There is a new ford commercial which shows an interior dash with avtouch screen interface. Having been using an iPad to type some of these blog postings I'm familiar with touch screens and their advantages and disadvantages.
One major disadvantage is a complete lack of any reference point. In my current car I don't even need to look down really to change the temperature or radio station. I can just reach over and feel the controls. This is completely impossible with a touchscreen. The driver must be focused on the screen at all times. Wouldn't this be considered distracted driving?
I realize that car makers want to one up each other to get an edge to sell more cars. But honestly I think cars should be coming with less crap in them not more.
Probably the only way we'll see the end of distracted driving is by the development of cars which drive themselves. This will probably strike fear into the heart of the driving enthusiast, however it is the only way to take human nature out of the equation.
The truth is we want all the extra stuff in cars. Most of us probably see driving a car as dead time, time that's being wasted until we get somewhere to do something. So we try to fill that dead time with something meaningful. Also with commute times in the gta well over an hour, entrepreneurs and contractors have a long time when no one can get a hold of them. This is what's made the cellphone so popular.
I personally like driving, and will be sad to see the day when my car starts driving itself. Although in all likely hood I and most people I know won't be able to afford to operate a car at that time... but if my car starts driving itself and is talking to other cars so that they all know what the other is doing then a large problem of driving is removed. Road rage would no longer exist. Well actually it probably will it's just that the cars occupants will be unable to act on their anger... Cell phones are no longer an issue, except for the cancers and degeneration of the human language and the global decline of social interaction and all that... Traffic may actually get better.
The one concern I have about a computer controlled car however is what happens when it locks up!?! I will probably avoid ones made by Microsoft.
Drive safe.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Removing Traffic Lights for safety and congestion?
Last year I heard about a town in Europe somewhere which removed its traffic lights at every junction and left it as completely uncontrolled with no signage or rules except don't hit anything or run over anything. Pedestrians motorcycles and cars were all given the same priority which made for no right of ways, every move was based on using a gap or opening to cross the intersection.
Naturally when I first heard about this, I was astounded that they would do this and had images in my mind of mass carnage. But the fact that I never heard anymore about this made me wonder if it had worked.
Having thought about the concept a little bit more since that time, its started to make more sense to me. Driving is one of the most social things we do all day. Whether we know it or not. We share the road with thousands of other road users daily and every action we take on the road usually ends up affecting at least a dozen people. Or in the case of a highway it can end up affecting hundreds. One of the things about cars is that they seem to isolate the driver from the rest of the world. When a driver closes the door to their car, they can tend to get into an observer mindset.
I've had this discussion with many people now. Especially about how drivers often only see other cars on the road, not other people. It's easy to forget that the little hatchback in front of you that's driving so irritatingly slow, could contain a young family with children.
I'm unsure of which town had removed its traffic lights which was my initial interest, however while reading up on the subject, I found a study done in a town called Portishead near Bristol England. Congestion was so bad at a particular junction that there was waits at the light for up to 20 minutes. In an attempt to relieve congestion they turned off the lights. The travel time went from 20 minutes to 5 minutes. It's been stated that the junction when the controls were in place took as many as 1700 cars and 300 pedestrian per hour with excessive delays. After they turned off the lights the junction takes over 2000 cars per hour and still 300 pedestrians with almost no delays. The test was so successful they've permanently removed the traffic signals. Its been running successfully for 8 months now with only 2 minor accidents and no pedestrian injuries.
ONE IMPORTANT NOTE. That is noted in the study is that blind people ignore the intersection, and that their concerns haven't been met yet.
Here's a 2 part video I've found on the subject which features the junction mentioned above.
In the video they only show the intersection after everyone is used to it. I'm curious as to how much adjustment time was necessary to successfully navigate it.
But when we think about this experiment it might be easy to forget that there's a very large population of people who live in areas which do not have traffic controls at every intersection.
Take this video for example.
The video doesn't state where this particular intersection is, however my guess would be Vietnam due to the amount of scooters. I looked up the crash fatalities in Vietnam and compared them to the crash fatalities in the United States. Vietnam actually had less fatalities per 100,000 people than the US did. Vietnam had 394 per 100,000 while the US had 449 per 100,000. In perspective Canada had less than both at 260 deaths per 100,000. These statistics are from the WHO website.
