Cops at where 427 ends

[El Zilcho]

To me it's pretty simple. The speed limit shown on the sign is the speed limit in effect at that point. Not speed limit plus x kmph. Not starting at that point plus y km. What is says on the sign as of that point on the highway, If you miss it or as is often the case just simply choose to disregard it, you're fair game for enforcement. We're all supposedly adults. Everyone knows the rules. Maybe some should just quit moaning about the rules of driving.

The rules of the road were meant to make sure that people can use the highways in a safe manner. Over time the intent of the law has been forgotten and become replaced with the letter of the law that dictates what a given picture on the shoulder means. The cops have gone from ensuring safety and order to fulfilling ticket quotas at spots that are not known to be safety hazards.

Being an adult doesn't mean blind obedience. Quite the contrary.

[turbodish]

I think that it was fairly obvious to all and sundry that ddusseld was suggesting it would make far more sense to enforce where there was an obvious danger to public safety, rather than simply a target rich environment.

That "target-rich" environment of vehicles doing 110+ kmph would be less than 1 km from a T-intersection with a traffic light. At that point traffic is likely to be backed up and stopped on a red light, or at best case slowed right down to negotiate the required turns at the T-intersection. To have speeding cars continue to travel at 110+ kmph into that intersection congestion and slow-down area suggests a strong potential danger to public safety.

[50 over]

Whats up Turbo? don't u like my math? Its not like you to avoid conversation!!!! What you say to 21.5 daily-average drivers getting nailed with this stupid law!!! in stupid scenarios just like the 427 spot, Guess there are NO average drivers on the 427!!!
U make me wanna puke.

[Rob MacLennan]

That "target-rich" environment of vehicles doing 110+ kmph would less than 1 km from a T-intersection with a traffic light. At that point traffic is likely to be backed up and stopped on a red light, or at best case slowed right down to negotiate the required turns at the T-intersection. To have speeding cars continue to travel at 110+ kmph into that intersection congestion and slow-down area suggests a strong potential danger to public safety.

And yet there didn't seem to be a whole lot of collisions there, despite the high volume of traffic.

[turbodish]

And yet there didn't seem to be a whole lot of collisions there, despite the high volume of traffic.

Ever think that regular police enforcement might have something to do with that?

[turbodish]

Whats up Turbo? don't u like my math? Its not like you to avoid conversation!!!! What you say to 21.5 daily-average drivers getting nailed with this stupid law!!! in stupid scenarios just like the 427 spot, Guess there are NO average drivers on the 427!!!

So you come up with a two-year average of 21.5 per day? Did you figure in the number of repeat offenders in that? There are a few you know.

Did you know that the average number of people getting nailed with HTA172 in the first 6 months to a year of enforcement was closer to 40 drivers per day? Can you do some more math now and work out was that implies for today's average? And whatever number you come up with, it still pales in comparison to the 9 to 9-1/2 million Ontario-licensed drivers in the province plus the drivers passing through from other locations.

U make me wanna puke.

Poor boy. Don't like the taste of your medicine?

[yeltoM]

...............U make me wanna puke.

Hey, play nice.

[turbodish]

Being an adult doesn't mean blind obedience. Quite the contrary.

Being an adult also doesn't mean mindless rebellion to the detriment of other road users around you.

[El Zilcho]

Being an adult also doesn't mean mindless rebellion to the detriment of other road users around you.

How is this a mindless rebellion? And what detriment are you talking about exactly?

[Rob MacLennan]

Ever think that regular police enforcement might have something to do with that?

Not particularly, or there wouldn't be anyone to catch there.

[50 over]

Hey, play nice.

That was being nice!!!

[50 over]

So you come up with a two-year average of 21.5 per day? Did you figure in the numer of repeat offenders in that? There are a few you know.

I figured that was the .5, unless there are a lot of verticlally challenged non average drivers out there?

Did you know that t average number of people getting nailed with HTA172 in the first 6 months to a year of enforcement was closer to 40 drivers per day? Can you do some more math now and work out was that implies for today's average? Oh crap here goes nothing...erm 40 drivers a day for approx 180 days, thats erm carry the one divived by the erm, I did say I was crap at math didnt I. And whatever number you come up with, it still pales in comparison to the 9 to 9-1/2 million Ontario-licensed drivers in the province plus the drivers passing through from other locations. A law of averages does not make a stupid law, defencable.




Poor boy. Don't like the taste of your medicine?

***insult removed (RM)***

[MarcosSantiago]

...
...

I do have a question. Where do you find the time to dig up google map images of all of these areas? You get an A+ for effort....

Good question.
I don't have time to even click on every link that Turbo posts!!

Turbo, are you retired? or unemployed? Or is this your job?

[50 over]

***insult removed (RM)***

What, Thats no Fair, I didnt read the rules or see the sign!!!!

[roadtoruin]

Good question.
I don't have time to even click on every link that Turbo posts!!

Turbo, are you retired? or unemployed? Or is this your job?

Anyone who has read a dozen of his posts clearly knows this is his full time job. tax payer funded too, huh?

[caboose483]

I think that it was fairly obvious to all and sundry that ddusseld was suggesting it would make far more sense to enforce where there was an obvious danger to public safety, rather than simply a target rich environment.

[In my best Frank Trombino impersonation]

Really?!?! Come on!! No!!!

[Rob MacLennan]

Sounds more like a Brett McCormick impression from Mosport, last year.

[caboose483]

Sounds more like a Brett McCormick impression from Mosport, last year.

LOL. Both are equally funny.

[mxs]

LOL ... why did I think that this thread will be different than others???? .... turbodish against the world at GTAM. Signs are good, everybody else is wrong ....

[KrazyBones]

That "target-rich" environment of vehicles doing 110+ kmph would be less than 1 km from a T-intersection with a traffic light. At that point traffic is likely to be backed up and stopped on a red light, or at best case slowed right down to negotiate the required turns at the T-intersection. To have speeding cars continue to travel at 110+ kmph into that intersection congestion and slow-down area suggests a strong potential danger to public safety.

the stretch of road from where the 60 starts to where you need to start breaking is so long that it would be possible to stop from 300km/h 3 times over