What can you do about bad drivers? | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

What can you do about bad drivers?

BrownBrady said:
How about motivating drivers to drive 'sensibly' using a device like Desjardins’ Adjusto? Maybe it could even be a mandatory requirement for new and returning drivers. It measures how quickly the driver accelerates, how hard the driver brakes, how fast the driver drives relative to the speed limit and how the driver turns. Good drivers will receive lower insurance rates and develop better driving habits.
Click to expand...
http://www.wheels.ca/news/verdict-is-in-ajusto-cuts-my-insurance-by-21-per-cent/

Good article from the Toronto Star about the Ajusto box from DesJardin. They won't use the data to raise your rates, only to reduce it.

Savings are based on:

Mileage: Drive under 15,000 km annually for savings of up to 10 per cent.

Time of day: Overnight hours are high-risk driving times. Weekday rush-hour times are moderate risk. Other daytime and early evening hours are low risk. Save up to 5 per cent.

Fast acceleration and hard braking: If you accelerate faster than 13 km/h in one second or decelerate 15 km/h or more in one second, the device will consider this sudden. Save up to 10 per cent.​

I don't see anything about the speed limit and GPS tracking. So I guess you can still drive at your RPM limiter (~180km/h indicated)?

I don't believe that new/returning drivers should be monitored through these devices. There is already a huge deterrent for them to get behind the wheel: insurance. If they really have bad driving habits, they'll get into accidents and their driving will be observed by the police and the public (Roadwatch).

I believe even those truck speed limiters were found unconstitutional.
 
iFly55 said:
http://www.wheels.ca/news/verdict-is-in-ajusto-cuts-my-insurance-by-21-per-cent/

Good article from the Toronto Star about the Ajusto box from DesJardin. They won't use the data to raise your rates, only to reduce it.
Savings are based on:

Mileage: Drive under 15,000 km annually for savings of up to 10 per cent.

Time of day: Overnight hours are high-risk driving times. Weekday rush-hour times are moderate risk. Other daytime and early evening hours are low risk. Save up to 5 per cent.

Fast acceleration and hard braking: If you accelerate faster than 13 km/h in one second or decelerate 15 km/h or more in one second, the device will consider this sudden. Save up to 10 per cent.
​

I don't see anything about the speed limit and GPS tracking. So I guess you can still drive at your RPM limiter (~180km/h indicated)?

I don't believe that new/returning drivers should be monitored through these devices. There is already a huge deterrent for them to get behind the wheel: insurance. If they really have bad driving habits, they'll get into accidents and their driving will be observed by the police and the public (Roadwatch).

I believe even those truck speed limiters were found unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

So they think 13 km/h per second is "fast acceleration" and indicative of "bad driving"?

Better not put that thing on any motorcycle that I own. ALL acceleration is faster than that ... and yet (knock on wood) no at-fault collisions in something like half a million kilometers over the years.

Simplistic gadgets like this won't capture the bigger problems - the stop-sign-rollers, red-light luck-pushers, non-signalled non-shoulder-checked lane changers, cell phone yappers, texters, etc.
 
Didn't go through the entire thread, I did see people mentioning Roadwatch, so I wanted to pitch in my experience.

I have had numerous "near miss" incidents where I was maybe a few inches away from an accident.

Worst one I could remember was going 85 on Highway 7, and a car in the opposing traffic started to make a left turn when I was merely 10-15m away from the intersection. Slammed my breaks while steering to the right as much as I could (I was in middle lane, not much space to maneuver), the only thought "I Hope I dont die". I ended up stopping past half point in the intersection, and his bumper was no more than 2 inches away from the side of my car, I managed to steer away from an 85km/h T bone. With the intense adrenalin rushing through my veins I drove off without confronting the driver.

I later reported the incident with the make and model (That I got a look when both vehicles were stopped in the middle of the intersection. A few weeks later an officer emailed me informing me that they had sent a letter of warning to the vehicle's registered address.

On a side note, I had a dash cam in my car that recorded the entire incident, and I noted in the report that I had the information available upon request, though they never contacted me to obtain it.
 
Many of Ontario drivers/riders are "mediocre" not because they don't have the mental capacity to drive properly but because they don't care about the details. Constantly making small errors while driving/riding will eventually lead to collisions. How can you drive properly (not make an error) if you don't know simple traffic laws? Not knowing traffic laws is a prime example of what is wrong with some of these "mediocre" Ontario drivers: if you don't know basic traffic laws, how can you consider yourself a "good driver"? Here is an example of the problem we are facing in Ontario: http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...ften-means-the-bus-is-not-changing-lanes.html
 
trebororr said:
Many of Ontario drivers/riders are "mediocre" not because they don't have the mental capacity to drive properly but because they don't care about the details. Constantly making small errors while driving/riding will eventually lead to collisions. How can you drive properly (not make an error) if you don't know simple traffic laws? Not knowing traffic laws is a prime example of what is wrong with some of these "mediocre" Ontario drivers: if you don't know basic traffic laws, how can you consider yourself a "good driver"? Here is an example of the problem we are facing in Ontario: http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...ften-means-the-bus-is-not-changing-lanes.html
Click to expand...

