|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Speaking of dumpster fires, Nathan Cullen hits the nail on the head in this interview. quote:Rosemary Barton: Why can't you ask all those values questions, and then ask a question about what people want? Uh...huh. I think they should replace question period with Rosemary just asking all the questions. I expect some obfuscation from politicians, because it's what they do, but this is pretty low effort.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:See jm20, you can't just kill someone with your car and got off scot free. You gotta pay a thousand bucks. Like most people who cry about how the system works, they tend to overlook things: quote:Justice of the Peace Lynette Stethem said two witnesses saw Taylor driving “faster than usual” but noted the court was unable to determine if she was speeding. There was no concrete evidence that said Taylor was violating the law. Of course, Taylor is a woman of colour and as a result there cannot be a level of bias here being exhibited towards her by the victims, jm20, or yourself, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Oh so it's totally great to annihilate a bus shelter with someone in it. edit: sorry a bus shelter with someone next to it BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:There was no concrete evidence that said Taylor was violating the law. She was driving on the loving sidewalk jesus christ oh you got me that just an excellent concrete pun, well done. quote:As she stood next to a bus shelter at Midland Ave. and Gilder Dr., Taylor in her 2007 Dodge Caravan suddenly veered off Midland, jumped the curb, smashed into a TTC bus pole, knocked a traffic control box off its concrete mooring and slammed into Erica.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Oh so it's totally great to annihilate a bus shelter with someone in it. So what's an appropriate prison sentence? quote:Stark said he would like to see fines of up to $50,000, significant driving bans and significant sentences of community service, rather than jail time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Uh...huh. I think they should replace question period with Rosemary just asking all the questions. I don't necessarily disagree with the Liberal's premise that Canadians are dullards who can't form coherent thoughts on complex issues, though. That's the real elephant in the room, you might say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure .arge fines for incidents like this serves a useful purpose to society. Punitive punishment seems to be rather ineffective overall, it's just putting bad after bad. Driving bans and community service are a great idea though. I'm not talking every other sunday for three months bullshit, either, I'm talking multi year commitments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:So what's an appropriate prison sentence? The penalty for causing death or injury with an automobile is way too low because we as a society have a serious car fetish. Even when straight-up drunk or impaired driving is involved we seem to chop the penalty down because a car is involved (versus other forms of heavy equipment). I'm not going to throw out specific numbers because I'm not qualified to and you're just going to say "haha gotcha, everything you're saying is invalid because you gave the wrong number"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I'd vote for any party that would implement "tough on crime" poo poo against killer drivers. Caught using your cell phone while driving or drunk driving? 1 year driving ban, minimum. Repeated offences? Longer or permanent bans. Drive while banned? Off to prison. Kill someone due to distracted or reckless driving? Sorry you've proven you're a mortal danger to others on the roads, find another transport method. Street racing and extreme speeding? Driving ban, car taken away. Couple this with much much stricter driver testing and instruction. A lot of the funding can come from confiscated sports cars! Oh also just make it illegal to drive cars with over X HP engines. If you want to go over the maximum highway speed limit you can buy a race car and store it at the track, cars are strictly for transport, not fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
I actually think prison should only be used for people who are actively dangerous anyway; we use it too much in ways that are purely punitive but don't really do a lot to prevent whatever happened to begin with. I'm not really sure fines do much either. I think killing someone with a vehicle is worth a very long (or even lifelong) driving ban because you clearly can't be trusted to operate one safely. If you're caught driving while under a ban, maybe that's when prison will be useful since you clearly can't be trusted to follow the ban and thus are a continued danger to everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I actually think prison should only be used for people who are actively dangerous anyway; we use it too much in ways that are purely punitive but don't really do a lot to prevent whatever happened to begin with. I'm not really sure fines do much either. If someone wearing very dark clothing runs out in front of me while I am driving down an inadequately lit street leaving me with very little time to react, how should I be punished?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd vote for any party that would implement "tough on crime" poo poo against killer drivers. Caught using your cell phone while driving or drunk driving? 1 year driving ban, minimum. Repeated offences? Longer or permanent bans. Drive while banned? Off to prison. Kill someone due to distracted or reckless driving? Sorry you've proven you're a mortal danger to others on the roads, find another transport method. Street racing and extreme speeding? Driving ban, car taken away. Couple this with much much stricter driver testing and instruction. A lot of the funding can come from confiscated sports cars! Oh also just make it illegal to drive cars with over X HP engines. If you want to go over the maximum highway speed limit you can buy a race car and store it at the track, cars are strictly for transport, not fun. You realize that larger engines increase acceleration, which can be beneficial to safety (for example, it's much easier to merge into traffic in a short distance if you can accelerate quickly), not necessarily top speed? Granted, a car with a tiny engine will top out pretty low, but any "normal" passenger vehicle in current production can go much, much faster than is safe to drive on a public road, regardless of its engine size. The problem is that, for one thing, speed limits just aren't enforced. I recently made a decision to stop speeding altogether, instead of "oh well, I can push it by 10 km/h in good conditions" that so many people do (and I used to), and it's literally insane how frequently I get passed in some very strange places too, while driving the speed limit. I got passed by a school bus in a construction zone while I was doing the speed limit -- that would signify, to me, there is something severely broken in our system of driver training, and traffic law enforcement. People are more likely to get a speed-on-green ticket due to going a few km/h faster than the limit by accident, than they are to get a ticket for doing 30 km/h over the limit on a highway or speeding in a construction zone, and that's clearly the result of a broken system that cares more about revenue generation than actual road safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
FTFY.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:If someone wearing very dark clothing runs out in front of me while I am driving down an inadequately lit street leaving me with very little time to react, how should I be punished? omg but what if a meteor hits the road in front of you and you ramp off of the shattered upturned road and do a sick corkscrew through a Shriner's convention. This is why we have courts instead of sending a Megacity One Judge to execute people on the spot but even in the most egregious cases the penalties are way too low.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:If someone wearing very dark clothing runs out in front of me while I am driving down an inadequately lit street leaving me with very little time to react, how should I be punished? Depends on what was reasonable for conditions. If you're on the Trans Canada Highway, it's not reasonable to expect a pedestrian to be in the roadway in the middle of the night. If you're driving through a commercial or residential area with lots of crosswalks, you should be going slow enough to see pedestrians and anticipate they might do something stupid. There's a stretch of road like that through Bowness in Calgary (poor visibility, tons of pedestrians, etc.) and my head is on a loving swivel when I drive through after dark, precisely because I know there's a distinct possibility of a pedestrian starting to cross the street without looking for traffic first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:If someone wearing very dark clothing runs out in front of me while I am driving down an inadequately lit street leaving me with very little time to react, how should I be punished? The same way you would be punished for causing any kind of traffic incident by not driving with appropriate caution given the circumstances. If the street is lit inadequately, you should be driving slowly, so that you have more time to react to unexpected events, like you would in any other circumstance with reduced visibility. You're the one directing 2+ tons of metal, the onus is on you to do so safely at all times. BattleMaster posted:omg but what if a meteor hits the road in front of you and you ramp off of the shattered upturned road and do a sick corkscrew through a Shriner's convention. You get an insane stunt bonus
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You realize that larger engines increase acceleration, which can be beneficial to safety (for example, it's much easier to merge into traffic in a short distance if you can accelerate quickly), not necessarily top speed? Granted, a car with a tiny engine will top out pretty low, but any "normal" passenger vehicle in current production can go much, much faster than is safe to drive on a public road, regardless of its engine size. everyone wants safer roads, but nobody wants to pay to enforce it; colour me surprised. but then if we DID, we'd get the "never a cop around when you need one, but always one to give you a ticket" arguments constantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Speaking of dumpster fires, Nathan Cullen hits the nail on the head in this interview. Holy poo poo this whole thing is really. loving. good. Seriously it's a bit long so if you can't check it at work set a reminder to come back to it later. I've heard you guys talk about Barton before but had never actually seen/heard her before. Where the hell is this kind of interview style in the rest of the media? What a breath of fresh air. Really loved the Liberal guy's strategy of saying nothing of substance at all and yet managing to do so for long enough that I was tempted to take a nap and forget about the whole thing. Nathan Cullen for Premier/PM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:There was no concrete evidence that said Taylor was violating the law. quote:when a Dodge Caravan swerved onto the curb, crashed through a bus stop and a traffic control box and hit her What does your version of the 'law' look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
1) Introduce extreme vetting of new would be drivers. 2) Implement strong law and order on our roads. 3) We will roll out a complete and total ban on drivers over the age of 80. 4) Introduce harsh driving penalties and mandatory minimum sentencing. No more WEAK laws. 5) Introduce a Safe Roads Task Force to crack down on the drunk, high, and texting scum that plague our roads. This is my five point plan to make our Canadian roads great again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:omg but what if a meteor hits the road in front of you and you ramp off of the shattered upturned road and do a sick corkscrew through a Shriner's convention. infernal machines posted:The same way you would be punished for causing any kind of traffic incident by not driving with appropriate caution given the circumstances. If the street is lit inadequately, you should be driving slowly, so that you have more time to react to unexpected events, like you would in any other circumstance with reduced visibility. Okay. Let's say I go 30 KM/h down a road limited to 50 KM/h and this still happens, you do realise that I'm still likely to kill that person? What I am saying is that not all vehicular deaths are the direct fault of the motorist, and I am saying this as someone who hates driving and would rather see all of downtown Vancouver limited to transit and foot traffic with bike lanes going everywhere and anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:would rather see all of downtown Vancouver limited to transit and foot traffic. This but the entire metro region
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
No see it was an accident. You can't be punished for an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:What I am saying is that not all vehicular deaths are the direct fault of the motorist, and I am saying this as someone who hates driving and would rather see all of downtown Vancouver limited to transit and foot traffic with bike lanes going everywhere and anywhere. quote:This is why we have courts instead of sending a Megacity One Judge to execute people on the spot
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
a fleshy snood posted:1) Introduce extreme vetting of new would be drivers. And nobody would vote for this government because as the TransLink plebiscite proved, motorists who identify with their cars are assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Retraining and testing needs to be a part of punishment for offences like these. This woman swerved up onto a sidewalk and killed someone and it's not apparent why. The Ontario licensing system already takes into account having to go through the graduated training program again depending on what you've done and the severity of your suspension and that's where I'd rather see the focus. Nothing I've seen in the papers about the sentencing in this particular case seems to mention retraining or even terms that would trigger retraining.That's terrifying. If a person is banned from driving for a year but then gets to get back in their car as if nothing happened while their skills have atrophied versus a person being able to drive right away but being bumped down to a G1 and having to be retested a few times, which one will ensure a better driver? Which one is better for society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
I'm going to build pedestrian walkways and the drivers will pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Retraining and testing needs to be a part of punishment for offences like these. This woman swerved up onto a sidewalk and killed someone and it's not apparent why. Also in this case the defense chose to only attack the investigation instead of try to explain that it was an accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Okay. Let's say I go 30 KM/h down a road limited to 50 KM/h and this still happens, you do realise that I'm still likely to kill that person?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
She knew the risks when she left the house that morning. She chose to stand near the road, without an impenetrable barrier between her and traffic, you can't blame drivers for such flagrant irresponsibility on her part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Arivia posted:I'm going to build pedestrian walkways and the drivers will pay for it. there you go
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
a fleshy snood posted:1) Introduce extreme vetting of new would be drivers. 6) Build a wall between Kitchener and Waterloo to keep the riff raff out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Sentence people to driving Dodge Caravans. forever
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
blah_blah posted:What does your version of the 'law' look like? For a lot of people "losing control of your vehicle" is just a thing that sometimes happens to drivers through little to no fault of their own. Maybe you took a corner too fast to try to make the next light, maybe you got distracted by your kid in the back seat, maybe someone was calling you on your phone and you were worried it was important and just wanted to see who it was from. Sometimes people die from this, but there's not much we can do (other than victim blame the poo poo out of anyone killed or injured by a driver). We just don't take driving seriously here. It's a thing everyone has to do, so no one can be disqualified from doing it. It's equal parts horrible entitled driving culture, poor training and enforcement, and horrible infrastructure that forces everyone to drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/CPAC_TV/status/806226514719232001
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Retraining and testing needs to be a part of punishment for offences like these. This woman swerved up onto a sidewalk and killed someone and it's not apparent why. Madness. She swerved onto the sidewalk going fast enough to do major damage. We don't know how it happened because she wouldn't say. We know that it wasn't a tornado or earthquake. Nobody else was in the car. One minute you're driving on the road, the next minute you're on the wrong side of a bus stop. How can that happen? No reports of David Blaine hiding in the bushes. Was she watching the road and it was deliberate? Let's take her word that it wasn't. It was unintentional and so it's a safe assumption that she wasn't looking where she was going. Because if she was looking where she was going, she wouldn't be on the sidewalk just like other people driving billions of miles a day. Driving a car without looking where you're going should be treated the same as blindfolding yourself and shooting a gun into a low density crowd, there's no reason good enough to justify either. She demonstrates a flagrant disregard for all the other human beings around her that can't be retrained or a level of stupidity that's demonstrably dangerous to society. Two years in jail or in nunavut, their choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:I'm not sure large fines for incidents like this serves a useful purpose to society. Punitive punishment seems to be rather ineffective overall, it's just putting bad after bad. This is it exactly. The problem isn't the low punishments - people making these decisions aren't acting rationally and won't consider the larger punishments - the problem is the general lack of enforcement of the rules we do have. People would be far more reactive to the distracted driving ban if there was a reasonable chance of getting handed a ticket for talking on your phone on any given day. That's why I always roll my eyes when people talk about police needing to hit quota or whatever. If that's what they needed, they could just stand at any intersection for 15 minutes and they'd catch a dozen people talking on their phones, and turning across multiple lanes. The Butcher posted:I've heard you guys talk about Barton before but had never actually seen/heard her before. Where the hell is this kind of interview style in the rest of the media? What a breath of fresh air. It can also be found on As It Happens; Carol Off is the original Rosemary Barton, but it's a shame she doesn't do exclusively politics. For all the poo poo that can rightfully be said about the CBC, it still has easily the best political coverage in this country, which is probably why so many people want to defund it. Cullen is on loving fire lately. Monsef is making it real easy though. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:46
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I'm starting to like this Cullen fellow. The Liberals really can't find their rear end with both hands on this one, eh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
motherfuckers, implement speed and intersection cameras everywhere. next, start taxing people by displacement. oh it won't work and will pose an unnecessary burden blah bla blha? yeah i guess that why they stopped doing that in europe
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Postess with the Mostest posted:Madness. She swerved onto the sidewalk going fast enough to do major damage. We don't know how it happened because she wouldn't say. We know that it wasn't a tornado or earthquake. Nobody else was in the car. One minute you're driving on the road, the next minute you're on the wrong side of a bus stop. How can that happen? No reports of David Blaine hiding in the bushes. Was she watching the road and it was deliberate? Let's take her word that it wasn't. It was unintentional and so it's a safe assumption that she wasn't looking where she was going. Because if she was looking where she was going, she wouldn't be on the sidewalk just like other people driving billions of miles a day. Driving a car without looking where you're going should be treated the same as blindfolding yourself and shooting a gun into a low density crowd, there's no reason good enough to justify either. She demonstrates a flagrant disregard for all the other human beings around her that can't be retrained or a level of stupidity that's demonstrably dangerous to society. Two years in jail or in nunavut, their choice. But again, what about after the You Don't Get to Drive portion of the sentence is over? Are you saying imprisonment and a lifelong driving ban? Because let's say she gets her two years full of dogsleds in Nunavut and then goes back to piloting SUVs around Scarborough and what will she have learned? Why wouldn't we assume she will be a worse driver than before?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 22:41
|
|