What can you do about bad drivers?

nobbie48 said:

How do we teach people to think (Or care) about the consequences of their actions?

Click to expand...

We can't. Unfortunately the last couple of generations are a dead loss, where that's concerned. Rather than instilling civic virtue into children as was done in times past, back when I was in school, children started all being told that they were special snowflakes who could do no wrong. The "Free to be You and Me" generation. When you no longer have parents and teachers to teach children right from wrong, you end up with a bunch of narcissistic "me first" adults. It's not rocket science.

Best effort? Enforce all traffic laws equally rather than concentrating on just one or two, as is currently done.

Rob MacLennan said:

We can't. Unfortunately the last couple of generations are a dead loss, where that's concerned. Rather than instilling civic virtue into children, as was done in times past, back when I was in school children started all being told that they were special snowflakes who could do no wrong. The "Free to be You and Me" generation. When you no longer have parents and teachers to teach children right from wrong, you end up with a bunch of narcissistic "me first" adults. It's not rocket science.

Best effort? Enforce all traffic laws equally rather than concentrating on just one or two, as is currently done.

Click to expand...

Somehow it starts with the Teachers and Parents. Parents say it`s not my job. Teachers say the same. Are they not the start of the ,"Me Me" generation?
Children then follow from Peer pressure.

Your suggestion of enforcing the law. Nice, could never see that happening. We have all seen idiot drivers, idiot bikers. Nobody there to do anything about it. Bet your life if you or I do anything, wheelies, speeding, etc. We will get caught. Murphy`s Law.

Times have changed. Some for the better. Some I am yet to understand. I.e. 4 people at a table and they are texting each other.

cycling said:

Your suggestion of enforcing the law. Nice, could never see that happening. We have all seen idiot drivers, idiot bikers. Nobody there to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

Police are there, but some behaviour is routinely ignored. Failing to indicate is a good example. I would say that in Toronto a full third of drivers either indicate as they turn or fail to indicate at all. This is tolerated by police. It is also a lazy and dangerous practise, not to mention inconvenient for other road users and pedestrians, who have been waiting patiently in anticipation of a car crossing their path.

I agree with posters above who say that traffic laws need to be enforced, and I will add that the penalties should be stiffened. There were 130,000 collisions in Canada resulting in injury or death in 2011, and 167,000 victims. These accidents are caused by the sorts of inattentive behaviour we see every day. If you fail to indicate a pedestrian may get hit. If you fail to stop at the correct point a left-turner may clip your car. If you tailgate you are just begging for a hefty neck-injury lawsuit. Aside from the badly-worded and ill-conceived HTA172 it is actually very difficult to lose your license. That should not be the case. I have no sympathy: if you need to drive to do your job then drive properly. What about a mandatory drive test-lite every five years? That would keep people on their toes. Think of the savings in law enforcement, health care, and insurance premiums.

This doesn't mean that officers should not have discretion: a warning can be incredibly effective in changing behaviours whereas as a ticket just hardens attitudes.

I maintain that if the other HTA sections other than speeding were enforced there would be no need to increase penalties. The people who need to get nailed for what they do would be nailed, repeatedly, for what they do.

I normally give people a pass on the first dumb move they do, everybody makes an occasional mistake. If I see you do something else stupid, it's *opp time. (the last few times were cars passing in left/right hand turn lanes and/or passing without space and driving all other traffic off the road). I never call for speeding, just general dbag attitude or careless/dangerous driving.

I've never bothered filling out a roadwatch form, apparently, that can get the owner of the car a letter letting them know they drive like a dbag, but not actual charges. *opp lets the cops in the area know to look out for the vehicle in question. Obviously they can't get tickets for what I saw, but if the driving is bad enough for me to bother calling, it won't take a cop long to have a list of tickets to hand out.

I got charged based on the word of a friends neighbor (friend was riding the bike). Only reason I got off was because the accuser didn't show up in court.

Rob MacLennan said:

I maintain that if the other HTA sections other than speeding were enforced there would be no need to increase penalties. The people who need to get nailed for what they do would be nailed, repeatedly, for what they do.

