 on the highway and hit a 50 zone at the bottom of the off-ramp before dropping enough speed you are a "street racer."

From what I have seen reported on these charges (hardly scientific I will admit) this cover a good number of the charges. Some poor middle age schmuck that did not brake fast enough when the speed limit dropped. The general public is not looking past the name to see how it impacts people's lives.

I actually agree with you about the naming thing, it sells the law a little but then again I actually think that's what it is designed to do...sell it and sensationalise it so that it is common knowledge that going 50 over and/or driving like an *** is a no-no. It's cheaper than paying for hundreds of hours of air-time to publicise it on national TV.

I've done 7k kms on Ontario roads in the last couple of months and not seen one bike being towed. Plenty of cars but still not one bike. That's my unscientific evidence that can't be taken for anything but it's still interesting.

Regardless of what you call this law and the people caught under it, most were not controlling their vehicles to keep them under the pretty high limits set under the law. 50 Over a posted limit is a pretty big number, not doing a wheelie is easy...I see tons of people not doing wheelies every day, not weaving in and out of traffic is also easy.

Most other countries have big penalties for big infractions...some even more severe then here. We're no different. This law isn't perfect but it's my opinion that something drastic needed to happen to make people change their bad behaviour on the roads here. I personally think I've seen some of the worst, most dangerous drivers/riders on the roads in this country.

Again, these are my opinions only. I don't have an absolute conviction that I'm right like some others may with their opinions.

 

[jc100]

And oddly enough the vast majority of drivers acknowledge that the speed limits are wrong. They do this by routinely speeding almost all the time. The only time most drivers don't exceed the speed limit is when there is too much congestion to allow it.

Most peoople drive at speeds that are safe and reasonable for the conditions at hand. The limits don't reflect this.

..Tom

Are Canadian drivers better than British drivers? They must be as British drivers drive at or near 70mph, 113 kmh.

Or maybe drivers will also drive at limits they think they can get away with. 120kmh is the unwritten allowed limit on our highways and it's no surprise that most drivers, me included, drive at or near this speed. In the UK with the number of speed cameras, radar traps etc drivers know that going any faster will get them tickets and so they don't. I have driven in the UK pre-speed camera era and post....care to guess what most drivers were doing pre?

The big problem in this province is that this unwritten limit has been in place so long that there's confusion over what is and isn't an acceptable speed to go. I'll bet you $100 that if the limit is raised to 120kmh there will be a sizeable number of drivers that will believe the new unwritten limit will be 20kmh above this.

The only way of enforcing a new raised limit, and I'm with you, I think it should be raised to 115 or 120kmh, is to be draconian with a new limit. No tolerance etc, and you can imagine how many posts we'll get here if that happens.

 

[AdRath]

The only way of enforcing a new raised limit, and I'm with you, I think it should be raised to 115 or 120kmh, is to be draconian with a new limit. No tolerance etc, and you can imagine how many posts we'll get here if that happens.

I agree with this although I don't see complaining as going 130km/h is a 10 ticket (as it should be) not a 30 over ticket for driving 10 over the accepted speed.

 

[V-Tom]

Are Canadian drivers better than British drivers? They must be as British drivers drive at or near 70mph, 113 kmh.

Or maybe drivers will also drive at limits they think they can get away with. 120kmh is the unwritten allowed limit on our highways and it's no surprise that most drivers, me included, drive at or near this speed. In the UK with the number of speed cameras, radar traps etc drivers know that going any faster will get them tickets and so they don't. I have driven in the UK pre-speed camera era and post....care to guess what most drivers were doing pre?

The big problem in this province is that this unwritten limit has been in place so long that there's confusion over what is and isn't an acceptable speed to go. I'll bet you $100 that if the limit is raised to 120kmh there will be a sizeable number of drivers that will believe the new unwritten limit will be 20kmh above this.

The only way of enforcing a new raised limit, and I'm with you, I think it should be raised to 115 or 120kmh, is to be draconian with a new limit. No tolerance etc, and you can imagine how many posts we'll get here if that happens.

It won't happen here, it hasn't happened in the USA, and it hasn't happened anywhere else i nthe world.

