traffic snaking...

[mazdubb]

Not from any camp except perhaps one that has lived in several countries and has never seen a higher disregard for safety on the roads than here...

The problem we have in Ontario isn't enforcement, it's driver education.

[Rob MacLennan]

The problem we have in Ontario isn't enforcement, it's driver education.

Actually enforcement is a significant issue. Far too much improper driving behaviour is being ignored (following too closely, failure to signal, etc.) in favour of prosecuting for things that have a specific numerical value (speed). When you are going for your license, you learn everything that you need to pass the test. That includes all of the things that you are required to do. People pass that test, then immediately start to ash-can what they have learnt.

That means it isn't a driver education issue, it's a maintenance issue. Maintenance is obtained through enforcement.

[oleg1227]

I stand corrected...that's good then, removing 4 dangerous idiots in one hour. The law is obviously working, one less tailgating unfocussed soccer mom and one less dangerously speeding knob end at least.

No, I don't wear a blue uniform but I make sure I understand the laws applicable to me when I operate a vehicle in any country and understand that if I break those laws I might be liable to punishment. If I decide to break those laws (as I occasionally do, I'm not claiming to be a saint) I accept responsibility for my actions too.

Yes on one side the act removes retarded people off the road but on the other side its a loop-holed act that can be totally abused to meet the quota. Did you know that you can get charged with stunting if you stand on your pegs? I also heard (not totally sure) that its also considered stunting if you ride using only 1 hand. Do you really think the above reasons should give the cops the ability to impound your bike, take away your license and charge for towing fees and the ticket itself?

[Rob MacLennan]

There is nothing in O.Reg. 455/07 that specifically targets riding with only one hand. Believe me, the text as it stands is already rife with opportunities for abuse, without needing that.

[oleg1227]

There is nothing in O.Reg. 455/07 that specifically targets riding with only one hand. Believe me, the text as it stands is already rife with opportunities for abuse, without needing that.

I stand corrected then. Thats why I wasnt sure. I think the standing on pegs is true though.

[Rob MacLennan]

I stand corrected then. Thats why I wasnt sure. I think the standing on pegs is true though.

"Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat." They state that it was intended to stop 'ghost riding' in cars, but there are several things that motorcyclists do that fit the text.

[Squadz]

Do you tell kids this? Don't worry son, do what you want,they have to prove you were bad before you're actually bad?" I'd rather actually tell them that if they can't do the time then they shouldn't do the crime.

I know exactly what the law is based upon here, I was actually trying to appeal to a personal morality rather than a definition of a particular judicial system. There's a terrible culture right now of just not accepting that the results of your actions might not be entirely good.

The more that plainly guilty people whine and whinge and use loopholes to get out of being fairly punished the more of these "unconstitutional" laws you're going to see. It's a societal reaction to a societal problem. Society at large doesn't really see this bill as a problem, go ask a non-rider or your average commuter. This is why it was a popular cross party bill that was essentially unopposed. It is a shame though that a minority of innocent people will inevitably get caught up in this (just as they do for any other offence to a certain extent).

Was is only me that was brought up to accept responsibility for ones own actions? I don't think so.

Society at large do not see this bill as a problem because a) no one they know have been charged with it when they have done nothing wrong and b) because they simply do not care anymore and take whatever law the government throws at them without a look at it. Society as a whole does not seem to see and understand a cash-grab when they see one.

Seriously, in my opinion, speed limits as they are set right now are way to low and do not reflect the flow of traffic OR a safe way to drive. The worst and most horrific time I've ever spent in a car was with a donut in place of my tire and I was forced to do speed limit.. I had people on bicycles going faster than me.

I've driven on open, country roads with posted speed limits of 40 km/h.. 40! and guess where the cop is? Sitting right there with a wide grin on his face. Want to skew statistics? Raise every speed limit up 20 km, than watch while speeding statistics lower because the speed limit actually reflects a safe way to drive, as well as flow of traffic. The government would never do that though, money money money!

[Rob MacLennan]

Oddly enough those rural 40 and 50 zones, coming down from 70 and 80 limits, always seem to be 3/4 the way down a steep hill too.

[jc100]

Society at large do not see this bill as a problem because a) no one they know have been charged with it when they have done nothing wrong and b) because they simply do not care anymore and take whatever law the government throws at them without a look at it. Society as a whole does not seem to see and understand a cash-grab when they see one.