I'm not 100% for getting rid of all traffic signals. However I think it is a very good thing that drivers are forced to look at all aspects before entering an intersection. Drivers use pauses at intersections to concentrate on other things and then once the green light comes up they feel a security in knowing they have the right of way. When the traffic controls are taken away from them suddenly they are responsible for knowing whether they can get through the intersection or not.
Some food for thought.
Drive Safe.
Naturally when I first heard about this, I was astounded that they would do this and had images in my mind of mass carnage. But the fact that I never heard anymore about this made me wonder if it had worked.
Having thought about the concept a little bit more since that time, its started to make more sense to me. Driving is one of the most social things we do all day. Whether we know it or not. We share the road with thousands of other road users daily and every action we take on the road usually ends up affecting at least a dozen people. Or in the case of a highway it can end up affecting hundreds. One of the things about cars is that they seem to isolate the driver from the rest of the world. When a driver closes the door to their car, they can tend to get into an observer mindset.
I've had this discussion with many people now. Especially about how drivers often only see other cars on the road, not other people. It's easy to forget that the little hatchback in front of you that's driving so irritatingly slow, could contain a young family with children.
I'm unsure of which town had removed its traffic lights which was my initial interest, however while reading up on the subject, I found a study done in a town called Portishead near Bristol England. Congestion was so bad at a particular junction that there was waits at the light for up to 20 minutes. In an attempt to relieve congestion they turned off the lights. The travel time went from 20 minutes to 5 minutes. It's been stated that the junction when the controls were in place took as many as 1700 cars and 300 pedestrian per hour with excessive delays. After they turned off the lights the junction takes over 2000 cars per hour and still 300 pedestrians with almost no delays. The test was so successful they've permanently removed the traffic signals. Its been running successfully for 8 months now with only 2 minor accidents and no pedestrian injuries.
ONE IMPORTANT NOTE. That is noted in the study is that blind people ignore the intersection, and that their concerns haven't been met yet.
Here's a 2 part video I've found on the subject which features the junction mentioned above.
In the video they only show the intersection after everyone is used to it. I'm curious as to how much adjustment time was necessary to successfully navigate it.
But when we think about this experiment it might be easy to forget that there's a very large population of people who live in areas which do not have traffic controls at every intersection.
Take this video for example.
The video doesn't state where this particular intersection is, however my guess would be Vietnam due to the amount of scooters. I looked up the crash fatalities in Vietnam and compared them to the crash fatalities in the United States. Vietnam actually had less fatalities per 100,000 people than the US did. Vietnam had 394 per 100,000 while the US had 449 per 100,000. In perspective Canada had less than both at 260 deaths per 100,000. These statistics are from the WHO website.
I'm not 100% for getting rid of all traffic signals. However I think it is a very good thing that drivers are forced to look at all aspects before entering an intersection. Drivers use pauses at intersections to concentrate on other things and then once the green light comes up they feel a security in knowing they have the right of way. When the traffic controls are taken away from them suddenly they are responsible for knowing whether they can get through the intersection or not.
Some food for thought.
Drive Safe.
Friday, 20 May 2011
Hit and Run leaves former Baseball star paralyzed, but there is hope.
This story is all over the news today but it bothered me a bit. There was little background story on this particular person and I wanted to try and find out a little bit about him.
Rob Summers is a paraplegic. In the summer of 2006 he was hit by a car which hopped the curb and struck him. The driver of the car then sped away leaving him crippled on the ground. As a result of this collision, he was paralyzed from the waist down. Left to live life in a wheelchair due to someone's drunk driving, inattention whatever the case may have been for the driver.
Rob Summers was a baseball player for Oregon State University. He was a pitcher infact. He was on the 2006 All Star National Team. He was actually playing for the Aloha Knights during the 2006 offseason, in the period of time he was hit.
but he's recently made medical history. He was able to stand on his own for the first time since the accident. Doctors have installed a device which is able to stimulate his muscles to help him move and coordinate his lower body. He is now able to stand for short periods of time and move legs and toes on command. Doctors stress that this is not a cure, and may not work in all cases. There are 4 more trials planned with different patients to try and come up with a purpose built device to aid people in these types of cases. This research was funded by the Christopher and Diana Reeve foundation.
Rob Summers is a paraplegic. In the summer of 2006 he was hit by a car which hopped the curb and struck him. The driver of the car then sped away leaving him crippled on the ground. As a result of this collision, he was paralyzed from the waist down. Left to live life in a wheelchair due to someone's drunk driving, inattention whatever the case may have been for the driver.