There is no basis to suggest that drivers wil always drive at a certain speed over the limit if they are set properly. (*) For example, when I drive in the USA on Interstates the speeds have changed from state to state from 75 to 65 to 55 mph. Most traffic travels at the same speed regardless of the posted limit, and this was around 75 mph (I am not talking about construction zones.)

When driving in Germany I found that most traffic travelled at 75 mph in the right lane.

75 mph is 120 kph an the same thing applies here on the open 400 series. Most traffic moves around 120 kph although most people slow down a lot when in the presence of police cars.

(*) By properly set speed limits I mean limits set using the 85th or 90th percentile rule, as established by traffic engineers many many decades ago.

..Tom

 

[jc100]

It won't happen here, it hasn't happened in the USA, and it hasn't happened anywhere else i nthe world.

There is no basis to suggest that drivers wil always drive at a certain speed over the limit if they are set properly. (*) For example, when I drive in the USA on Interstates the speeds have changed from state to state from 75 to 65 to 55 mph. Most traffic travels at the same speed regardless of the posted limit, and this was around 75 mph (I am not talking about construction zones.)

When driving in Germany I found that most traffic travelled at 75 mph in the right lane.

75 mph is 120 kph an the same thing applies here on the open 400 series. Most traffic moves around 120 kph although most people slow down a lot when in the presence of police cars.

(*) By properly set speed limits I mean limits set using the 85th or 90th percentile rule, as established by traffic engineers many many decades ago.

..Tom

Pre-speed cameras in the UK the traffic flow was much higher. I know..I was young and remember my Renault shaking like nothing else at 100mph and I was being passed too. I'm not saying everyone did that speed but a lot did and they did it because they could get away with it quite often. Come the speed cameras, traffic light cameras and no tolerance laws and everyone slows to 70mph or the posted limit and no more...regardless of how low that particular limit is.

What I was saying is that people do 120kmh here because they know they can reasonably be assured that they can get away with it and it also happens to be a reasonable speed. It compares well with the limits in other countries. I don't think that it has much to do with it being a number people are comfortable with regardless of if laws existed or not..it just happens to be the unwritten, pretty globally acknowledged, acceptable limit. If the number was 130kmh...then that's what people would be doing, but it's not. There's obviously an upper limit to this and that would be the figure at which people start to think "hold on, this is a bit too fast" or "heck, my car is shaking".

 

[DS2]

So let me ask the following question, keeping in mind I'm no expert on HTA172:

What is stopping a cop from pulling me over for no reason, charging me under HTA172 and impounding my bike?

 

[turbodish]

So let me ask the following question, keeping in mind I'm no expert on HTA172:

What is stopping a cop from pulling me over for no reason, charging me under HTA172 and impounding my bike?

Pretty much the same thing stopping him from pulling you over for no reason, shooting you for no reason, and then planting a knife or drop gun on you.

 

[TimC]

What I was saying is that people do 120kmh here because they know they can reasonably be assured that they can get away with it and it also happens to be a reasonable speed. It compares well with the limits in other countries. I don't think that it has much to do with it being a number people are comfortable with regardless of if laws existed or not..it just happens to be the unwritten, pretty globally acknowledged, acceptable limit. If the number was 130kmh...then that's what people would be doing, but it's not. There's obviously an upper limit to this and that would be the figure at which people start to think "hold on, this is a bit too fast" or "heck, my car is shaking".

so you think 120kph is reasonable...but you also think 20% higher than that is worthy of HTA172 punishment???

well...there is another option (taking a cue from Que)...posting both minimum and maximum speed limits on the highways

go 130 max and 100 minimum with signs posted for lane discipline and slower speeds keeping to the right....and enforce the lane discipline harshly

is that not reasonable?

seems pretty reasonable to me.....it sends a message to those who park themselves in the left lane at 105 that it's not the place to be at that speed.....it gives the average driver a tad more to think about with regard to varying speed on the highways, rather than just mindlessly following the guy in front (aka it would instantly wake people up)...and it would get rid of this overly harsh BS of getting stung with seizure, $1000s in fines and possible jailtime for passing a truck at 20kph (roughly 15%) over the defacto limit that isn't enforced anyway...only until the driver gets into the big punishment range

 

[Shaman]

My unscientific poll suggests absolutely the opposite to yours. Again, just because you say so don't make it right.