Seriously, in my opinion, speed limits as they are set right now are way to low and do not reflect the flow of traffic OR a safe way to drive. The worst and most horrific time I've ever spent in a car was with a donut in place of my tire and I was forced to do speed limit.. I had people on bicycles going faster than me.

I've driven on open, country roads with posted speed limits of 40 km/h.. 40! and guess where the cop is? Sitting right there with a wide grin on his face. Want to skew statistics? Raise every speed limit up 20 km, than watch while speeding statistics lower because the speed limit actually reflects a safe way to drive, as well as flow of traffic. The government would never do that though, money money money!

We could have a friendly wager....if you raise speed limits by 20kmh, how many people do you think will do 20kmh over the new limit? If they do raise speed limits I bet you that speed fines will increase and you might even see photo radar come back.

I agree with you that speed limits are too low for a country this size on highways that are straight with only sweeping bends. But I don't make the rules...I have to follow them though, or take the consequences.

[T.O. Rider]

The government is getting way too deep into our personal lives. They are taking away our personal freedoms.
Big Brother..... sound familiar?

Soon some of my sexual positions are going to be considered stunting!

I agree stunting, speeding, dangerous driving needs to be addressed. I just think the roadside consequence gives the police too much power.


Tailgating, if I am 16 feet away is that okay... 20 feet, 15ft Too much judgement involved, but in the mean time you get no arguement, no trial (not right away) Your car/bike gets taken away for a week and then you get a trial to plead your case. Even if found not guilty you are out a few hundred dollars for tow, storage.

[Squadz]

We could have a friendly wager....if you raise speed limits by 20kmh, how many people do you think will do 20kmh over the new limit? If they do raise speed limits I bet you that speed fines will increase and you might even see photo radar come back.

I agree with you that speed limits are too low for a country this size on highways that are straight with only sweeping bends. But I don't make the rules...I have to follow them though, or take the consequences.

People drive at the speed they feel the most comfortable at in the area they are in. You could put a speed limit of 100 km/h in a school zone/subdivision, but no one except those that are constantly speeding will actually do that speed.

In 60 zones where people drive constantly at 80, they wont go 100 just because they can, people drive at a speed that they want to, regardless of what the speed limit is. If they were to raise speed limits than raise fines, that would be acceptable.

[mazdubb]

Actually enforcement is a significant issue. Far too much improper driving behaviour is being ignored (following too closely, failure to signal, etc.) in favour of prosecuting for things that have a specific numerical value (speed). When you are going for your license, you learn everything that you need to pass the test. That includes all of the things that you are required to do. People pass that test, then immediately start to ash-can what they have learnt.

That means it isn't a driver education issue, it's a maintenance issue. Maintenance is obtained through enforcement.

You're absolutely right. If there was enforcement of the real problems on the road rather than traps for drivers that are speeding we would be much better off.

[DucDic]

i am pretty sure i would not remain calm if a police officer tagged me for stunting cause i stood up on my pegs to stretch my legs...asking for my keys won't have me handing them to him...

[johnp]

I've only seen minimal actual abuse of the law.....
The only abuse there was some cock abusing the speed limit.

ha ha you've got some nerve.

not on this forum you don't.

only cops don't hate cops and bill 203 is the devil.

that's the mantra!

[jc100]

ha ha you've got some nerve.

not on this forum you don't.

only cops don't hate cops and bill 203 is the devil.

that's the mantra!

I'm not a cop, I probably have more reason than any here to actually distrust the police though...I hate cocks that treat the roads like playgrounds without consideration for others. Don't you?

Because you have a vehicle that can go really fast does not entitle you to actually travel that fast. Unfortunately, that's the real reason I think most people here are hacked off and it's also the real reason why the general public doesn't have any sympathy.

[FiReSTaRT]

John, the way our laws are being enforced now goes against my personal morality and that's why I go to court to explore each and every charge I receive. Here are a few examples:
-As Rob already stated, they aren't going against real dangerous behaviour. In most cases they're going against what's easy to prove.
-If the speed limits were more realistic, there would be less revenue going into provincial/municipal coffers. Why do you think most speed traps are in the areas where the speed limits are especially unreasonable? Why do I routinely go 20-30 over the limit here, but I usually go at/below the speed limit and never more than 10 above in Western US, Europe and South America even though the ticket amounts are usually lower and won't affect my insurance rates?
-Why did the authors of Bill 203 decide that attacking the symptom is better than attacking the disease by not ticketing left lane bandits and ticketing people who try to go around them?
-As long as private enterprises offering a government-mandated service have access to my driving record, I'll gladly spend $500 to fight a $50 ticket. I don't mind taking the occasional punishment from the government if a private enterprise wasn't going to dish out another dose of the punishment.
-Then you have cops handing out tickets to injured people in the emergency room and interrogating them while they're in extreme pain and under the influence of opiate drugs. If a totalled bike and bone fractures won't make you alter your riding style, neither will a Careless charge.
-Whenever there is a budget crunch, the number of tickets goes up and bogus tickets become more likely. I've received 2 under such circumstances. 1 was pure fabrication by the constable and in the other case, obeying the letter of the law would have put me at risk, would have put other users of the road at risk and could have resulted in a Careless charge (You can't safely make a lane change and a right turn within 50m at 9:15am on Dundas, so I got an HOV ticket for merging into the lane 100m before my turn).
-Finally Bill 203 goes against what our society is all about by punishing before the guilt is proven. As such, I consider it an attack on our society, which I'm bound to defend.

If the speed limits were set to really safe levels and if HTA enforcement focus shifted from P.R./revenue generation to safety and getting the traffic moving and private enterprises were given the finger every time they tried to look up the information that the government has on me, I'd gladly face the legal consequences of my actions on the roads.

[Squadz]

John, the way our laws are being enforced now goes against my personal morality and that's why I go to court to explore each and every charge I receive. Here are a few examples:
-As Rob already stated, they aren't going against real dangerous behaviour. In most cases they're going against what's easy to prove.
-If the speed limits were more realistic, there would be less revenue going into provincial/municipal coffers. Why do you think most speed traps are in the areas where the speed limits are especially unreasonable? Why do I routinely go 20-30 over the limit here, but I usually go at/below the speed limit and never more than 10 above in Western US, Europe and South America even though the ticket amounts are usually lower and won't affect my insurance rates?
-Why did the authors of Bill 203 decide that attacking the symptom is better than attacking the disease by not ticketing left lane bandits and ticketing people who try to go around them?
-As long as private enterprises offering a government-mandated service have access to my driving record, I'll gladly spend $500 to fight a $50 ticket. I don't mind taking the occasional punishment from the government if a private enterprise wasn't going to dish out another dose of the punishment.
-Then you have cops handing out tickets to injured people in the emergency room and interrogating them while they're in extreme pain and under the influence of opiate drugs. If a totalled bike and bone fractures won't make you alter your riding style, neither will a Careless charge.
-Whenever there is a budget crunch, the number of tickets goes up and bogus tickets become more likely. I've received 2 under such circumstances. 1 was pure fabrication by the constable and in the other case, obeying the letter of the law would have put me at risk, would have put other users of the road at risk and could have resulted in a Careless charge (You can't safely make a lane change and a right turn within 50m at 9:15am on Dundas, so I got an HOV ticket for merging into the lane 100m before my turn).
-Finally Bill 203 goes against what our society is all about by punishing before the guilt is proven. As such, I consider it an attack on our society, which I'm bound to defend.

If the speed limits were set to really safe levels and if HTA enforcement focus shifted from P.R./revenue generation to safety and getting the traffic moving and private enterprises were given the finger every time they tried to look up the information that the government has on me, I'd gladly face the legal consequences of my actions on the roads.

One of the best posts I've seen in a while, amen to you + reps.

[jc100]

John, the way our laws are being enforced now goes against my personal morality and that's why I go to court to explore each and every charge I receive. Here are a few examples:
-As Rob already stated, they aren't going against real dangerous behaviour. In most cases they're going against what's easy to prove.
-If the speed limits were more realistic, there would be less revenue going into provincial/municipal coffers. Why do you think most speed traps are in the areas where the speed limits are especially unreasonable? Why do I routinely go 20-30 over the limit here, but I usually go at/below the speed limit and never more than 10 above in Western US, Europe and South America even though the ticket amounts are usually lower and won't affect my insurance rates?
-Why did the authors of Bill 203 decide that attacking the symptom is better than attacking the disease by not ticketing left lane bandits and ticketing people who try to go around them?
-As long as private enterprises offering a government-mandated service have access to my driving record, I'll gladly spend $500 to fight a $50 ticket. I don't mind taking the occasional punishment from the government if a private enterprise wasn't going to dish out another dose of the punishment.
-Then you have cops handing out tickets to injured people in the emergency room and interrogating them while they're in extreme pain and under the influence of opiate drugs. If a totalled bike and bone fractures won't make you alter your riding style, neither will a Careless charge.
-Whenever there is a budget crunch, the number of tickets goes up and bogus tickets become more likely. I've received 2 under such circumstances. 1 was pure fabrication by the constable and in the other case, obeying the letter of the law would have put me at risk, would have put other users of the road at risk and could have resulted in a Careless charge (You can't safely make a lane change and a right turn within 50m at 9:15am on Dundas, so I got an HOV ticket for merging into the lane 100m before my turn).
-Finally Bill 203 goes against what our society is all about by punishing before the guilt is proven. As such, I consider it an attack on our society, which I'm bound to defend.

