Maybe there would be less motorcycle deaths if the our speed limits were reasonable

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

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?

Just where the discussion went when someone through murder penalties into the mix and questioned the deterrent value of stiff penalties. After all, we still have murders despite having fairly stiff penalties for it, right? But does that mean the penalties are of no deterrent value simply because they don't deter all?

In any case, the effectiveness of any deterrent is a combination of severity of penalty and probability of being caught and having to face that penalty. You could have the death penalty for speeding, but if you are never caught or if the courts never apply the stipulated penalty the that severe penalty will not be an effective deterrent.

Penalty means nothing is if there is no chance of it being applied. That applies both to enforcement and detection of violators, and application of penalty by the courts when convicted of said violation.

Similarly, even high probability of being caught means nothing if the penalty doesn't carry sufficient "pain". The penalty must be sufficiently severe that it isn't just seen as just acceptable "pay for play".

 

[01cbr]

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.

And this is already our issue.

Anyone who drives on the 410 with a decent amount of traffic can see this. You have people merging on and off at the same points. Timid drivers, retard drivers, and everything in between changing lanes in every direction at speeds from 60 km/h to 140 km/h.

Thats all we need, the speed demons going faster and the timid drivers going slower because they are even more nervous.

 

[Shaman]

I bet turbodish likes the idea of corporatised/privatised prisons. After all, the more laws the better, amirite?

 

[Prince]

+1 Metasstable for Mayor!

The 400 series speed limits should be raised to 120 KPH, and single lane highways to 100 KPH. Take 50% of traffic cops and either fire them or promote them to real cops and put them to work doing police work like catching the thieves who stole what...300 bikes over the last three years? Traffic cops (the person and the job) are a joke. You could replace them with speed cameras for known areas of gross public speeding beyond 120 KPH. Take that money saved by reducing the amount of traffic cops and buy a few helicopters for those few instances of tuner cars, supersports racing the highways.

You don't REALLY believe this do you? Aside form multiple studies that have shown that accidents or traveling speeds do not rise proportionally to the speed increase if AT ALL (usually on these test roads the average speed was significantly higher than the post limit and people just kept going the speed they were comfortable with, except the slowpokes sped up causing less areas of congestion), ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is to keep the penalties the same for going X speed.It should be simple here. 120-130kph on the highway100 on rural roads50 if you are going through a small group of homes in a hamlet or town, but back up to 100 once the farms start.Other speeds in cities where appropriate.It's the way MOST people drive anyway..... and what the limits are in most places around the world.Oh and if you want to reduce crashes at red lights, stop putting them up, put in a roundabout .... can't do it everywhere, but they sure could use them a lot more in places like Derry Road in Milton or the Dundas rd through Oakville/Burlington or Hurontario between 407 - 403.These roads once upon a time had few lights, now they are a synchronization disaster. OR... do it like Hamilton and have things timed right!

 

[V-Tom]

...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.

I suspect that the large numbers of laws have become counterproductive with respect to making the roads safer.

Studies time and time again have shown that most people will drive at safe and reasonable speeds for the conditions regardless of what the posted limits are. We have a situation where the limits in Ontario (and many other places) are artificially low, and most of the time do not reflect a safe and reasonable speed but rather post a speed much lower than what is realistic and appropriate. The result is that most drivers largely disobey the law and break the speed limit and are lawbreakers. Police are now required to enforce a law which, based on the actions of most drivers, is wrong and so are blamed for doing the job they are mandated to do.

What effect does breaking the law every single day on almost every drive/ride have on people that otherwise would be law abiding people?

I suspect the effect is that they start to feel that few other laws are appropriate. You can see by the lack of respect for the rules of the road that few drivers/riders give them much heed. People driving in the incorrect lane (the law is clear that you should move to the right immediately after passing by another vehicle), few people make complete stops at the overwhelming number of unnecessary stop signs, people run red lights daily, people tailgate, don't signal, etc. I suspect some of the latest laws have made things worse. for example, I have noticed on 400 series highways that fewer people than ever drive in the right lane, and more people than ever will move over immediately to the left lane even on a completely open highway. Why is that? Can the effect of HTA172 be that people have become afraid to change lanes and so now just sit in one lane forever for fear of getting a stunting charge? Can the fact that most trucks are now sporting limits at 105 kph mean that it is very hard to drive at a reasonable speed in the right lane?

I think the draconian enforcement of selected laws has created a situation where drivers only worry about those laws and ignore most others, and when they get pulled over for doing what most others are doing they blame the police for being out to get them.

I think we would all be better served by making the driving laws more realistic. drivers would be more likely to obey realistic laws, police would be much better respected, and emphasis could be put on concentrating on the real safety issues.

..Tom

 

[mlc]

How many people become murderers, despite wanting to kill the person who just cut them off? Probably most.

I still don't understand this sentence.

Are you saying most people who are cut off become murderers?

 

[Shaman]

Are you saying most people who are cut off become murderers?

The wig has truly flipped.

 

[jc100]

The threat of a stunting charge has next to nothing to do with bad lane discipline. 15 Years ago people were doing the same thing, when I asked one of them why they drive like that they told me that they thought it was safer to drive in one lane without changing lanes all the time.

Many years ago I had to drive down the 400 to Barrie at about rush hour ish and I remember thinking this is nuts. People weren't policing themselves and driving at speeds that they thought were appropriate for the conditions, they were driving like maniacs with absolutely no thought for other drivers. It was seriously dangerous, later that day I watched the news and saw a massive pile up caused by the same nutters.

 

[turbodish]

I still don't understand this sentence.

Are you saying most people who are cut off become murderers?

Oh... bad typing at work. Try this.

"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."

We still have plenty of road rage out there, but it's rare (though still happens) that it progresses to someone getting badly hurt or killed. What do you think might happen if there was no deterrent in place?

 

[mlc]

I will attempt to crystallize my point.

In Canada, capital punishment has been repealed, in part because the studies have proven that capital punishment does little to deter murder. Murders will occur, regardless of the punishment.

So, why do people assume that speeding fines will deter speeding?

(please read the above sentence again)



People will continue to drive at speed, regardless of the punishment.

Also, if people's driving habits have changed as a result of stiffer penalties, that is no guarantee that the roads are now safer, in the sense of fewer accidents and fatalities. They will continue to occur

If you doubt this, please visit the "Fallen Rider's" section of this website, or listen to traffic reports during rush hour.

Speeding does not equal accidents, a failure of one's skill as a driver does.

 

[mlc]

Oh... bad typing at work. Try this.

"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."

We still have plenty of road rage out there, but it's rare (though still happens) that it progresses to someone getting badly hurt or killed. What do you think might happen if there was no deterrent in place?

I don't even agree with you on this point.

People generally don't kill others simply because people generally find the killing of another human being despicable.

There is ample evidence available to support the fact that i can train you to fight, and I can train you to kill, but you may find it so horrifying a prospect to actually kill someone that you will endure terrible things yourself, rather than taking a life.

 

[OpenGambit]

I will attempt to crystallize my point.

In Canada, capital punishment has been repealed, in part because the studies have proven that capital punishment does little to deter murder. Murders will occur, regardless of the punishment.

So, why do people assume that speeding fines will deter speeding?

(please read the above sentence again)



People will continue to drive at speed, regardless of the punishment.

Also, if people's driving habits have changed as a result of stiffer penalties, that is no guarantee that the roads are now safer, in the sense of fewer accidents and fatalities. They will continue to occur

If you doubt this, please visit the "Fallen Rider's" section of this website, or listen to traffic reports during rush hour.

Speeding does not equal accidents, a failure of one's skill as a driver does.

Wait a second, you seem to be mixing up deterrance and prevention.
A speed limit and speeding tickets absolutly deter speeding. If there was no speed limit on Mt Pleasant / Bayview / Queen's Park. I will tell you that I personally would be going a LOT faster on those roads.
I still speed, but I watch it.

So yeah.. speeding fines do deter speeding, what you are really talking about is, the amount of the fine to substantially eliminate the behaviour vs just reducing it.

I mean, I don't really think our speed limits are set optimally, but there is no doubt that if you eliminated them all, I would be going a lot faster.

 

[Prince]

Last weekend four people came here from Quebec to have a day at Wasaga beach. They lit up a joint on the beach and got nailed by the OPP. They were given a ticket for the joint and had to appear in court in Collingwood. They decided to bail for home (Quebec), and on the way hit a transition zone down to 50 (from 80) where another OPP prick was waiting for easy 172 charges...and yes, they were doing 101 KPH. They got a HTA172 stunting charge (they didn't even know what that was) and their vehicle seized. They must be thinking why the hell did we come to this place...Ontario? Never before in the history of Ontario have cops been so hated. And as such they lose their greatest resource, the help/aid of the public. No one will talk to them or help them anymore as they're seen as the enemy.

 

[turbodish]

There is ample evidence available to support the fact that i can train you to fight, and I can train you to kill, but you may find it so horrifying a prospect to actually kill someone that you will endure terrible things yourself, rather than taking a life.

And yet even with substantial penalties in place to act as a general deterrent, there are those among us who will kill if a stranger even just disrespects them by looking at them too long while seated on the bus.

 

[mlc]

Wait a second, you seem to be mixing up deterrance and prevention.

Perhaps.

deter: 1. make to abstain from -this is what I meant

2. discourage, frighten -this is what I assume you it means to you

If one speeds only sometimes, and only a little, and only when they think there are no police around, are they still speeding?

Now, here's what i propose.

Reasonable and prudent with regards to maximum speeds.

Now, are you gonna pay attention when you drive, or are you gonna be texting, eating, etc.?

You may be a little bit scared on the road, ya? It just may "deter" some people from driving poorly.

I know for certain that the current system is not yielding results that I feel are good enough. Is it good enough for the rest of you?

 

[OpenGambit]

All I am saying is, having speeding fines and speed limits absolutely reduce the speeds that people drive on the road. I don't think there is any doubt that they have an effect.

However, whether that reduced speed translate to safer roads, I am not so sure, but there are arguments both ways it seems.

 

[mlc]

And yet even with substantial penalties in place to act as a general deterrent, there are those among us who will kill if a stranger even just disrespects them by looking at them too long while seated on the bus.

EXACTLY. Finally, you see that deterrents are limited, and incredibly subjective.

 

[turbodish]

People will continue to drive at speed, regardless of the punishment.

Sure, just as some will continue to kill regardless of the punishment. However, others will decide that the utility gained, whether by killing or speeding or whatever, is simply not worth the penalty if caught.

Many here have already stated the same as it pertains to their own driving and riding. Toughening penalties together with improving odds of being caught will act to increase deterrence. There will be a point of diminishing returns, but deterrence will generally increase with tougher penalties and improved odds of detection and application of those penalties, despite the presence of a those who will not be deterred by any penalty.

Also, if people's driving habits have changed as a result of stiffer penalties, that is no guarantee that the roads are now safer, in the sense of fewer accidents and fatalities. They will continue to occur

Of course collisions will continue to occur, but collisions at lower speeds tend to be less damaging than collisions at higher speeds. In the cases of first Ontario, then Nova Scotia, and most recently British Columbia, implementation of tough racing/stunting/extreme driving laws has in each locale been followed by a marked reduction in fatality per km driven rates far beyond any changes seen elsewhere. Three completely different locales, with three different implementation dates, each seeing the same outcome following implementation.

If you doubt this, please visit the "Fallen Rider's" section of this website, or listen to traffic reports during rush hour.
Speeding does not equal accidents, a failure of one's skill as a driver does.

There is no such thing as a perfect rider or driver. Drivers and riders will fail more often than they might want to admit. Speeding reduces your margin of error recoverability and crash avoidance. It reduces your chances of reacting in time to the errors of others. Braking distance increases exponentially with speed, and increasing speed also makes it more difficult to deviate from your path to avoid something in front of you. When you do crash, speed makes the outcome more severe.

I have read the Fallen Riders section. I have also read the various police and media reports on most of the crashes in that section. Excess speed is a causation or aggravating factor in many of those crashes.

This is why we must drive and ride keeping a margin of recoverability available to us, whether to be able to avoid the crash altogether or to at least be able to mitigate the severity of crash if we can't avoid one.

 

[V-Tom]

The threat of a stunting charge has next to nothing to do with bad lane discipline. 15 Years ago people were doing the same thing, when I asked one of them why they drive like that they told me that they thought it was safer to drive in one lane without changing lanes all the time.

It has certainly been an issue for a long time, however my experience is that it has gotten much worse. I know that some of it is related to volume but see other things happening which make it worse. So bad that I generaly refuse to drive most of my commute on the 400 series in any kind of busy condition. My ideal commute to work for the last 11 years has been to take the 400 from hwy 9 down to hwy 7. Over the last two years I have avoided using the highway as much as practical and take Weston Rd or Jane street to Teston and then the 400 to 7. If you drive or ride it daily you will see that it seems to have gotten much worse.. the number of cars driving in the left lane has increased dramatically, few in the right lanes (but slow trucks holding things up there), and generally there are more clumps of cars being held up by others leading to driver frustration and resultant bad driving. It's interesting that in Montana, when the daytime speed limit was effectly non-existant,. that most cars didn't travel at speeds much different than before the law, but they tended to have better lane discipline and that seems to have reduced the number of crashes and fatalities.

..Tom

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Quite simply put and as I see it if we really want to be safer, on Ontario roads, then this obsession with speed enforcement has to be outgrown, in favour of enforcing all of the other moving violations that are already on the books. No new laws, based on politicized views. Just. What. Exists.

Forum Sponsor