Printable View
What do you think is deterring them in jurisdictions/countries that don't have predatory monopolistic insurance and laws that declare you guilty before you set foot in a courtroom? Reasonable and transparent fines that fit the offense, not one direct and X long term and undefined ones that have no relation to the crime and are not set by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by iFly55
In my parent's country there are no insurance companies, no demerit points and no speed limits and NOBODY goes about running amok like a crazy driver on purpose, on highways all the cars are going at 80 km/h to 100 km/h, maybe a few sprinkles of 120 km/h.Quote:
Originally Posted by iFly55
Please don't give me that crap that Ontario anal highway laws are good to deter people from misbehaving, they are there just to generate money.
I'll be the first to admit that without a speed limit and 172, I would have been going much faster.
Your assertion that laws do not deter people from speeding is baseless.
Here's one that would kill tomorrow if only it was legal :>
Laws of the land are neither necessary nor they ultimately deter people like that. Natural laws take care of them quite well though.
say whatever you want, it won't change the fact that you and others like you that try to suggest that laws dont' make a difference have never been able to show any data that supports that view.
the suggestion that speeding is somehow analogous to homicide is ridiculous.
trying to suggest that everyone, including those on this forum, would ride around at 100 (and 120 tops) if only speed limits were removed is laughable.
And I'll be the second to admit this...Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
I didn't say that laws don't make a difference. My point is that laws regarding speeding in Ontario do not have the desired effect, which is presumably to make our roads safer for everyone. The only effect they undeniably have is to make criminals out of law abiding citizens and line up the pockets of insurance companies. As for data, ask any traffic engineer how speed limits are set and check German and Italian statistics regarding correlation between speed limits and road safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
On a wider plane, regarding prohibitionist laws that have no basis in science, check Portugal. It's been more than ten years since they decriminalized all drugs (yes, heroin, cocaine, crack, etc. included). They have fewer addicts, fewer people in jail, fewer people killed over drugs and more addicts asking and receiving more help. Police, courts, lawyers and jails can now concentrate on what really helps make a safer society.
Exactly, but that's what Ontario legislators want you to think so they can push draconian laws for victimless crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
No one would, because the 100km/h speed limit is ridiculous. Our roads and cars are getting safer every day, yet we keep decades old speed limits. Not only do we keep them but keep lowering them and increasing fines for "speeding". Where is it going to end?Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
BTW, Canada lowered the speed limits across the board by 10km/h when it switched to metric system. I rode 15,000km through US last summer and can tell you that their speed limits are much more realistic, especially in western states. I've seen 70mph on many two lane twisty roads and there were many places where I said to myself "this is the speed limit I can comfortably live with". I even felt uncomfortable going noticeably faster, regardless of the fact that I was in the middle of nowhere and chances of being caught speeding were negligible.
I think you're missing the point (or have been successfully brainwashed by the "speed kills" lobby).Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
No one is suggesting that without speed limits drivers would stay under 120 kph. They are saying that drivers will drive safely (or not) irrespective of the laws. Driving on a 400 series highway safely does not equal driving <120 kph. I can safely ride my bike on the 400 at well beyond 120kph.
The reality is that most drivers/riders will operate relatively safely, even without any legislation. The speed limit (which is about the only driving law actually enforced) is irrelevent to road safety.
No i think you are missing my point. I was responding to the assertion that speed limits and enforcement do not change behaviour. I am saying that they do, without a doubt.
But whether they change behaviour, and whether that change in behaviour results in an ACTUAL improvement in road safety, are two separate things.
Total road fatalities are apparently down since HTA 172 came into effect but total motorcyclist fatalities are not. Read into that what you may. According to the Hurt report, the median speed involved in a fatal motorcycle collision was 27 mph and the one-in-a-thousand speed was 86 mph ... even if you were to eliminate all possibility of exceeding 86 mph then the overall effect would be insignificant. Translation HTA 172 doesn't matter, fixing city-traffic conditions to reduce intersection risks might, if you can figure out a way to do it. HTA 172 coincided with a major spike in gasoline prices followed by a major economic collapse and now that the economy is recovering, gasoline prices are up again; overall traffic fatalities have been down across North America (give or take) regardless of HTA 172 and regardless of a number of US states that have INCREASED highway speed limits in that timeframe.
On German autobahns, sure there is the occasional high-end car doing 160+ km/h, but for every one of those, there are at least 10 Opel Corsa 1.2's and VW Golf non-turbo-diesels and Ford Mondeos towing trailers bigger than the size of the car and they're all doing 110 - 130 km/h scarcely different from normal REAL highway speeds here ... People drive the speed that they are comfortable at ...
G...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian P
I wasn't suggesting a causual relationship to road safety. I get what you are saying.
We have a lot of immigrants who are capable of driving safely under conditions no North American will ever experience. Most of them spell better too :>Quote:
Originally Posted by 250R-ICE
No, you can't. Because you have no idea what driving in environments where there are no traffic laws (or existing ones are not enforced) looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by 250R-ICE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad
I have... I have also seen the changes once traffic laws become enforced. Not everyone on this board stays in Canada 100 % of the time.
I have a pretty good idea of what an environment looks like where seemingly the ONLY thing that's enforced is the speed. It's right here in North America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad
Sloppy lane changes ... un-signalled turns ... not stopping at a stop sign ...lights-out at night ... failing to properly yield the right of way ... following too closely, and the related camping out in the left lane while barely moving ... I've seen all of the above happen right in front of a cop and I've seen cops doing many of the above themselves.
I wasn't quoting you or asking you a question. You are arguing with a point I didn't make without providing any argument yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenGambit
Damn there is some mad useful info in this thread!!
I had to subscribe to it just so it's easier to find in case I ever need it in the future. (Hopefully I won't)
Bingo. It's most often enforced where speeding has little chance of causing any harm whatsoever because it's convenient for the cops and people speed more there. Example - Allen Road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian P
Enforcing speed limits requires considerable resources that are better deployed to fighting much more serious threats to public safety. Three cruisers and six cops on an average speed trap or RIDE check are six cops and three cruisers less chasing real criminals. And they are all paid by my tax money to engage in additional random taxation and turn average law abiding Joe into a criminal.
Those that never drive faster than the speed limit and think current enforcement and fines are OK may carry on defending the law. The rest...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad
I could have said that to the first post you made. its a forum, not a private conversation.
your comment about RIDE checks turning average law abiding joe into a criminal is also asinine.
As my post above indicates, I don't think much of speed limits, and certainly don't obey them as a moral imperative, however drunk driving is completely different and your defence of it by disparaging RIDE checks says a lot about how seriously you should be taken.
The answer for this is simple - its about ease of conviction. The amount of garbage that I used to hear in traffic courts about non-speeding tickets was out of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian P
However, its extremely difficult nowadays to argue with lasers, radars and cameras (comparatively).
We have a culture of people fighting every ticket tooth and nail to thank for that, not saying its right but its the reason.