Unfortunately these days it's less a case of not knowing, and more a case of not caring. For example people know that they are supposed to stop at stop lights and signs. I can go an entire day without seeing anyone but myself come to a proper stop at a stop sign.
 
trebororr said:
Many of Ontario drivers/riders are "mediocre" not because they don't have the mental capacity to drive properly but because they don't care about the details. Constantly making small errors while driving/riding will eventually lead to collisions. How can you drive properly (not make an error) if you don't know simple traffic laws? Not knowing traffic laws is a prime example of what is wrong with some of these "mediocre" Ontario drivers: if you don't know basic traffic laws, how can you consider yourself a "good driver"? Here is an example of the problem we are facing in Ontario: http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...ften-means-the-bus-is-not-changing-lanes.html
Click to expand...

I agree. My gf came back from an extended stay in Germany where she drove the autobahn daily. When she came back she was astounded how ****** drivers are here. I assumed it was dangerous on the autobahn but she strongly disagreed stating that no one ever passes on the right, you don't get dummies sitting in passing lanes when not passing. The lanes are smaller yet no issues etc etc. So Apparently we need to learn from the Germans...
 
defeater905 said:
I agree. My gf came back from an extended stay in Germany where she drove the autobahn daily. When she came back she was astounded how ****** drivers are here. I assumed it was dangerous on the autobahn but she strongly disagreed stating that no one ever passes on the right, you don't get dummies sitting in passing lanes when not passing. The lanes are smaller yet no issues etc etc. So Apparently we need to learn from the Germans...
Click to expand...

Don't say that to Minister Del Duca; he will disagree with you as he as with me by saying that Ontarians on average drive much farther then Western Europeans resulting in a collision rate per kilometer driven being lower therefore our roadways are safer!
 
Have been trying to book a second meeting with Minister of Transportation Del Duca since September of last year; initially getting excuses about Minister’s schedule and conflicts; now Minister’s office is not even acknowledging receiving my e-mail requests.

It possible (contrary to what people think) to get the Minister of Transportation to actually do something about something (once in a while) as was shown in recent past when the media by bringing to his attention that Metrolinx employees were overusing their benefits he made a call to the president of the organisation which then changed its policy. It did not require much effort by the media to persuade the Minister because by acting against the greedy government workers he made himself look better(self-serving).

Asking him to take action against unskilled and uncaring drivers and also unfortunately some riders in Ontario is not a popular action but it is one that must be taken for the benefit of all Ontarians. As this is not a popular action much more force must be brought to bear on the Minister.

On Wednesday, March 18 everyone that is interested in doing something to improve the situation on our roads (pressure) send the letter which I have attached below to Minister of Transportation Steven Del Duca at sdelduca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org; only if many of us work together so include your friends and family can we move things along.



Your Name Here
Your Street Address Here
Street City and Postal Code Here
March 18, 2015

Steven Del Duca
Minister of Transportation

Honorable Minister Del Duca:

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 for such an advanced society such as our own. These incidents are avoidable; resulting in billions of dollars being spent on health care which our province can ill afford. In addition to the avoidable health care costs 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.

Life is our most precious possession. Minister Del Duca, since driving is a privilege why are unskilled, uncaring or dangerously aggressive individuals allowed to drive on our roads?

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Your Name Here
 
I'm afraid that I disagree with the concept of using unmarked police vehicles. They do that now. It has little effect. Marked vehicles tend to create immediate compliance with traffic laws, when they are present on highways.
 
Nothing to see here. Carry on....

bjwt9or.jpg
 
caboose56 said:
Right. There's a purpose for unmarked vehicles. Revenue collection shouldn't be one of them.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that. If the intent is to enhance motorist safety by enforcement, then marked vehicles are more effective. As I said they tend to enforce compliance by their very presence and for those for whom they don't, there's always the option of pulling those people over and citing them. An unmarked vehicle has no calming effect on traffic and once it has been revealed, by pulling someone over, it is no longer a 'threat' to the remaining drivers.

So do away with unmarked vehicles, except for specific purposes. Do away with targeted sweeps which are announced well ahead of time, and so only have an effect for a limited time, in a limited area. Put officers back on general patrol. Hell, if I was a cop, then I could probably ticket 20+ people on my trip home from work, each and every day, for using their cell phones while driving.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'm afraid that I disagree with the concept of using unmarked police vehicles. They do that now. It has little effect. Marked vehicles tend to create immediate compliance with traffic laws, when they are present on highways.
Click to expand...