If the speed limits were set to really safe levels and if HTA enforcement focus shifted from P.R./revenue generation to safety and getting the traffic moving and private enterprises were given the finger every time they tried to look up the information that the government has on me, I'd gladly face the legal consequences of my actions on the roads.

I agree, good post. But every country I've ever lived in has had unpopular speeding laws/fines/traps, nobody likes their personal behaviour modified by external sources. This is very far from unique and it's not an excuse to disobey those laws, or at least disobey without thinking about the possible consequences. I'm not aware of any western countries that also don't increase insurance rates for traffic offenses, again, not unique.

Generating revenue: I cross the border frequently and always declare my goods, lately I've been asked to stop in to the office and pay taxes and duty much more often than say a year ago. Coincidence? Probably not...revenue streams are coming from every source, not just traffic fines. With this in mind I'm very wary about watching my speedometer as it really wouldn't surprise me if there was a directive to bring more cash in. Cynical, maybe...but this is the real world and everyone's hurting.

Ambushing an injured rider to charge them is a question of tact and discretion, lacking in those cases and your personal cases are examples of the letter of the law being taken without considering circumstances, again a lack of discretion on the officer's part. Police are human not superhuman, I think generally they do a good job, I think mistakes happen but rarely, just as in any other profession for example a surgeon may kill a patient (happens but rarely) and again there's always the bad apple/powertripper. With Bill 203 though, the majority of cases involve unsafe behaviour occuring in front of a police officer. I'd say most of the cases are cut and dried and much easier to interpret than say your own personal case which does not involve excessive speeds or wheelying etc.

just out of interest, when you sign your insurance documents do you give consent for third parties to access information about you? I can't remember with my own insurance but I'm asking as the Ontario privacy rules are extremely tight.

[johnp]

John, the way our laws are being enforced now goes against my personal morality and that's why I go to court to explore each and every charge I receive. Here are a few examples:....If the speed limits were set to really safe levels and if HTA enforcement focus shifted from P.R./revenue generation to safety and getting the traffic moving and private enterprises were given the finger every time they tried to look up the information that the government has on me, I'd gladly face the legal consequences of my actions on the roads.

Nice post thanks.

My comment to jc100 was much narrower. Your post covers a lot of ground.

First of all there's difference between bad laws and the bad enforcement of good laws. And then there's whether cops are generally bad or generally good - with some bad apples.

To knock off the easy one: there are certainly some bad cops. I think NYPD has two detectives that are now on trial for murder; they were allegedly mob hitmen for years and pulled over cars and killed people while on duty. If you know of anybody who has tried to become a cop in recent years you will know how very carefully they screen. During basic training they are just looking for any excuse to fire the candidates out. Cops know more than anybody that the profession attracts a certain 'type' and they try to catch them early. Internal Affairs (or SIU) is a pretty powerful unit & they are full time looking for the bad apples - which they know are out there. So I think there are bad apples in a good basket. This means if you run into a bad apple you report it. The cops do care about finding them.

About taping cops. The cops themselves want video & audio proof. Why do you think cops are getting in car cameras? It's to protect themselves against bogus claims of harassment and abuse by the people they stop.

About traffic laws & whether they are to collect money or to make the roads safe. If they were all about collecting money they wouldn't be as severe as they are. If you set the punishment too high then nobody will cross the line. So punishments like vehicle impoundment and multi thousand dollar fines are NOT to collect money - they are definitely to modify behaviour. If you had the punishment much lower, say $100/stunting offence, then I'd say it was more about collecting money. Parking tags I'd guess at [30:70] [make money:stop bad parking].

...ooops back to work. more later.

[AdRath]

About taping cops. The cops themselves want video & audio proof. Why do you think cops are getting in car cameras? It's to protect themselves against bogus claims of harassment and abuse by the people they stop.

.

Are you sure they really want this? I seem to remeber the Police Union (I know its not called a union I just can't remember the term) fighting the placement of cameras in every cruiser.