That's why I pointed out how my poll was done. And the same to you.

Saying anyone opposed to your point of view is a mindless apathetic sheep that deserves what they get

But most people are. Scientific studies have exhaustively proven this. This isn't (only) my opinion. So when I've explained to them what the pitfalls are and what little they can do about the police hitting them with HTA 172 for any reason they choose (literally, any reason), they are very much against the legislation, for the majority.

Like I said, it all depends on how you ask the question. Because most people are apathetic sheep and politicians (or quasi-politicians) make full use of this.

Ever thought that perhaps the reason politicians don't do anything about the law is that there maybe as many people, or more, in favour as against?

Nope. I cannot imagine the majority of people thinking bad laws are good laws, once they have the situation explained to them from both angles.

You have to at least accept that possibility as distasteful to you as it may seem.

I have faith that most people are more reasonable than you authoritative, totalitarian types. So, while I accept the possibility, I also accept the fact that most people are sheep. Frankly, when I tell them that they can get a HTA 172 just for leaving a stop light excessively quickly *in the sole judgement of the police officer*, they stop and scratch their head... and bust out of their programming. The ones that don't usually just don't believe that cops can be suck d!cks...

Also I really don't think the majority of the population believes the police force are rotten to the core.

You're right, they don't. But they are.

if you have a lot of experience with the police...why is that?

Nice list. I a) work with them on occasion, b) know several of them personally, c) know a H.R. wonk for a PD, d) have run up against them on occasion but nothing criminal, e) I care little for bad laws and f) have observed them in many situations.

I can tell you, for instance, what streets you can watch late at night to see two police cars transfer illegal drugs for money in the trade they have going on here in Kingston. Have personally witnessed it. I can tell you many instances of police corruption both here in this area and some others that I have personally witnessed. I can in one afternoon show you two police officers that spend more time in the bar having a constitutional than working at their job... and I don't have to leave the block I work in.

Maybe you just don't get out much...

 

[Shaman]

Pretty much the same thing stopping him from pulling you over for no reason, shooting you for no reason, and then planting a knife or drop gun on you.

In other words, nothing. Most of them aren't that nasty, however. The HTA is easy and devestating, so that's what they'd use.

The rest about appropriate speed limits looks to be in good hands, and mirrors what I've said in several threads: 120km/h is a good general speed that would drop congestion on the 401 and would offend few.

 

[DS2]

Pretty much the same thing stopping him from pulling you over for no reason, shooting you for no reason, and then planting a knife or drop gun on you.

Too funny.

 

[TimC]

Pretty much the same thing stopping him from pulling you over for no reason, shooting you for no reason, and then planting a knife or drop gun on you.

ummm...you endlessly accuse folks of keyboard diarrhea...and for whatever reason escape a ban....and simultaneously post this?

laughable

let me make a point....you annoy me

and if I knew who you were...and I carried a badge for a living...lemme tell ya...you let those tires even remotely spin in a snowstorm and I'm taking your car

since I'm already respected by the court, I'll dress up your driving behavior in my disclosure and you won't stand a chance

and just for a little insurance, I'll pick up the beer and wing tab with my badge-buddies next Tuesday and make sure they know how much of a loogan you are behind the wheel....so you're marked

ya see....I don't like you....and since I have a badge and know who you are and where to find you...I can and will make your life a living hell and cost you tens of thousands courtesy of a highway traffic act that allows me to do so without any repercussions because you can't drive for beans

I'll tell the court you're an alright guy but you just have a leadfoot...and I will laugh so hard for the decades that you pay the same coin I spent buying my cottage in the kawarthas...just to keep your butt on the road

Turbo.....if you wanna trust me with a badge, then you are crazy

 

[jc100]

That's why I pointed out how my poll was done. And the same to you.



But most people are. Scientific studies have exhaustively proven this. This isn't (only) my opinion. So when I've explained to them what the pitfalls are and what little they can do about the police hitting them with HTA 172 for any reason they choose (literally, any reason), they are very much against the legislation, for the majority.

Like I said, it all depends on how you ask the question. Because most people are apathetic sheep and politicians (or quasi-politicians) make full use of this.