Marked vehicles do not have much compliance effect once they are out of sight. That's where the unmarked cars come in. They are the equivalent of an undercover cop at a protest. They are able to view those who save their misbehaviour for when they think the cops are somewhere else or not looking, and the knowledge that there may be undercover cops nearby in itself provides some deterrent effect.

Same principle out on the roads with unmarked police cars. You need marked and unmarked vehicles.
 
griff2 said:
Marked vehicles do not have much compliance effect once they are out of sight. That's where the unmarked cars come in. They are the equivalent of an undercover cop at a protest. They are able to view those who save their misbehaviour for when they think the cops are somewhere else or not looking, and the knowledge that there may be undercover cops nearby in itself provides some deterrent effect.

Same principle out on the roads with unmarked police cars. You need marked and unmarked vehicles.
Click to expand...

Unmarked cars have NO compliance effect, as they are ALWAYS out of sight. If the goal is road safety, you use marked cars. If it's revenue generation, you use unmarked ones.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Unmarked cars have NO compliance effect, as they are ALWAYS out of sight. If the goal is road safety, you use marked cars. If it's revenue generation, you use unmarked ones.
Click to expand...

If the goal is road safety, you need to be able to get both oblivious drivers and those who actively conspire to search for police presence before breaking traffic laws.

A marked police car provides one kind of halo effect from having been seen but that halo effect goes away almost immediately after the marked car is out of sight. You would have to drastically increase the number of marked cars on the road to have any appreciable effect on overall traffic safety.

Unmarked or ghost-marked cars provide a different kind of halo effect. When it is common knowledge that unmarked or ghost-marked cars regularly patrol an area, people become wary that the next car in line in front or behind them might just be an police car and limited themselves accordingly. It's a paranoia effect that is magnified by seeing unmarked or ghost-marked cars pulled over and issuing tickets on a frequent basis.

The effect was quite noticeable when there were more plain-jane civilian Crown Vics being driven by Ma and Pa Kettle out on the highways. So often you would see traffic suddenly get very careful around those kinds of cars until they could identify what it was and edge past. The effect was almost the same as coming up on a marked police car.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Unmarked cars have NO compliance effect, as they are ALWAYS out of sight. If the goal is road safety, you use marked cars. If it's revenue generation, you use unmarked ones.
Click to expand...

On a related note. I fully support speed cameras in fixed locations instead of speed traps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
griff2 said:
If the goal is road safety, you need to be able to get both oblivious drivers and those who actively conspire to search for police presence before breaking traffic laws.

A marked police car provides one kind of halo effect from having been seen but that halo effect goes away almost immediately after the marked car is out of sight. You would have to drastically increase the number of marked cars on the road to have any appreciable effect on overall traffic safety.

Unmarked or ghost-marked cars provide a different kind of halo effect. When it is common knowledge that unmarked or ghost-marked cars regularly patrol an area, people become wary that the next car in line in front or behind them might just be an police car and limited themselves accordingly. It's a paranoia effect that is magnified by seeing unmarked or ghost-marked cars pulled over and issuing tickets on a frequent basis.

The effect was quite noticeable when there were more plain-jane civilian Crown Vics being driven by Ma and Pa Kettle out on the highways. So often you would see traffic suddenly get very careful around those kinds of cars until they could identify what it was and edge past. The effect was almost the same as coming up on a marked police car.
Click to expand...

In other words the "paranoia effect" of which you speak is on the decline. I drive in areas in which such unmarked vehicles are well known to patrol and there's no appreciable change in behaviour. If there is an issue with things like actual street racing, in an area, then unmarked cars are of benefit. They aren't generally being used to combat criminal behaviour, however, but are instead being used for normal traffic enforcement duties. Seeing an unmarked car with his prey at the side of the road tells you nothing more than that the only likely enforcement in the area is already occupied, so it's safe to misbehave.

They are actively decreasing the number of marked cars, on our roads, and replacing them with unmarked cars. If a marked vehicle has a visible and immediate effect on traffic, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING VISIBLE TO THOSE WHO MAY NEED ASSISTANCE, then this is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.

caboose56 said:
On a related note. I fully support speed cameras in fixed locations instead of speed traps.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of speed cameras but if there is no penalty other than a monetary one applied, I have no reasonable objection to raise against them.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I'm not a fan of speed cameras but if there is no penalty other than a monetary one applied, I have no reasonable objection to raise against them.
Click to expand...

No points, just a monetary fine like a parking ticket.

There is an intersection near where I work. Northbound traffic comes over a bridge towards the intersection. It's a blind hill crest and there is some truck traffic turning at that intersection so the speed limit drops from 80 to 60.

A few times a week there is a speed trap there.

A permanent speed camera that is advertised and fully visible would do far more to curtail speeding though that intersection than the speed traps ever will.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom