Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly..... | Page 210 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Law Enforcement - The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.....

Who was in the wrong?

  • Cop

    Votes: 23 21.1%

  • Dude who got shot

    Votes: 31 28.4%

  • I like turtles

    Votes: 55 50.5%
  • Total voters
    109
meme said:
Man up - you played and now you pay. Doesn't make law enforcement the dick in this scenerio.
Click to expand...

man up ? lmao
I once got a ticket in brighton on the 401. 116 km/hr. radar trap. wouldn't reduce the ticket. so many cars were being pulled over and ticketed that I literally had to get in a line up to receive my ticket. This is BS. This has nothing to do with "manning up". This is about the wrong and right way we use our limited police resources.
 
Then do something about the limits OR don't waste resources by speeding when you know the limit.

I don't like the speed limits either, my original statement was that having zero respect for a person that is just doing their job is ridiculous stands. In my opinion.

You sped, you got caught.
 
meme said:
Then do something about the limits OR don't waste resources by speeding when you know the limit.

I don't like the speed limits either, my original statement was that having zero respect for a person that is just doing their job is ridiculous stands. In my opinion.

You sped, you got caught.
Click to expand...

wow. neither apollo or myself used the word dick. only you. I have no problems with the speed limits.
 
Last edited:
Never said you did.

Apollo made the cop out to be a dick for doing his job and doesn't respect him for it. I pointed out that disrespecting someone for doing their job is asinine
 
meme said:
Never said you did.

Apollo made the cop out to be a dick for doing his job and doesn't respect him for it. I pointed out that disrespecting someone for doing their job is asinine
Click to expand...

popcorn lol.
Again, there was no reference to the officer using the word dick. You say apollo disrespected the officer. How? by saying he has lost respect for a cop giving tickets out to those going with the flow of traffic? Now that's asinine.

and I should quit wasting resources by doing 116 on the 401? Asinine.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Respect.
 
FullMotoJacket said:
35849559540_48b444da63_b.jpg


Hamilton Wentworth has reduced all the speed limits on their concession roads to 60. That's the same speed limit as Plains Rd. W. through downtown Aldershot. Ridiculous, and nothing more than a cash generating move. Now before you say "it's for traffic calming to keep everyone only doing 80", if that were true, the limit on Plains Rd. would be 40 to keep people only doing 60, so your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

AFAIK the new speed limits are a gift from city counsellor Judy Partridge in response to a recent traffic death of a ten year old on Evans Rd.
Child was hit by a car.
All over town traffic calming barricades have gone up and the sign pollution has increased ten fold.
Signs all over warning about speeding...
Thing is... Although a tragedy, speeding was not a contributing factor in the accident.

Typical Hamilton political move.
 
Hack said:
AFAIK the new speed limits are a gift from city counsellor Judy Partridge in response to a recent traffic death of a ten year old on Evans Rd.
Child was hit by a car.
All over town traffic calming barricades have gone up and the sign pollution has increased ten fold.
Signs all over warning about speeding...
Thing is... Although a tragedy, speeding was not a contributing factor in the accident.

Typical Hamilton political move.
Click to expand...

You mean like how some Toronto counselors immediately jumped to dropping speed limits to 40 Kmh, to cut back on the pedestrian deaths? Hint: It's not just a Hamilton move.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
You mean like how some Toronto counselors immediately jumped to dropping speed limits to 40 Kmh, to cut back on the pedestrian deaths? Hint: It's not just a Hamilton move.
Click to expand...
He's kinda right though, because the improvement in outcomes for vulnerable road users hit by cars when the limit is changed from 80 to 60 is very small. But injury outcomes when speeds drop from 50 to 40 are pretty significantly improved. Also, given how little vulnerable road users there are on these country roads versus the city, the two just aren't comparable. This one seems to be a case of not being allowed, politically, to do nothing in response to a kid's death.

Oh yeah, and something something about cops, just to stay on topic.
 
fastar1 said:
He's kinda right though, because the improvement in outcomes for vulnerable road users hit by cars when the limit is changed from 80 to 60 is very small. But injury outcomes when speeds drop from 50 to 40 are pretty significantly improved. Also, given how little vulnerable road users there are on these country roads versus the city, the two just aren't comparable. This one seems to be a case of not being allowed, politically, to do nothing in response to a kid's death.

Oh yeah, and something something about cops, just to stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Heavy objects are more deadly when moving faster. Not exactly rocket science; just basic physics. I question why all of the onus seems to be placed on drivers, when Toronto pedestrians are notorious scofflaws?
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
You mean like how some Toronto counselors immediately jumped to dropping speed limits to 40 Kmh, to cut back on the pedestrian deaths? Hint: It's not just a Hamilton move.
Click to expand...