Click to expand...

They're too busy holding a radar gun in one hand and their c0ck in the other.

[video=youtube;AltIaxb9Dpg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltIaxb9Dpg[/video]

^ From RFD, one guy runs a red, another nearly runs it and a third not watching anything in front of them. Typical Ontario drivers.

I'd say less enforcement on booking people going 20over on downhills/bridges/highways and more enforcement in all areas of the HTA, at least until they beef up the licencing system.

GreyGhost said:

I normally give people a pass on the first dumb move they do, everybody makes an occasional mistake. If I see you do something else stupid, it's *opp time. (the last few times were cars passing in left/right hand turn lanes and/or passing without space and driving all other traffic off the road). I never call for speeding, just general dbag attitude or careless/dangerous driving.

I've never bothered filling out a roadwatch form, apparently, that can get the owner of the car a letter letting them know they drive like a dbag, but not actual charges. *opp lets the cops in the area know to look out for the vehicle in question. Obviously they can't get tickets for what I saw, but if the driving is bad enough for me to bother calling, it won't take a cop long to have a list of tickets to hand out.

Click to expand...

Imagine what happens if an officer pulls someone over, thinks about giving him a talking to and a walk on the current charge, then sees that a Road Watch report was made on him.

Furpo said:

This doesn't mean that officers should not have discretion: a warning can be incredibly effective in changing behaviours whereas as a ticket just hardens attitudes.

Click to expand...

I disagree, warnings are effective in very specific cases where for example: it's an out of town driver or a new sign that's erected. The officer has to be convinced it's a "one-off" or "circumstantial mistake" and that the warning will result in future compliance.

But for locals who frequent that highway/road, a warning isn't going to get compliance whereas an HTA ticket with insurance implications will. It's one of the reasons when an officer asks you if you're going to work/home, they're less likely to give you a warning. Because you've probably been doing that infraction everyday anyways.

Warnings can be effective but Rob is right, strict is fair. The HTA is a thick book and ought to be enforced, all of it. My only complaint is that because of bad decisions in courts and case law, the chances of convicting someone for not signalling is pretty low. There has to be another vehicle affected by that movement, which is most easily proven in a collision. Otherwise it seems there is no will power on the part of our prosecutors to go all the way to trial with those types of charges. Speeding charges on the other hand, are easy to prove, and result in instant 'open and shut' matters. Sometimes I get frustrated by this, as I watch some of my most interesting charges get looked over because it's too hard to prosecute.

Case in point: a guy came through a truck blitz with an improperly documented load of dangerous goods. He was charged accordingly under the DGTA. The charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor because it was "only one barrel out of 20 that was mislabeled". I can lay all the charges I want but if no one will stand behind them in the court, what's the point?

Based on the prosecutors I have seen in traffic court, I'm not sure if they don't want to prosecute charges or if they are incapable. You would think that when you do the same thing every day you would be a rockstar, but they seem perpetually confused. I have never seen a prosecutor in traffic court look comfortable or use any insight, they just seem to be reciting a memorized list of questions.

Is this a first job for lawyers, or is traffic court just a place for incompetent lawyers to work? It would be hard to keep good/smart lawyers from quitting as much of the day is incredibly boring and repetitive.

Bike cop, obviously you have been in court a lot more than me, are my observations representative or have i just encountered the bottom 5%?

Bike Cop said:

I can lay all the charges I want but if no one will stand behind them in the court, what's the point?

Click to expand...

My brother was a traffic cop many decades ago and I asked him about the Quota discussion. This was in the 1970's so not a new subject.

He replied that there was no quota but if you didn't hand in enough tickets you would be seen as unobservant. Unobservant cops don't get promotions.

If a cop doesn't want to stay at he bottom of the ladder for the rest of his/her career he/she does what the upper echelon dictates. They dictate fund raising at minimal cost: Radar and breathalyzer tests.

We have lost sight of what our taxes and social services are really meant to provide and instead perverted them into ATM's for the politicians.

I don't think many people join the police force hoping to run a radar gun.

veno78 said:

They're too busy holding a radar gun in one hand and their c0ck in the other.

[video=youtube;AltIaxb9Dpg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AltIaxb9Dpg[/video]

^ From RFD, one guy runs a red, another nearly runs it and a third not watching anything in front of them. Typical Ontario drivers.

I'd say less enforcement on booking people going 20over on downhills/bridges/highways and more enforcement in all areas of the HTA, at least until they beef up the licencing system.

Click to expand...

HAHA! That made me laugh. I wonder how they explained that one to any attending cops.

Agreed with the enforcement. I see LEOs driving all the time in the GTA not using their signals when changing lanes, and dare I say it,... U Turning. Basic driving infringements are being ignored by everyone.

Bike Cop said:

Warnings can be effective but Rob is right, strict is fair. The HTA is a thick book and ought to be enforced, all of it. My only complaint is that because of bad decisions in courts and case law, the chances of convicting someone for not signalling is pretty low. There has to be another vehicle affected by that movement, which is most easily proven in a collision. Otherwise it seems there is no will power on the part of our prosecutors to go all the way to trial with those types of charges. Speeding charges on the other hand, are easy to prove, and result in instant 'open and shut' matters. Sometimes I get frustrated by this, as I watch some of my most interesting charges get looked over because it's too hard to prosecute.

Case in point: a guy came through a truck blitz with an improperly documented load of dangerous goods. He was charged accordingly under the DGTA. The charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor because it was "only one barrel out of 20 that was mislabeled". I can lay all the charges I want but if no one will stand behind them in the court, what's the point?

Click to expand...

part of the problem is the way the "system" works here. In other places where you'd be fined for speeding, not signalling you pay your fine ($35 or whatever) and you're on your way. Insurance is not affectect by tickets unless its a criminal charge like speeding 50km over the limit or driving causing death. In this case you dont have the court system choked up with backlog. I've had ticket for speeding etc from when I was younger in NZ, and no problem in paying them. I got my first ticket in Canada, for going 11km over the limit (61km in a 50km) after 11 years of being here. Clean record. I thought I would get a warning from the cop. Nope. Ticket given. He was trapping that day. $30 fine. In NZ I would have happily paid this ticket, but I used the
System" to ask for my day in court and 19mths later the officer never showed up.

The impression that hits home about enforcement in Nth America, is that its all about the revenue. If it was a safety concern we would have these clowns enforcing the HTA at all times, and not just on "Blitz" days.

BTW - From what I heard, things have changed in NZ, and the cops there now hide in the bushes to give tickets etc. and radar detectors have been banned.

Bike Cop said:

Warnings can be effective but Rob is right, strict is fair. The HTA is a thick book and ought to be enforced, all of it. My only complaint is that because of bad decisions in courts and case law, the chances of convicting someone for not signalling is pretty low. There has to be another vehicle affected by that movement, which is most easily proven in a collision. Otherwise it seems there is no will power on the part of our prosecutors to go all the way to trial with those types of charges. Speeding charges on the other hand, are easy to prove, and result in instant 'open and shut' matters. Sometimes I get frustrated by this, as I watch some of my most interesting charges get looked over because it's too hard to prosecute.

Case in point: a guy came through a truck blitz with an improperly documented load of dangerous goods. He was charged accordingly under the DGTA. The charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor because it was "only one barrel out of 20 that was mislabeled". I can lay all the charges I want but if no one will stand behind them in the court, what's the point?

Click to expand...

The few times that I've been in traffic court the full extent of most defence strategies was, "I didn't do it." Based on this experience and simple documentary evidence, provided by the officer, I would say the vast majority of cases would result in conviction, in mere minutes.

Without enforcement and penalization, there is no impetus to correct behaviour.

GreyGhost said:

Based on the prosecutors I have seen in traffic court, I'm not sure if they don't want to prosecute charges or if they are incapable. You would think that when you do the same thing every day you would be a rockstar, but they seem perpetually confused. I have never seen a prosecutor in traffic court look comfortable or use any insight, they just seem to be reciting a memorized list of questions.

