What can you do about bad drivers? | Page 5 | GTAMotorcycle.com

What can you do about bad drivers?

I just went out for lunch. LPS are busy and here's today's lucky winner. For reference I was parked on the northbound shoulder. Pic taken through drivers side mirror so it's flipped.

The simple fact that they are still catching people tells me that their frequent speed traps are not decreasing speeds through that intersection.
18632401b1144b3e2fc1b5e486c61033.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Current legislation regarding speed cameras states that it's monetary fine only. Yes, that's right, they never repealed the speed camera law.

They don't even need to have cameras in every stationary location. As the Brits do with GATSO they could have a few and just rotate the locations where a camera is live.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
They don't even need to have cameras in every stationary location. As the Brits do with GATSO they could have a few and just rotate the locations where a camera is live.
Click to expand...

I can think of half a dozen places in London like this one that would really benefit from a speed camera. 6 spots sharing 2 cameras maybe? So a 1 in 3 chance that any of them are live.

Put up big bright signs that read "SPEED CAMERA AHEAD". Then see what happens to the speed of traffic in these areas. I am not concerned about the cost of the cameras, after all this is about safety not revenue collection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The issue with road safety is that we are all part of the system. Everyone needs to get on the same page to make it work.

The roads are full of drivers and riders who follow their own traffic rules, don't have the necessary skills or just don't care. Many drivers including some members of this forum have the belief that the laws (HTA) are in place to generate revenue not to make sure that we are able to predict the actions of those around us. The result of such a view can be that as long as there isn't a police officer around these individuals don't follow any traffic laws. How is a marked police vehicle going to get these individuals to change their attitude? An unmarked police vehicle can sneak up on these (habitual offenders) individuals and see them acting naturally. Which of you has not seen a driver or rider who breaks a traffic law every 10 seconds? An unmarked police vehicle can shadow the individual then stop them on the side of the road at which time they the police officer can decide on the number of citations to administer.

Regarding the short lived effect of marked police vehicles, once in a while there is a marked police vehicle in our neighbourhood parked near an intersection. They are there to appease some of you in the regard of increasing compliance. Individuals approach the intersection as usual, keeping foot on throttle until their vehicle is a few metres from intersection, hammer on brake pedal, look around, see police vehicle, come to harsh full-stop. This sometime results in a near rear-end collision. They then move off from intersection, at next intersection (stop sign controlled) out of view of police, not stop(back to standard operating procedure.

People that don't follow driving laws don't deserve to drive. We all make mistakes while driving; blatantly disregarding traffic laws is not the same. What are we going to do about these individuals? Are we going to allow them to continue to create problems for us? How are we going to remove them from the roads? Certainly not with marked police vehicles sitting on the side of the road catching one speeder at a time.
 
trebororr said:
People that don't follow driving laws don't deserve to drive. We all make mistakes while driving; blatantly disregarding traffic laws is not the same. What are we going to do about these individuals? Are we going to allow them to continue to create problems for us? How are we going to remove them from the roads? Certainly not with marked police vehicles sitting on the side of the road catching one speeder at a time.
Click to expand...

This is where I like unmarked cars. While marked cars provide a minimal deterrent effect for a short time, the unmarked cars are able to nail those whose driving choices are dictated only by whether or not there is a cop in the immediate area.

I would also like to see more speed cameras and red light cameras installed, and current law changed to make the owner of the vehicle more accountable for camera-caught violations of traffic laws regardless of who was driving at the time of offence.

Even though the driver can't be identified by these cameras, if vehicles belonging to a given owner show a pattern of racking up camera violations over and over, start assessing the owner demerit points and recording violations against the driving record that is available to insurance companies. Allow them the first two or three camera-caught violations as monetary penalties only, but after that invoke the full points and driving record system against the owner. Owners should be held responsible for who they lend their vehicles to and in the way in that their vehicles are being driven.
 
griff2 said:
This is where I like unmarked cars. While marked cars provide a minimal deterrent effect for a short time, the unmarked cars are able to nail those whose driving choices are dictated only by whether or not there is a cop in the immediate area.

I would also like to see more speed cameras and red light cameras installed, and current law changed to make the owner of the vehicle more accountable for camera-caught violations of traffic laws regardless of who was driving at the time of offence.

Even though the driver can't be identified by these cameras, if vehicles belonging to a given owner show a pattern of racking up camera violations over and over, start assessing the owner demerit points and recording violations against the driving record that is available to insurance companies. Allow them the first two or three camera-caught violations as monetary penalties only, but after that invoke the full points and driving record system against the owner. Owners should be held responsible for who they lend their vehicles to and in the way in that their vehicles are being driven.
Click to expand...

Sure, let's just throw out The Charter.
 
On a day like today when I have been working on a computer for the afternoon, my neck is killing me. My neck is killing me not because of the computer work but because this activity aggravates the injury that I received in 2010 when I was stopped at a stop sign while trying to figure out what the "moron" on the other side of the intersection was trying to do. I didn't want to go behind this "intellectual giant" with his reverse lights on as I didn't trust him and in the few seconds that I was waiting for the situation to solve itself another "moron" drove into the rear of me on a big orange motorcycle.

Consequences for making mistakes while driving are insignificant; penalties should be in line with the mayhem caused by the so called "mistakes" so that people might, just might then take driving seriously. Even if it doesn't cause people to change it would make me feel better knowing that those causing the mayhem also suffered (an eye for an eye).
 
griff2 said:
This is where I like unmarked cars. While marked cars provide a minimal deterrent effect for a short time, the unmarked cars are able to nail those whose driving choices are dictated only by whether or not there is a cop in the immediate area.

I would also like to see more speed cameras and red light cameras installed, and current law changed to make the owner of the vehicle more accountable for camera-caught violations of traffic laws regardless of who was driving at the time of offence.
Click to expand...

I think you give people too much credit. The really bad drivers will do what they do regardless if there is a cop in a fully marked cruiser directly behind them or not. The actual number of drivers who check for cops before doing dumb things IMO is insignificantly low. OPP officers set up radar traps on the highway in those emergency u-turn crossovers (using fully marked cruisers clearly visible in both directions) and they still catch speeders.

I also used to be in favour of red light cameras but I have changed my mind. I have read several studies that state they reduce red light running but cause more accidents. A driver that really should proceed through on a yellow will slam on the brakes for fear of getting a ticket, then the driver behind is too close (sure, its the tailing driver's fault but that doesn't stop it from happening) and piles into the back of them.
 
Griff2, While I generally agree with most things you propose, I can't support the after 2 - 3 camera violations the owner of the vehicle begins to rack up demerit points. If I own a company and 2 - 3 employees use my vehicles for work purposes and get photo radar tickets then is it fair that I lose my licence because of the actions of others. Yes as an employer I can assign escalating employment penalties, (verbal warning, written warning suspensions, dismissal). But if you have 3 employees and they get say 4 camera violations, spread amongst them all then that wouldn't permit anything more than perhaps a verbal employment warning yet I am now racking up demerit points.

Rob: You stated that an unmarked cruiser loses its deterrent effect when it has someone stopped because then driver know the only enforcement is "tied up" so they go back to their normal driving. But the marked cruiser with someone pulled over also would be in the same position, in that its deterrent factor is also lost. Now when I was a copper if another cruiser made a traffic stop then generally the cruisers in the bordering patrol zones would make their way closer to the traffic stop, (in the event backup was needed). Quite often one of those cruisers would be unmarked. People are always looking to "beat the system" in that if the cruiser, (marked or unmarked), has someone stopped if they were speeding before they saw the cruiser they are going to speed after the stop.

The people I don't get, are the ones who put the brakes on on say the 401 when they see a cruiser with someone pulled over on the OTHER side of the highway. do they really think the cop is going to run across 3 - 8 lanes of traffic and jump the jersey barrier and run into live traffic to pull them over??? LMAO
 
A total revamp of traffic policing. Go after everybody doing boneheaded stuff. Every violation resulting in traffic school for the offender, paid for by the offender. Never mind the demerit points or insurance tie-in, traffic school only. Make it very inconvenient to be an unskilled driver.
 
hedo2002 said:
Rob: You stated that an unmarked cruiser loses its deterrent effect when it has someone stopped because then driver know the only enforcement is "tied up" so they go back to their normal driving. But the marked cruiser with someone pulled over also would be in the same position, in that its deterrent factor is also lost. Now when I was a copper if another cruiser made a traffic stop then generally the cruisers in the bordering patrol zones would make their way closer to the traffic stop, (in the event backup was needed). Quite often one of those cruisers would be unmarked. People are always looking to "beat the system" in that if the cruiser, (marked or unmarked), has someone stopped if they were speeding before they saw the cruiser they are going to speed after the stop.
Click to expand...

I've already said it more than once. Perhaps the marked cruiser at the side of the road loses its deterrent factor, but the unmarked cruiser never had one.
 
hedo2002 said:
Griff2, While I generally agree with most things you propose, I can't support the after 2 - 3 camera violations the owner of the vehicle begins to rack up demerit points. If I own a company and 2 - 3 employees use my vehicles for work purposes and get photo radar tickets then is it fair that I lose my licence because of the actions of others. Yes as an employer I can assign escalating employment penalties, (verbal warning, written warning suspensions, dismissal). But if you have 3 employees and they get say 4 camera violations, spread amongst them all then that wouldn't permit anything more than perhaps a verbal employment warning yet I am now racking up demerit points.
Click to expand...

Covered in http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skpc/do...odCBjYW1lcmEiIGNoYXJ0ZXIAAAAAAQ&resultIndex=1

If the law is written as a strict liability offence, you would have a defence if you can demonstrate due diligence by having in place durable policies regarding the use of company vehicles. This would include the obvious logging of who is driving what vehicle when, and also having in place escalating employment penalties that you mentioned for employers mis-using company vehicles.

This is just common sense. It demonstrates that the employer is undertaking due diligence regarding employee use of company vehicles. That ability to use a due diligence defence provides a measure of protection against both civil suits and potential escalating camera offence penalties assigned to the vehicle owner.

Ultimately, vehicle owners must be accountable for the use of their vehicles regardless of who is behind the wheel. As it is right now, camera offences without escalating penalties just create a pay for play driving environment where big companies or well-to-do individuals can afford to repeat the camera-caught offences over and over again with relative impunity. For them, cameras with only monetary penalties do not provide the more meaningful deterrent that a potential driving suspension would.

There needs to be escalating penalties to vehicle owners for repeated camera violations in order for traffic cameras to truly enhance public safety as opposed to just being a cash grab.
 
Last edited:
caboose56 said:
I also used to be in favour of red light cameras but I have changed my mind. I have read several studies that state they reduce red light running but cause more accidents. A driver that really should proceed through on a yellow will slam on the brakes for fear of getting a ticket, then the driver behind is too close (sure, its the tailing driver's fault but that doesn't stop it from happening) and piles into the back of them.
Click to expand...

Vehicle damage, injuries and fatalities are all much reduced with rear-end collisions as compared to intersection t-bones. That is a good trade-off to make - more minor collisions in exchange for less major injury and death-producing collisions.
 
griff2 said:
Vehicle damage, injuries and fatalities are all much reduced with rear-end collisions as compared to intersection t-bones. That is a good trade-off to make - more minor collisions in exchange for less major injury and death-producing collisions.
Click to expand...

Except the red light "runners" now choosing to hammer the brakes aren't the ones normally running full reds. So most of the rear enders would be in addition to the regular t-boners. No trade off.
 
caboose56 said:
Cite your source?

Many studies disagree with your statements.

http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/studies
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that red light cameras may increase rear end crashes but vehicle safety and restraint systems work better for these kinds of crashes that they do for t-bone crashes. Crush space between your thigh and the outside of your car door is a lot shorter than between your front and rear bumpers and you, and seat belts are also designed to deal more with frontals than anything at a hard angle.


"10. - Do red light cameras increase the risk of a rear-end collision?Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive.

A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. 23 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.

Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The review by the Cochrane Collaboration did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end injury crashes."

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/red-light-running/qanda

Another from 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095756415302786 "The results of this study suggest that the use of red light running photo enforcement at signalized intersections on the whole is positive, as demonstrated by fatal crash reductions varying by between 4 percent and 48 percent. However, this research also found that while the use of red light running photo enforcement decreased injury crashes and slightly raised (by one percent) PDO crashes for angle crashes, it moderately increased injury and PDO crashes for rear-end crashes. Therefore, overall, the use of red light running photo enforcement at intersections in a large city can be considered to have slightly positive effects on reducing related crashes."

Closer to home - see http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4309709-camera-ahead-hit-the-brakes-or-hit-the-gas-/ for a pile of local numbers that show net positive effects for red light cameras.
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
"10. - Do red light cameras increase the risk of a rear-end collision?Some studies have reported that while red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes. However, such crashes tend to be much less severe than front-into-side crashes, so the net effect is positive.

A study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated red light camera programs in seven cities. 23 The study found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent while rear-end collisions increased by 15 percent. Results showed a positive aggregate economic benefit of more than $18.5 million in the seven communities. The authors concluded that the economic costs from the increase in rear-end crashes were more than offset by the economic benefits from the decrease in right-angle crashes targeted by red light cameras.

Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The review by the Cochrane Collaboration did not find a statistically significant change in rear-end injury crashes."

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/red-light-running/qanda

Another from 2014 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095756415302786 "The results of this study suggest that the use of red light running photo enforcement at signalized intersections on the whole is positive, as demonstrated by fatal crash reductions varying by between 4 percent and 48 percent. However, this research also found that while the use of red light running photo enforcement decreased injury crashes and slightly raised (by one percent) PDO crashes for angle crashes, it moderately increased injury and PDO crashes for rear-end crashes. Therefore, overall, the use of red light running photo enforcement at intersections in a large city can be considered to have slightly positive effects on reducing related crashes."

Closer to home - see http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4309709-camera-ahead-hit-the-brakes-or-hit-the-gas-/ for a pile of local numbers that show net positive effects for red light cameras.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks. This is the type of study I was looking for.
 
Today's winner.

I'm driving home from dinner, northbound Winston Churchill, near Thomas St, behind a marked Peel Region cruiser, approaching a traffic signal that was green in our direction.

Why is there a car driving across the intersection up ahead ...

Why is that car spinning around off to the side ...

Ooooohhhh, they ran the red and got T-boned by the car right in front of the police car!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom