Less cocks on the roads is good for all of us. I don't see how it wouldn't be at least a contributing factor towards getting better driving habits engrained in new drivers. I can more or less guarantee that many people posting on this board would not pass the UK driving test first time round.
Maybe there would be less motorcycle deaths if the our speed limits were reasonable
- Thread starter Metastable
- Start date
Less cocks on the roads is good for all of us. I don't see how it wouldn't be at least a contributing factor towards getting better driving habits engrained in new drivers. I can more or less guarantee that many people posting on this board would not pass the UK driving test first time round.
The UK has tighter licensing standards coupled with tighter enforcement of traffic regulations. You need both to have a measurable effect on road safety.
I agree with the enforcement part alone.
If people are irresponsible enough to change lanes without signals or checking the mirrors, that is just simply because they don't give a **** about others. And IMO, its a problem that lies in the culture of the society. There is no public pressure or public voice/reaction in Canada. Most of the people are just happy to keep quiet to wrong doings. and when the rules are only law-driven in a society, things that I see here in traffic, never surprise me.
There could be no lanes, no limits and no law, and we could still see more respecting drivers. That is almost the description of how it is in my hometown.
If you change driving habits enough you find drivers policing themselves. Try driving in the wrong lane in the UK on a highway and see what happens. If you wind your window down I promise you'll at least expand your vocabulary with the words you hear from other drivers.
Last edited:
Public pressure and public voice. Exactly what Im talking about.
I've seen people pull guns at traffic lights and stuff in my hometown. It can get brutal, so you really wanna watch out for your actions in traffic.
I've seen people pull guns at traffic lights and stuff in my hometown. It can get brutal, so you really wanna watch out for your actions in traffic.
Actually that would likely cause even larger issues. It has been found, in various jurisdictions, that it's speed differential rather than simple speed, that is the issue.
I think you may be confusing two different issues there. Speed differentials are important for sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean speed differentials between different lanes. In fact really large speed differentials between lanes is a pretty common feature of many roads in other parts of the world where slower traffic stays right and faster vehicles whiz by on the left. With proper lane discipline it is safely managed because there are no suprises (everyone knows where the faster traffic is), and we are generally talking about speed differentials of no more than 30 kph.
Where speed differentials really come into play in Ontario are cases where one lane is stopped dead or just crawling (say, because an off ramp is clogged), and the traffic passing in the next lane over sees no reason to slow down below the normal 100 to 120. Now THAT is dangerous. All it takes is one person to decide to get out of line in the stopped lane, and now you have a 120 kph closing speed.
Be aware of this! If you are on your bike and the traffic in the next lane over is stopped dead, you are in a very dangerous situation if you don't also slow down somewhat to be able to manage things if someone pulls out unexpectedly. They will legally be at fault, but that will be small comfort to you when you are 6 feet under.
If you have different speed limits, for different lanes, then you can have a large speed differential any time that someone changes lanes.
invictus43
Well-known member
Which is why the HOV lanes scare the crap out of me.. I love looking at the skid marks as someone has obviously locked it up and driven into the barrier when someone pulled out in front of them from stopped traffic when they're doing 100kmh in the HOV lane.. Frightening..
M
mlc
Guest
Why is it that the popular consensus is that the execution of a murderer does nothing to deter murders, but a fine issued to speeders will reduce speeding?
That consensus is at least partially wrong. Executing murderers does, at least, 'deter' one murderer.
Penalties are meant to make people less likely, to commit a given crime. If the penalties are too vague, or are too small in scope and impact, then they have no effect. The same can be said for statutes, that are rarely or inconsistently enforced (cf. 'electronic devices' ban).
Deimos
Well-known member
This.
That.
Plus, cost of licensing should also be raised dramatically and easier to lose.
M
mlc
Guest
No sir, it does not. If he/she had been truly deterred, they would not be a murderer, would they?
I see your point, though.
If the penalty for heavy speeding was made severe enough, say a temporary vehicle forfeiture, a large fine, license suspension and insurance cost increases, heavy speeding would stop.
Wouldn't it?
How many people avoid becoming murderers, despite wanting to kill the person who just cut them off? Probably most. In that sense the penalty for murder is an effective deterrent.
Unfortunately deterrents don't work very well for those who are not in the frame of mind to consider the repercussions of their actions. Hence, many murders are crimes of passion, committed in the heat of passion when logical thought processes are usually at their weakest.
For those who are of rational mind and able to think things out, a severe penalty is a deterrent only if you think you will suffer that penalty. Deterrents don't work very well on those who think they are too smart to get caught.
We have lots of the former and a few of the latter, and that's why murder continues to occur despite the penalties. However, it happens infrequently, 600 or so a year. That leaves over 30 million Canadians who have been deterred.
Re applying heavy penalties to speeding - there are those who figure they won't get caught, or that they will be able to successfully run if they do get caught. There are others who get snagged not out of intention to speed excessively but out of inattention to their speed or driving/riding.
The tougher driving laws may not deter all. However, there many many posts here where riders admit that the law has forced a change in their riding habits. That tougher law is a working deterrent for those people. The others, time will tell. I think the greatest effect will be not on existing drivers/riders but in engendering a shift in driving/riding culture on newer people getting their licenses, just as happened in past with respect to drinking and driving.
Last edited:
M
mlc
Guest
Regarding your first sentence, please read it and let me know if it reads the way you meant to say it. I may be missing an important point of your post.
In reference to the second quoted sentence, I can not believe that the threat of the Canadian penalty for murder conviction, which is not execution (please see post #51), is what is responsible for 30 million Canadians deciding against committing murder.
Would you be a murderer, be it not for your fear of penalty?
First sentence - people get cut off and road rage ensues, and people have been killed. The only limit to road rage is the fear of consequence. Witness Milton a couple of years back at 401 and James Snow Parkway. Now take away fear of consequence.
Would I be a murderer if I thought I could get away with it? I would hope not.
Would 30 million Canadians suddenly become murderers if they knew they could do so without risk and get away with it? Obviously not. However, I think that a good number would for whatever rationalization they chose to apply in a moment of anger or frustration. Get rid of a troublesome spouse looking for asset division and support payments. Get rid of competition at work. Inflict ultimate payback on the jerk who broke into your house and stole your VCR. Yes, that one has been discussed at length here.
Do you really think otherwise? You read the news? Then you'll know just how petty some of the reasons for killing are in the city and elsewhere.
Last edited:
OpenGambit
Banned
I am not sure if raising a penalty as a deterrent is really the same as the extremes of no penalty vs life sentence/death. What are you getting at?
You've posted the number of motorcyclist fatalities over the last few years yourself. If the objective is to reduce that number, HTA 172 is not working.
(collisions involving very high speeds may be very newsworthy but are rare compared to run-of-the-mill collisions that are responsible for most of the fatalities; I know the Hurt report is old information but at that time, the one-in-a-thousand impact speed was 85 mph, about 140 km/h, and the median speed was 27 mph)
There are at least a couple of run-from-the-cops situations in those motorcyclist statistics. The thing we will never know, is whether those people would have tried to run if the penalties involved weren't way out of proportion to the offence.
As for the effect on auto crashes, if HTA 172 were so effective as some claim, then where is my 30% insurance rate reduction on my car.
I am not so convinced that any suggested "cultural change" will be a positive one. The tactics of the police and courts - in general, not just with regards to traffic laws - is breeding a situation where the police in general are seen as "the enemy", and that can't be good.