Is this a first job for lawyers, or is traffic court just a place for incompetent lawyers to work? It would be hard to keep good/smart lawyers from quitting as much of the day is incredibly boring and repetitive.

Bike cop, obviously you have been in court a lot more than me, are my observations representative or have i just encountered the bottom 5%?

Click to expand...

I don't know the minimum qualifications required for Part I prosecutors, but I doubt they need to be lawyers. I don't think they're incompetent, just unimaginative. If the evidence of the officer doesn't fit into the exact mold that the previous officers' did, they seem uninterested or skeptical of the charge altogether. They memorize the list of questions to be sure they cover all the essential elements necessary to prove a particular charge. Repetitive? yes. Boring? yes. Unless you like traffic court... even still... sometimes you just want to dig your eyes out.

Bike Cop said:

Warnings can be effective but Rob is right, strict is fair. The HTA is a thick book and ought to be enforced, all of it. My only complaint is that because of bad decisions in courts and case law, the chances of convicting someone for not signalling is pretty low. There has to be another vehicle affected by that movement, which is most easily proven in a collision. Otherwise it seems there is no will power on the part of our prosecutors to go all the way to trial with those types of charges. Speeding charges on the other hand, are easy to prove, and result in instant 'open and shut' matters. Sometimes I get frustrated by this, as I watch some of my most interesting charges get looked over because it's too hard to prosecute.

Case in point: a guy came through a truck blitz with an improperly documented load of dangerous goods. He was charged accordingly under the DGTA. The charge was withdrawn by the prosecutor because it was "only one barrel out of 20 that was mislabeled". I can lay all the charges I want but if no one will stand behind them in the court, what's the point?

Click to expand...

The poorly-written nature of the HTA combined with arbitrary and often out-of-whack speed limits and other rules does not help matters.

Simply removing the "... if it affects another vehicle ..." from the turn-signal section would make it more enforceable ... if you are going to change lanes or turn, you have to do it ALL the time. Period. (That's the way it is in other parts of the world)

There has been plenty of discussion about absurd speed limits ... the public doesn't respect them and the police (for the most part) don't bother with less than 20-over. So make the speed limits right! Require that engineering study to make them enforceable. If that study says a higher limit is good to go, so be it.

That's far from the only dumb requirement which leads to the rules not being respected. How about stop lines that are too far back from the intersection to allow a driver stopping at that line to properly see down the road? Means you have to stop past the stop line to do it safely. Yes, legally, that means stopping twice ... and that's where it becomes an absurd requirement.

Overtaking zones that are arbitrarily marked as no-passing zones even though there is clear visibility. Yes, the lines don't mean much in the HTA. But there has to be give and take for people to accept them. If you are going to require overtaking only in marked overtaking zones then any set of roadway that meets the visibility criteria must be marked as allowing overtaking. Otherwise ... people won't respect them.

Everyone on this site is a bad driver, so the first thing is to continuously, upgrade you road skills.

You could be the Mistress/Master of Awesomeness on the track, and still not know how to read traffic, drive at an appropriate speed, stay in a lane, make left turns, or stop for red lights/stop signs.

Second, is if you're getting tickets, figure out why, and do something about it, other than fighting, and telling others to fight tickets, so that you can 11b.

The system is trying to reform bad drivers. Most people are too proud to take a lesson after they've "learned" to drive. Instead, they feel persecuted, when caught out.

Send in your cheque, fix the problem, and let those who aren't willing to improve get an early trial date.

Third, we need to brainstorm a way to keep those who have lost the privilege of driving, off of the road.

Speed limits may appear to be arbitrarily low. Certainly they could in certain situations (locations) be slightly greater. The problem with increasing a speed limit is that as you noted majority of people drive above the current speed limits. As a driver you need to always drive at speed which will allow you to stop if a stop is so required. The majority of drivers that speed do not follow that philosophy; they never slow regardless of the situation. They are constantly driving/riding above the posted speed limit, why? They believe that they are good drivers. You can’t hope for the best! You have to prepare for the worst and hope for the best! If you can’t see ahead because of bushes, a building or a curve, then slow to a speed that will allow you to stop. That may mean that you slow to the speed maximum if you were speeding or even possibly below the speed maximum. The majority of driver/riders do not do this; if something goes wrong they don’t have the opportunity to avoid the collision.

According to the statistics presented by the government of Ontario (ORSAR 2011), the leading cause of collisions is drivers performing properly. That is preposterous!!! Someone had to make a mistake in order for the incident to occur. If people currently refuse to own their mistakes, how is increasing the current speed limits going to improve the situation? If you and others help me in my campaign to make sure that only skilled, attentive and courteous drivers are allowed to drive on our roads, then I will support your idea to increase speed limits (on certain roads).

You then move to the lowly stop line. It doesn’t get the respect that it justly deserves. The stop line is not set-up to be too far back as you propose. It is placed where it is to keep you and your vehicle away from the crosswalk; the crosswalk is for pedestrians not vehicles. You then mention the two-step process; you know about it, how about doing it. Performing the two-step stop requires seconds longer than the simpler one-step, but I prevents so many problems.

On the approach to an intersection your view of the intersection may be blocked by bushes, poles, electrical boxes, buildings or your own vehicle (A-pillars in a caged vehicle). Resulting from this visual obstruction, you can miss a pedestrian close to the intersection or worse in the intersection. Even if you don’t see a pedestrian, they along with vehicle traffic may be out of your field of view on the approach (aforementioned visual obstructions). If you stop in the proper place, look for pedestrians; if there truly aren't any nearby you can then proceed to the next level. If you can see the intersection, your manoeuvre is legal and there isn't any traffic nearby then you can proceed. If you cannot see far then you can legally move up and block the crosswalk allowing you to see further, therefore having all of the information to make the correct choice.

When you stop past the stop line you not only create problems for pedestrians, but also other drivers. Stopping past the stop line, doesn't allow others to have full viewing access of the intersection even though they may have the right of way over you. They will then have to adjust for your mistake. Further, a skilled driver will not only have to adjust to the visual blockage that you create but they will also have to focus on you because you have now become a hazard; there is less space between you and them then there should be so if you move there isn't time to avoid incident if they don't do anything so they are forced to adjust.

People tend to drive like robots; badly programmed robots. You can drive above the posted speed limit or stop past the stop line if you have good vehicle control, good observation skills and above everything else, good decision skills. Unfortunately contrary to what majority of people believe they do not, nor cannot have above average abilities; that is a mathematical impossibility. Our roads are full of bad drivers; the solution is not to give in to mediocrity but to improve the quality of drivers that we allow the privilege to drive or ride.

The Road Watch Program which other people have mentioned is a start; we can also try to annoy the Politicians into doing the right thing. I have created this letter that you can cut and paste.


October 16, 2014

add Minister's name here
MPP

Honorable Minister add Minister's name here:

I am writing you as I wish to discuss driving in the Province of Ontario. There has been a degradation of driving skills and etiquette in Ontario over the past ten years.

Each year almost 500 persons are killed on Ontario's roads (ORSAR 2011), while tens of thousands are injured; these numbers are shocking. These incidents are avoidable; resulting in billions of dollars being spent on health care which our province can ill afford. In addition is the loss of productivity and more importantly is that some people's lives are changed forever negatively.
The solution to this problem is not simple or easy as it requires the co-operation of many institutions such as the Legislature, Ministry of Transportation, the Police Services, and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Minister someone has to take the lead to solve the problem.

The starting point to the solution is driver licencing; strict adherence to the Driver Examination Marking Guide to make certain that only skilled individuals receive a Driver’s Licence. Secondly, amending laws in the Highway Traffic Act so that they are less subjective to assist Driver Examination, Police Services and the Courts. Thirdly, having the Police Services patrolling our roads with unmarked vehicles so that they can see drivers in their natural environments so that the least skilled or most callous offenders are ticketed. Fourthly having our courts providing sentences to the convicted drivers that are in proportion to the pain and suffering that they inflict on the innocent.

Minister, since driving is a privilege why are unskilled, uncaring or aggressive individuals allowed to drive on our roads?

Sincerely,


add your name here