I have been in meetings with City of Toronto staff where they contemplated reducing speed limits in the City to reduce the noise level. Technically this might work, but people need to get places, it's not a practical approach. The war on cars is alive and well.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Heavy objects are more deadly when moving faster. Not exactly rocket science; just basic physics. I question why all of the onus seems to be placed on drivers, when Toronto pedestrians are notorious scofflaws?
Click to expand...
Alrighty then.

First of all, you keep using legality to argue safety, as if they're the same thing. They're not. If you want to say that pedestrians are generally unsafe then fine, no argument. But see my point #3.

Second, cycling and walking advocates complain that the onus seems to be all on them. Like yours, their perspective is skewed by bias. The public education campaigns are actually very much split amongst all road users. https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=747c4074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD (I particularly love the 'wear high-viz clothing' plea to pedestrians).

Third, it doesn't matter who's responsible. If I can do something to help reduce hazards others create for themselves, do you think I shouldn't do it? We need to look at aerospace safety as a model here. Even if most crashes are due to pilot error, that doesn't stop them from improving technical standards and training in all areas of the aerospace industry as a result of those crashes. Road safety isn't a competition about who's safest. The goal is to save lives, bottom line.

Fourth. If you still insist that only those responsible for creating hazards should do anything about it, the data shows a 50/50 split in responsibility for deadly collisions between drivers and pedestrians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKKVQ-uoDrI When injuries are included, pedestrians are to blame somewhere around 22% (19/86) of the time https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/887389222533050368

Fifth, how on earth is it defensible to argue that you should be able to get to work a few minutes faster at the expense of people's lives?!?

EDIT:
Sixth, your whole reply was just a deflection around my point that Hack was basically right about the inappropriateness of the lowered limits in rural areas.
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
Alrighty then.

First of all, you keep using legality to argue safety, as if they're the same thing. They're not. If you want to say that pedestrians are generally unsafe then fine, no argument. But see my point #3.

Second, cycling and walking advocates complain that the onus seems to be all on them. Like yours, their perspective is skewed by bias. The public education campaigns are actually very much split amongst all road users. https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=747c4074781e1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD (I particularly love the 'wear high-viz clothing' plea to pedestrians).

Third, it doesn't matter who's responsible. If I can do something to help reduce hazards others create for themselves, do you think I shouldn't do it? We need to look at aerospace safety as a model here. Even if most crashes are due to pilot error, that doesn't stop them from improving technical standards and training in all areas of the aerospace industry as a result of those crashes. Road safety isn't a competition about who's safest. The goal is to save lives, bottom line.

Fourth. If you still insist that only those responsible for creating hazards should do anything about it, the data shows a 50/50 split in responsibility for deadly collisions between drivers and pedestrians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKKVQ-uoDrI When injuries are included, pedestrians are to blame somewhere around 22% (19/86) of the time https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/887389222533050368

Fifth, how on earth is it defensible to argue that you should be able to get to work a few minutes faster at the expense of people's lives?!?

EDIT:
Sixth, your whole reply was just a deflection around my point that Hack was basically right about the inappropriateness of the lowered limits in rural areas.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that we've been through this before. My comment about legality is because in this case, as in other in which I have made similar comments, following the law increases safety of the vulnerable people in question. Failing to do so increases the likelihood that they will, in fact, be involved in a collision. Should we look at ways to improve pedestrian safety? Sure, but the first place to look is whether pedestrians are meeting their responsibilities. You could improve pedestrian safety by eliminating cars completely, but is it reasonable?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'm pretty sure that we've been through this before. My comment about legality is because in this case, as in other in which I have made similar comments, following the law increases safety of the vulnerable people in question. Failing to do so increases the likelihood that they will, in fact, be involved in a collision. Should we look at ways to improve pedestrian safety? Sure, but the first place to look is whether pedestrians are meeting their responsibilities. You could improve pedestrian safety by eliminating cars completely, but is it reasonable?
Click to expand...

You could increase pedestrian safety by removing pedestrians too, there's very few pedestrian deaths on the 401.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'm pretty sure that we've been through this before. My comment about legality is because in this case, as in other in which I have made similar comments, following the law increases safety of the vulnerable people in question. Failing to do so increases the likelihood that they will, in fact, be involved in a collision. Should we look at ways to improve pedestrian safety? Sure, but the first place to look is whether pedestrians are meeting their responsibilities. You could improve pedestrian safety by eliminating cars completely, but is it reasonable?
Click to expand...
Still many more layers of wrong in this reply, but we're way off topic. This stuff belongs in another thread.

Going back to the relevant point, there is such a thing as unnecessarily low speed limits, and we can't blame cops for enforcing those rules. It's the jurisdiction that comes up with those limits and makes cops enforce them, very much unlike when cops kill people for no valid reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom