+- FocusCanada Forums (//www.focuscanada.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Regional (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Ontario (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+--- Thread: New Traffic Law (/showthread.php?tid=4662)
New Traffic Law - Oscar The Grouch - 09-30-2007
CanadaSVT,Sep 30 2007, 12:18 AM Wrote:As for around town I think 20 over should result in losing everything.
[right][snapback]249854[/snapback][/right]
That's a little harsh. I could expect that only in a school zone.
New Traffic Law - NikiterZTS - 09-30-2007
CanadaSVT,Sep 29 2007, 11:18 PM Wrote:[quote=naz,Sep 29 2007, 09:06 PM].
As for around town I think 20 over should result in losing everything.
[right][snapback]249854[/snapback][/right]
wow wow wow
slow down there turbo.....thats a bit too much in everyway
New Traffic Law - naz - 09-30-2007
CanadaSVT,Sep 30 2007, 04:18 AM Wrote:I honestly can say I've never had time to look at the speedo while on a track. Much too busy watching and listening to other things.
[right][snapback]249854[/snapback][/right]
i guess i've been lucky that the days i've gone haven't been that crowded. or maybe my stuff is so slow i always have time to glance at the speedo while on the straights :lol:
20kph over the limit and impound.. that IS kinda harsh but yea i bet that would stop speeding pretty darn quickly
New Traffic Law - CanadaSVT - 10-01-2007
naz,Sep 30 2007, 03:41 AM Wrote:20kph over the limit and impound.. that IS kinda harsh but yea i bet that would stop speeding pretty darn quickly
[right][snapback]249865[/snapback][/right]
When a little kid (or anyone not looking) comes darting out from behind a parked car or driveway he has less hope of surviving when the vehicles are travelling at 70+ in a 50 zone.
It's scary as hell when it happens :(
New Traffic Law - NOS2Go4Me - 10-01-2007
On arteries (boulevards, bypasses, major throughfares with 60KM/H+ speed limits), if you end up 20 over it's not that bad if traffic is flowing at that speed anyways. If the bleeding hearts don't like it, have them piss and moan at city council and the police station for greater enforcment.
On secondary/tertiary/residential areas, the most you should be allowed to do is 10 over. I've seen way too many close calls by assholes who need to rip it through residential areas for no apparent reason other than the fact the road is nothing more than a shortcut to them.
New Traffic Law - P-51 - 10-04-2007
NefCanuck,Sep 29 2007, 03:16 AM Wrote:Doing 150km/h on a 400 series highway is insanity anyways.
Even if the road is clear enough ahead, conditions can and do fluctuate rapidly enough that its a reckless thing to do.
Doing 50 over on any other type of road? C'mere so I can whack you over the head with my cane for being a brain dead MORON!
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]249804[/snapback][/right]
Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys have ever left the GTA. The world doesn't end at Oshawa. I've been up to 220 before, with no issue whatsoever. Not that I think it's terribly safe or smart. But I wasn't endangering anybody else but myself.
The speed limit outside of city limits should be raised to 120, and rigorously enforced starting at 130. I fall asleep cruising at 115 outside city limits.
I'm more worried about my commute, along Hwy2. Speed limit is 80, I set the cruise at 95-98 like most people. What if my speedo is a little slow, actually doing 101. I get into Grafton, speed limit drops to 50... oops, I'm a little slow clicking off the cruise (was too busy actually looking for traffic, pedestrians, etc) Charged with street racing! That's retarded.
And the fact is, vigorous enforcement of excessively slow speed limits does not make the roads safer. It results in people not being serious about driving, and doing other distracting things. Talking on the phone, playing with the radio, etc. The facts are the facts. Speed doesn't kill. Bad drivers do.
New Traffic Law - ZX5focused - 10-05-2007
guys there is alot more to this new law then jsut the 50 km/h over.
this new law is giving the police officer too much power. i agree that anyone caught racing or speeding that excessively should be punished to full extent, i am jsut scared that police are going to start charging "stunting" offences for things that arent covered under these new laws.
here are all the new laws and regulations. i suggest everyone read them fully and understand them in case you ever get pulled over for something "stunting":
Quote:Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited
172. (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle on a highway in a race or contest, while performing a stunt or on a bet or wager. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Offence
(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both, and in addition his or her driver's licence may be suspended,
(a) on a first conviction under this section, for not more than two years; or
(B) on a subsequent conviction under this section, for not more than 10 years. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Police to require surrender of licence, detention of vehicle
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and
(B) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (B). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day licence suspension
(6) Upon a request being made under clause (5) (a), the person to whom the request is made shall forthwith surrender his or her driver's licence to the police officer and, whether or not the person is unable or fails to surrender the licence to the police officer, his or her driver's licence is suspended for a period of seven days from the time the request is made. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
Administrative seven-day vehicle impoundment
(7) Upon a motor vehicle being detained under clause (5) (B), the motor vehicle shall, at the cost of and risk to its owner,
(a) be removed to an impound facility as directed by a police officer; and
(B) be impounded for seven days from the time it was detained under clause
******************************************
Definition of STUNT DRIVING
Few interesting sections, for the stunt driving!!
3 (2) wheelies on a MC
3 (6) Driving while not in the driverââ¬â¢s seat (postal deliveries?)
3 (7) 50km above limit
8 (iv) turn left on a solid green
**********************************
Ontario Regulation 455/07
Definition, "stunt"
3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "stunt" includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:
1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.
2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.
3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.
4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.
5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.
6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver's seat.
7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.
8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,
i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,
ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver's sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,
iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or
iv. making a left turn where,
(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;
(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and
© the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3
New Traffic Law - Oscar The Grouch - 10-05-2007
ZX5focused,Oct 4 2007, 10:57 AM Wrote:Quote:Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited[right][snapback]250184[/snapback][/right]
(5) Where a police officer believes on reasonable and probable grounds that a person is driving, or has driven, a motor vehicle on a highway in contravention of subsection (1), the officer shall,
(a) request that the person surrender his or her driver's licence; and
(B) detain the motor vehicle that was being driven by the person until it is impounded under clause (7) (B). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.
This is the part that pisses me off the most. Fricken reasonable is sooo loosely termed.
New Traffic Law - NefCanuck - 10-05-2007
P-51,Oct 4 2007, 08: Wrote:NefCanuck,Sep 29 2007, 03:16 AM Wrote:Doing 150km/h on a 400 series highway is insanity anyways.
Even if the road is clear enough ahead, conditions can and do fluctuate rapidly enough that its a reckless thing to do.
Doing 50 over on any other type of road? C'mere so I can whack you over the head with my cane for being a brain dead MORON!
NefCanuck
[right][snapback]249804[/snapback][/right]
Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys have ever left the GTA. The world doesn't end at Oshawa. I've been up to 220 before, with no issue whatsoever. Not that I think it's terribly safe or smart. But I wasn't endangering anybody else but myself.
The speed limit outside of city limits should be raised to 120, and rigorously enforced starting at 130. I fall asleep cruising at 115 outside city limits.
I'm more worried about my commute, along Hwy2. Speed limit is 80, I set the cruise at 95-98 like most people. What if my speedo is a little slow, actually doing 101. I get into Grafton, speed limit drops to 50... oops, I'm a little slow clicking off the cruise (was too busy actually looking for traffic, pedestrians, etc) Charged with street racing! That's retarded.
And the fact is, vigorous enforcement of excessively slow speed limits does not make the roads safer. It results in people not being serious about driving, and doing other distracting things. Talking on the phone, playing with the radio, etc. The facts are the facts. Speed doesn't kill. Bad drivers do.
[right][snapback]250180[/snapback][/right]
Here's the problem, for every driver that can potentially handle excessive speed (Both in terms of driver ability and vehicle ability which is an important distiction) there are drivers that can't whether it be because they don't have the skills or their car is a POS.
Now, would stricter licensing and stricter monitoring of vehicle conditions help deal with this issue? Absolutely, no question about it, heck, I'd be in favour of every two years requiring cars to be recerftied as being road worthy (and I'm not talking Drive Scam or the ridculously simple to pass Safety Standards Certificate but a real mechanical fitness test)
BUT
You're still left with a basic physics problem:
Force = Mass * Acceleration
and frankly that's the underlying issue... even if you drive a Volvo, fior example and can walk away from driving into something at 200+ km/h unharmed. Who's to say that what you hit is that lucky? :ph34r:
NefCanuck
New Traffic Law - P-51 - 10-05-2007
Nef, I agree with you except for one important point: Good drivers hit less things, so your equation is irrelevant.
Dumbing down driving with excessively low speed limits reduces overall driver competency. That's where we're headed.
Did you guys know that they intend to pass (or already have) a law requiring all cars to have adaptive cruise control that is always on. That's right. You won't be ABLE to tailgate, the car won't let you. They will restrict you to 2 second gaps. This will cause traffic chaos, as older cars without the system constantly cut into your space, causing your car to decelerate.
