Interesting interpretation of new speeding laws?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

When I got my licence the total cost of education and tests was ~$1200. If the cost of training and testing was $2,000 in BC, we'd be on par with many European countries. Driving is a privilege after all.

$1200, damn! Mine was only $500, yet that was 15 years ago. Good for you for taking it, yet I suspect it was only to reduce the period of your L and N, right? That a little motivation works.

Originally Posted by sebberry

I'm not pro-excessive speeding, but I don't think we need this law either.

We don't "need" it, yet there is nothing wrong with it. Sure it is a political ploy that the public accepted, yet for 99% of us (ie not the 10,000 charged with excessive speeding every year) this law is just fine.

Originally Posted by sebberry

And as for the price of driver education - ICBC is spending $20,000,000 to install new red-light cameras. By contrast, many places in the US have been removing them because a simple change to the timing of the yellow light is rendering the cameras unprofitable to run.

Twenty million dollars would provide a lot of driver education that would improve driver ability and safety far beyond how to deal with red lights.

No deflecting, this is a totally different discussion.

I agree, I don't like red light cameras either and the money would be better spent elsewhere. Meanwhile this new law doesn't encompass any additional spending, so there isn't any economic reason against it.

---

Rather than keep the back and forth going, how about you provide good reasons NOT to have this law. How would public safety be improved without this new law? How would the average driver (ie the 99%, not the 10,000 excessive speeders) benefit from not having this law? How wold not having this law benefit police officers (please don't focus on more drivers running from the law, is there anything else)?

[gars]

Red Light cameras are one thing I definitely agree with. I remember many intersections where I stand waiting for the bus, and within a 10 min period, I can see a few near-collisions due to people running red lights. You can educate people as much as you want, even change the timing, but there will always be the idiot that pushes the envelope and cause a collision.

and ICBC is spending the money on that, also because our system is really out of date. It's still a film system, meaning - people actually have to climb up there, grab the film, develop the film, then analyze it, as opposed to the new digital cameras that are being put in it's place.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by taylor192

$1200, damn! Mine was only $500, yet that was 15 years ago. Good for you for taking it, yet I suspect it was only to reduce the period of your L and N, right? That a little motivation works.

No, it was so I would know how to drive properly. I still use many of the techniques I learned then in my every-day driving.

---

Originally Posted by taylor192

Rather than keep the back and forth going, how about you provide good reasons NOT to have this law. How would public safety be improved without this new law? How would the average driver (ie the 99%, not the 10,000 excessive speeders) benefit from not having this law? How wold not having this law benefit police officers (please don't focus on more drivers running from the law, is there anything else)?

It's already illegal to drive at those speeds. People still do it. Street racing is already illegal and people still do it. Drinking and driving is already illegal and people still do it. The sorts of people these laws target are not the sort of people who think before they get into their cars "I better not race tonight, it is illegal".

Laws like this are to make the public feel good about the government's "commitment" to road safety, while at the same time diverting their attention from our lackluster driving education system.

It does the same thing for road safety that airport security does for safety in the skies. A hi-jacker doesn't need a knife to take a plane. Anyone with a decent chemistry background knows that a pretty powerful bomb can be made with the permitted quantities of liquid. It's security theater intended to make the average traveller feel safer on a plane but does little to deal with real threats.

Stunting and street-racing laws are a political tool to give the general public the warm and fuzzies. The same general public who would likely fail a class 7N road-test if they had to take one tomorrow.

As I mentioned before, the "stunting" components of these laws also gives the police jury and executioner powers which undermine the right to due-process that the judicial system so importantly provides.

Next time someone's pet runs into the road, I'll hit it. I don't want my swerve to be considered stunting.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by gars

but there will always be the idiot that pushes the envelope and cause a collision.

So you're saying nobody ever gets red-light camera tickets? Even with the cameras people push the envelope and cause collisions. If the cameras worked to stop people from running the red light, nobody would be getting tickets.

We have intersections here in Victoria that still make the top most dangerous list despite having the cameras.

[gars]

i'm a bit lost then. There are two reasons to have red light cameras. One is to try to prevent people from running the red light, because they are afraid of getting caught. The other is to catch people and punish them - hopefully preventing them from doing it again because it hurts them financially.

so are you saying that we should do away with the cameras because they don't seem to be doing a good enough job preventing people from running the light? should we stop policing this law because people will never listen and only focus on educating people on the dangers?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

It's already illegal to drive at those speeds. People still do it. Street racing is already illegal and people still do it. Drinking and driving is already illegal and people still do it. The sorts of people these laws target are not the sort of people who think before they get into their cars "I better not race tonight, it is illegal".

Laws like this are to make the public feel good about the government's "commitment" to road safety, while at the same time diverting their attention from our lackluster driving education system.

It does the same thing for road safety that airport security does for safety in the skies. A hi-jacker doesn't need a knife to take a plane. Anyone with a decent chemistry background knows that a pretty powerful bomb can be made with the permitted quantities of liquid. It's security theater intended to make the average traveller feel safer on a plane but does little to deal with real threats.

Stunting and street-racing laws are a political tool to give the general public the warm and fuzzies. The same general public who would likely fail a class 7N road-test if they had to take one tomorrow.

As I mentioned before, the "stunting" components of these laws also gives the police jury and executioner powers which undermine the right to due-process that the judicial system so importantly provides.

Next time someone's pet runs into the road, I'll hit it. I don't want my swerve to be considered stunting.

Not one positive benefit, only excuses. Please reread:

Rather than keep the back and forth going, how about you provide good reasons NOT to have this law. How would public safety be improved without this new law? How would the average driver (ie the 99%, not the 10,000 excessive speeders) benefit from not having this law? How wold not having this law benefit police officers (please don't focus on more drivers running from the law, is there anything else)?

Like it or not, this law is now on the books. Your excuses are not going to convince any politician to rally against it, nor the general public to denounce it. This is why you need a oositive benefit to rally behind, yet since you cannot find one, this law will stay on the books.

Now you can keep arguing and throwing out other examples of wrong doing, yet you're wasting your time and energy. Unless you can write a response that a politicians would support, your opinion will not be heard.

[sebberry]

See that's the problem, it is all political speak.

Of the over 2.9 million drivers in BC in 2006, 23 of them were killed by excessive speed.

If Mike de Jong had to sell his plan to the residents of BC, he's put it something like this:

"We're targeting dangerous driving and high speeds that causes death on our roads every year."

Of course everyone would cheer for that.

Now, let's say the same thing another way:

"We're targeting the 0.3% of drivers causing 0.000778% of all deaths on our roads"

The general public would probably say "yeh, whatever".


You don't like what I wrote because it doesn't match your personal belief system. Respect for due process is important to me and this law hurts it. Maybe you don't have a problem ending up in handcuffs in front of your house for growing tomatos and dhalias, but I do.

Unfortunately what may look like a stunt on the surface could be something else, but the police won't care about that as they call a tow truck.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by gars

i'm a bit lost then. There are two reasons to have red light cameras. One is to try to prevent people from running the red light, because they are afraid of getting caught. The other is to catch people and punish them - hopefully preventing them from doing it again because it hurts them financially.

so are you saying that we should do away with the cameras because they don't seem to be doing a good enough job preventing people from running the light? should we stop policing this law because people will never listen and only focus on educating people on the dangers?

A lot of people who speed have past speeding tickets.
A lot of people who drink and drive have past DUI convictions
A lot of people who run red lights have done it in the past too.

I know someone who got a warning for running a yellow light. For two weeks he slammed on the brakes at every yellow light for fear of getting ticketed. That's not safe either.

Better light timing prevents collisions and does so for a lot less than red light cameras.

[gars]

that still doesn't clarify your stance towards policing. You're saying that a lot of people who speed have past speeding tickets. are you saying that people are going to speed regardless of the law so we should stop caring less about them? because, according to statistics - it's such a small percentage of our population...?

or are you saying that our penalties aren't stiff enough, and as a result, people are repeat offenders - and that you agree with stiffer penalties to stop people from doing it again...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by gars

that still doesn't clarify your stance towards policing. You're saying that a lot of people who speed have past speeding tickets. are you saying that people are going to speed regardless of the law so we should stop caring less about them? because, according to statistics - it's such a small percentage of our population...?

or are you saying that our penalties aren't stiff enough, and as a result, people are repeat offenders - and that you agree with stiffer penalties to stop people from doing it again...

I'm saying we're creating the illusion of safer roads with too much policing and not enough education.

If ANY speeding offense (1km/hr over the limit and up) could result in a 7 day suspension, drivers would still be taking the risk. Street racing sometimes results in death yet people still engage in such acts. I'm not sure stiffer legal penalties will do much good.

Will you feel any safer or better protected on the roads because of these laws?

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Better light timing prevents collisions and does so for a lot less than red light cameras.

So does slowing down...

[gars]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Will you feel any safer or better protected on the roads because of these laws?

nope, I was taught to drive defensively so I will continue to do that. I do however feel happier knowing that the jackass driving like a bat out of hell gets what he deserves when he gets caught.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by jlenko

So does slowing down...

No need to tell me that, I have never had a speeding ticket. That being said, I am a firm believer that speed of travel should be at the discretion of the driver, within reason. My collision-free history is partly due to me being a "go with the flow" driver.

People are trusted to make decisions as to what is safe all the time. Is it safe to merge? Is it safe to proceed through this intersection? etc...

People are even entrusted to make safe decisions regarding speed of travel within the confines of the posted speed limit. What is wrong with them making a similar decision if the speeds are above the limit?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You don't like what I wrote because it doesn't match your personal belief system. Respect for due process is important to me and this law hurts it.

Unfortunately what may look like a stunt on the surface could be something else, but the police won't care about that as they call a tow truck.

I'm not a believer in "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" that people hide behind calling "due process".

Search this forum alone for how many people try to get out of tickets they are absolutely guilty of by finding loopholes in the system. The system is broken, people get off serious offenses too easily, so they are fixing it by making the punishment immediate.

Having lived through the same bill in Ontario I have yet to read a single person who got charged who did not deserve it. Most were speeding which is very easy to prove. The rest were obviously racing/stunting, cause no officer wants to go through that much paperwork for no good reason. For the few who will claim they were right at the limit, and deserved a 39kmph over vs a 41 kmph... well too bad, so sad. They know the punishment for being 40 over, and were obviously pushing the limits of that, so they gambled and lost.

Excessive speeding, racing, and stunting are very easy charges to determine and make stick. I don't think due process is needed for such extreme offenses. Neither does Germany, the country we hold as the model of driver education.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

What is wrong with them making a similar decision if the speeds are above the limit?

Noting is wrong with that. Yet good luck pushing that bill through. This is what you are missing, all your arguments may be great, yet if you cannot make them law, then what are you accomplishing other than being a complainer?

[sebberry]

You try and find someone capable of convincing the government that the citizens can think for themselves

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by sebberry

People are even entrusted to make safe decisions regarding speed of travel within the confines of the posted speed limit. What is wrong with them making a similar decision if the speeds are above the limit?

If people could be "trusted" to travel at a safe speed... then there would be no such thing as speed limits and officers to enforce them.

Just out of curiosity... what's your take on the 9/11 conspiracy there, Sebberry?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Will you feel any safer or better protected on the roads because of these laws?

Yes, because I'll know that every time a street racer gets busted, the roads will be a little safer without him on them for at least a week.... maybe more, if he learns his lesson.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You try and find someone capable of convincing the government that the citizens can think for themselves

Ah, so you don't understand socialism! Government plays babysitter cause society lacks common sense.

People cannot think for themselves otherwise everyone would sign up for driver education to become better drivers.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Yes, because I'll know that every time a street racer gets busted, the roads will be a little safer without him on them for at least a week.... maybe more, if he learns his lesson.

x2

The similar law in Ontario has slowed down a majority of the excessive speeders. Some will never learn, like MADD is finding out about DUIs, so there is a limit of what the law can do - yet Ontario has shown a similar law does reduce speed.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Yes, because I'll know that every time a street racer gets busted, the roads will be a little safer without him on them for at least a week.... maybe more, if he learns his lesson.

Your chance of being killed or injured by a street racer is microscopic compared to being killed or injured by someone who is simply not paying attention.

Removing street racers from the road does nothing to impact the regular dangers a driver encounters the majority of the time on the roads.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Ah, so you don't understand socialism! Government plays babysitter cause society lacks common sense.

People cannot think for themselves otherwise everyone would sign up for driver education to become better drivers.

By taking that approach, governments are creating a situation where people have become too conditioned to NOT think for themselves when they need to.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

By taking that approach, governments are creating a situation where people have become too conditioned to NOT think for themselves when they need to.

As I said, good luck pushing that Bill through. Most people recognize that some limits are neccessary and the government is the body to enact and enforce them. This is why the public is not denouncing this new law, cause most agree that 40 over is a good limit.

You can try to challenge it constitutionally like way done in Ontario, and they even won yet the law is still on the books.

This is here to stay. Instead of wasting time fighting it, save your time for the track.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Your chance of being killed or injured by a street racer is microscopic compared to being killed or injured by someone who is simply not paying attention.

Removing street racers from the road does nothing to impact the regular dangers a driver encounters the majority of the time on the roads.

A chance is a chance, and a law to reduce that chance is still helpful. Your argument is that there are better laws for politicians to pursue, not that this law is not beneficial - as you still haven't pointed out any positive impact for society of not having this law.

Deflecting won't work, the law is already on the books, you have to tackle it head on, which you seem unable to do.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Your chance of being killed or injured by a street racer is microscopic compared to being killed or injured by someone who is simply not paying attention.

Removing street racers from the road does nothing to impact the regular dangers a driver encounters the majority of the time on the roads.

Tell that to Irene Thorpe. Or Cst. Jimmy Ng.

By this logic, making automatic weapons illegal does nothing to impact the dangers of being shot in a gang war, because far more people are killed by hunting rifles and handguns.