Nope. I cannot imagine the majority of people thinking bad laws are good laws, once they have the situation explained to them from both angles.



I have faith that most people are more reasonable than you authoritative, totalitarian types. So, while I accept the possibility, I also accept the fact that most people are sheep. Frankly, when I tell them that they can get a HTA 172 just for leaving a stop light excessively quickly *in the sole judgement of the police officer*, they stop and scratch their head... and bust out of their programming. The ones that don't usually just don't believe that cops can be suck d!cks...



You're right, they don't. But they are.




Nice list. I a) work with them on occasion, b) know several of them personally, c) know a H.R. wonk for a PD, d) have run up against them on occasion but nothing criminal, e) I care little for bad laws and f) have observed them in many situations.

I can tell you, for instance, what streets you can watch late at night to see two police cars transfer illegal drugs for money in the trade they have going on here in Kingston. Have personally witnessed it. I can tell you many instances of police corruption both here in this area and some others that I have personally witnessed. I can in one afternoon show you two police officers that spend more time in the bar having a constitutional than working at their job... and I don't have to leave the block I work in.

Maybe you just don't get out much...

I get out plenty...all over the world too so I have perspectives from different countries which is why I'm surprised at the misplaced venom you have here on this subject.

I give many of our fellow citizens a bit more credit than you do. There are many of them more educated than you or I but I don't see a massive fuss being raised except by a minority of people who appear to own equipment capable of falling foul of this law quite easily or by people who really couldn't care less for any speed limit and see it as their god given right to treat the roads as their personal playthings. In my field we would call that sponsor bias and regard the results and opinions obtained from this subset of people with more than a little distrust.

It's a little like a cigarette company calling the health studies on smoking "baloney"....they have a bit of a vested interest in calling it baloney. Most of the "sheep" you refer to don't really have a strong opinion against HTA172 because they are responsible enough not to ever fall foul of it and many of the "sheep" like the idea of harsh penalties because perhaps, like me, they think some drivers and some riders in this country deserve to be treated like children as they act like children.

I know a few cops too...they seem like nice guys actually. I don't like bad laws either but I can't really think of any. I've observed them a lot too...can't help but do so not far from where I live plus they've been buzzing around campus all week with the dead student thing. I just see them doing their job to be honest.

You know when you explain to people how they can be charged for doing something like speeding away from a stop sign....do you tell them out of the entire population of ontario how many people this generally happens to too?

 

[AdRath]

It's a little like a cigarette company calling the health studies on smoking "baloney"....they have a bit of a vested interest in calling it baloney.

Are you trying to say that politicians and law enforcement have no vested interest?

 

[Ice Pic]

Edit

 

[CanadianBiker]

...her story must be told.

Her story has been told. The rider fled and she died. End of story. The only change that's likely to come about is a call for stricter regulation, increased enforcement, and harsher penalties.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

"Almost guaranteed" outcome is not a guaranteed outcome. A number of riders died this year when their "guarantees" failed to hold.

It's been a day since you made that statement and you were asked to either back it up with facts (and no, quoting people in the comments section of haltonlife.com doesn't count) or retract it. I guess you're too embarrased that you got caught embellishing/making up statistics (again) and are sidestepping the question.

 

[turbodish]

It's been a day since you made that statement and you were asked to either back it up with facts (and no, quoting people in the comments section of haltonlife.com doesn't count) or retract it. I guess you're too embarrased that you got caught embellishing/making up statistics (again) and are sidestepping the question.

I don't make up stats and frequently back up any that I post. I just don't jump hoops on demand.

This comes from a March 2010 fatalityin Oshawa. The traditional riding season had barely started:

Director Scott said, "In my view, Mr. Baron's death was caused by his own actions in attempting to elude the involved officers who were lawfully monitoring the roadway for speeding vehicles. While the subject officer had the lawful authority to begin a suspect apprehension pursuit as defined by the regulations of the Police Services Act, by all accounts he did not engage in a pursuit as events happened so quickly."

The cops may not have started chasing him yet, but the rider was running from them just the same. I suppose he was lucky enough to avoid being caught by the cops, but he died in the process.

Forum Sponsor