It will also take away one more thing from drivers. Now our only responsibility will be to "keep it between the lines". We'll be able to play racing games on our PSP's while driving. ;)
New Traffic Law - NOS2Go4Me - 10-05-2007
His equation IS relevant, because bad drivers hit things indiscriminately... good drivers, other bad drivers, innocent pedestrians and even inanimate objects.
As for adaptive cruise control... linkage to the legislation? I don't see how they can intro that without fanfare or public outcry.
New Traffic Law - P-51 - 10-05-2007
The cruise control thing may be a US regulation, but we'll get it too just because.
You do know stability control will be mandatory... 2009 or 2010 I believe? On ALL cars.
New Traffic Law - Flofocus - 10-05-2007
NOS2Go4Me,Oct 4 2007, 03:02 PM Wrote:I don't see how they can intro that without fanfare or public outcry.
[right][snapback]250193[/snapback][/right]
What country do you live in?
New Traffic Law - ZTWsquared - 10-05-2007
I agree with your assessment but I also think you've got it backwards. Excessively low speed limits do not make incompetent drivers - incompetent/stupid/dangerous drivers prevent speed limits from being what they should be.
The fact is that punitive measures are relatively ineffective in terms of creating a change in behaviour - that's why governments are looking to technical innovation to create change - everything from breathalyser interlocks to TPMS to adaptive cruise control to night vision cameras to --- well you name it ... will be considered in lieu of well trained, intelligent, considerate drivers and vehicle owners - because the bottom line is we don't have too many of those on our roads these days and things haven't improved in 4 decades.
And why? Because the vast, vast majority of so called "accidents" are no accident at all - they are predictable and preventable collisions ... and they take the life of 2800 people and cost the economy $25 to $30 billion every year.
We did this to ourselves folks - by not making it a lot harder to get a license ... by not making it socially unacceptable to do things like taillgate, pass on the right, pop wheelies 2 feet from the sidewalk or at 160 kph on the highway, or race on the streets ... by not eliminating drinking and driving ... by not demanding a much higher standard of behaviour on our roads.
The vast majority of Canadians don't give two shiites about driving enthusiasts - and will gladly accept any government intervention that they think gives them a better chance of surviving the daily commute.
And now it's too late - because it's a lot simpler, a lot faster and a lot less expensive for governments to legislate the technology than to change human behaviour - because the technology is relatively cheap and capable of getting the "job" done - and drivers as a whole have demonstrated time and again that we don't want to change.
P-51,Oct 4 2007, 02: Wrote:Dumbing down driving with excessively low speed limits reduces overall driver competency. That's where we're headed.
Did you guys know that they intend to pass (or already have) a law requiring all cars to have adaptive cruise control that is always on. That's right. You won't be ABLE to tailgate, the car won't let you. They will restrict you to 2 second gaps. This will cause traffic chaos, as older cars without the system constantly cut into your space, causing your car to decelerate.
It will also take away one more thing from drivers. Now our only responsibility will be to "keep it between the lines". We'll be able to play racing games on our PSP's while driving. ;)
[right][snapback]250192[/snapback][/right]
New Traffic Law - naz - 10-09-2007
P-51,Oct 4 2007, 07: Wrote:The cruise control thing may be a US regulation, but we'll get it too just because.
You do know stability control will be mandatory... 2009 or 2010 I believe? On ALL cars.
[right][snapback]250199[/snapback][/right]
what happens to people who have older cars? scrap or retrofit?
New Traffic Law - ZTWsquared - 10-09-2007
Probably grandfathered ... I think he means all new cars sold.
naz,Oct 8 2007, 08:50 PM Wrote:P-51,Oct 4 2007, 07: Wrote:The cruise control thing may be a US regulation, but we'll get it too just because.
You do know stability control will be mandatory... 2009 or 2010 I believe?ÃÂ On ALL cars.
[right][snapback]250199[/snapback][/right]
what happens to people who have older cars? scrap or retrofit?
[right][snapback]250426[/snapback][/right]
New Traffic Law - andrewned - 10-10-2007
P-51,Oct 4 2007, 09: Wrote:And the fact is, vigorous enforcement of excessively slow speed limits does not make the roads safer. It results in people not being serious about driving, and doing other distracting things. Talking on the phone, playing with the radio, etc. The facts are the facts. Speed doesn't kill. Bad drivers do.
[right][snapback]250180[/snapback][/right]
You are damn right !!!
New Traffic Law - andrewned - 10-10-2007
Just another cash grab!
Police have seized around 400 vehicles already. So it's 400*7K is almost 3 MILLIONS !
Just give them a chance, youââ¬â¢ll get more stupidity soon. Everything will be considered ââ¬Åstreet racingââ¬Â. Last spring I was charged for racing 8 Km over the speed limit just around my house in Oakville. Itââ¬â¢ll be called ââ¬Åcurb racingââ¬Â.
What a surprise - my girlfriend is a "stunt driver" now. She spins her wheles in a rainy day sometimes !
Certainly itââ¬â¢s easier to catch people who speed than any other offenders.
But what is more dangerous ââ¬â driving fast or driving badly/stupidly/.. (no turn signals and son on)ââ¬Â¦..
It'll not take long before this law will be abused.
I'll go put more stones in my trunk in order not to lift or spin any of my wheels.
New Traffic Law - ZTWsquared - 10-10-2007
You're missing the point - the police don't actually get to keep and sell the cars - they store them for 7 days and then they go back to the owner.
If anyone thinks this is a cash grab you've missed the very salient point of the timing - this is an election issue which means it's important to voters.
And further to theory that increasing the speed limit will somehow make people magically smarter and better drivers is frankly nuts.
No speed doesn't kill. I've driven extensively throughout Europe and I know how that works. High speed limits in Europe work because the drivers are smarter, better trained, and more disciplined - they're safer drivers because they're safer drivers - not because the speed limits are higher.
Their license is something that was hard to get and of tremendous value - it's a priviledge that most work hard to keep. The opposite it true here.
This is the fact ... bad/stupid drivers are more dangerous at higher speeds than they are at lower speeds - and if you know anything about mass and force and reaction times you know why.
And for you conspiracy theorists out there, bear this in mind ... the vast majority of Ontarians support this law and its intent.
There is no one more disappointed than me that we can't legally drive at 130 or 140 kph. But as I said in the other thread, it's our fault for letting things get to this point.
As to your charge of 8 kph over, how'd you do in court?
andrewned,Oct 9 2007, 09:56 PM Wrote:Just another cash grab!
Police have seized around 400 vehicles already. So it's 400*7K is almost 3 MILLIONS !
Just give them a chance, youââ¬â¢ll get more stupidity soon. Everything will be considered ââ¬Åstreet racingââ¬Â. Last spring I was charged for racing 8 Km over the speed limit just around my house in Oakville. Itââ¬â¢ll be called ââ¬Åcurb racingââ¬Â.
What a surprise - my girlfriend is a "stunt driver" now. She spins her wheles in a rainy day sometimes !
Certainly itââ¬â¢s easier to catch people who speed than any other offenders.
But what is more dangerous ââ¬â driving fast or driving badly/stupidly/.. (no turn signals and son on)ââ¬Â¦..
It'll not take long before this law will be abused.
I'll go put more stones in my trunk in order not to lift or spin any of my wheels.
[right][snapback]250554[/snapback][/right]
New Traffic Law - andrewned - 10-10-2007
[quote=ZTWsquared,Oct 10 2007, 07:38 AM]
You're missing the point - the police don't actually get to keep and sell the cars - they store them for 7 days and then they go back to the owner.
....
There is no one more disappointed than me that we can't legally drive at 130 or 140 kph. But as I said in the other thread, it's our fault for letting things get to this point.
As to your charge of 8 kph over, how'd you do in court?
[quote=andrewned,Oct 9 2007, 09:56 PM]Just another cash grab!
You're right:
First offence ââ¬â car is yours in 7 days but from 2k to 10K is theirs! That what Iââ¬â¢ve count as 3 Millions as of yesterday!
Second offence ââ¬â car is GONE! And you license is GONE for 10 Years (if Iââ¬â¢m not mistaken!)
Ant this is happening in the country where you can not survive without the car.
No license for 10 years ââ¬â itââ¬â¢s a 10 years house arrest !!!
______________________________________________
I am not against for punishing bad/dangerous behavior on the roads. There should be the limits for bad driving and for punishment also!
And again and again ââ¬â too much power in someoneââ¬â¢s hands was never a good idea.
About majority ââ¬â Iââ¬â¢m sure that majority just missed this law when it was proposed or ignored it or didnââ¬â¢t care as never though about circumstances. By the way communist revolution was also made by majority. Was it a good thing that was thought over?
And for my 8 km over ââ¬â I was stupid enough not to pursue it in the courtââ¬Â¦ Just paid it, yes, stupid. And now Iââ¬â¢m marked as a ââ¬Åspeederââ¬Â cause I was "charged", what a ââ¬Â¦..