Rob Summers was a baseball player for Oregon State University. He was a pitcher infact. He was on the 2006 All Star National Team. He was actually playing for the Aloha Knights during the 2006 offseason, in the period of time he was hit.
but he's recently made medical history. He was able to stand on his own for the first time since the accident. Doctors have installed a device which is able to stimulate his muscles to help him move and coordinate his lower body. He is now able to stand for short periods of time and move legs and toes on command. Doctors stress that this is not a cure, and may not work in all cases. There are 4 more trials planned with different patients to try and come up with a purpose built device to aid people in these types of cases. This research was funded by the Christopher and Diana Reeve foundation.
Hopefully this is a reminder to everyone that when we do something stupid behind the wheel, it doesn't always only affect ourselves.
Drive Safe.
Victoria day weekend OPP blitz.
Please remember folks. The OPP will be out like they always are looking for speeders, talking on cellphones etc.
Don't give them a reason to pull you over! Have a good holiday and drive safe.
I'll leave you with a view of Port Perry.
Don't give them a reason to pull you over! Have a good holiday and drive safe.
I'll leave you with a view of Port Perry.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Does videos of aggressive driving really affect peoples driving?
When I was little I remember seeing car commercials where cars were advertised for their performance. Not unlike today, its just that now a days the rules seem stricter on such advertising. Older adverts used to show cars carving down the road much more aggressively than commercials of today.
Take this commercial for a Ford Capri 2.8 from 1981.
During the advert the top speed of the car is listed as well as the tag line "it goes like..." with the ford emblem showing up and a lightingish sound. If this advert was modernized and applied in a similar way. I bet you it would be removed from the air almost immediately by advertising regulators.
Now I never thought when I was growing up that these commercials ever had any effect on me. After all I was growing up in an age when a popular tv show glorified jumping cars over random road works to escape the police.
As well as tv shows about cars with computers in them that shoot laser beams go insanely fast and can leap frog into the air at will.
But never once did I think that these cars ever actually existed or that it was a good idea to jump a car over a road works. Many people from my generation were exposed to the same shows and the same influences.
Shows like these don't really exist on TV anymore. Now they've been replaced by reality TV shows which are generally causing people to cancel cable in droves. But a more modern version of this type of driving influence can be seen on Youtube. Typing in keywords such as arab drift and crazy car into the search box will give you hours of viewing of people doing insane things on public roads. This is where youtube fails, since a lot of younger people will want to make their own movies of the insane things they do. As such we end up with such movies as.
Take this commercial for a Ford Capri 2.8 from 1981.
During the advert the top speed of the car is listed as well as the tag line "it goes like..." with the ford emblem showing up and a lightingish sound. If this advert was modernized and applied in a similar way. I bet you it would be removed from the air almost immediately by advertising regulators.
Now I never thought when I was growing up that these commercials ever had any effect on me. After all I was growing up in an age when a popular tv show glorified jumping cars over random road works to escape the police.
As well as tv shows about cars with computers in them that shoot laser beams go insanely fast and can leap frog into the air at will.
But never once did I think that these cars ever actually existed or that it was a good idea to jump a car over a road works. Many people from my generation were exposed to the same shows and the same influences.
Shows like these don't really exist on TV anymore. Now they've been replaced by reality TV shows which are generally causing people to cancel cable in droves. But a more modern version of this type of driving influence can be seen on Youtube. Typing in keywords such as arab drift and crazy car into the search box will give you hours of viewing of people doing insane things on public roads. This is where youtube fails, since a lot of younger people will want to make their own movies of the insane things they do. As such we end up with such movies as.
Drive safe folks
Do you know about *opp (*677)
If you've ever felt like reporting a driver on the highway to police but didn't think it required a 911 call. Just remember from your cellphone you can dial *opp (Which is *677) to be instantly connected to the opp. They'll simply ask you why you're calling ask you details about where you are and take your name and number. Your personal information will stay personal so no need to worry about anyone finding out you called the police on them.
Remember it for next time you see something like this
Remember it for next time you see something like this
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Tomorrows gas price today.
During the latest game of gas price hikes I came across an interesting blog. Tomorrowsgaspricetoday.com attempts to give you the next days gas price prediction for a given major Canadian city. But they also add an excellent extra feature of showing you last years price on the same day and also have a ripoff report which indicates what the real price of gasoline should be and what you're actually paying.
Soaring gas prices are responsible for changing the types of cars people drive and the distances they drive. Unfortunatly very few people are linking how aggressively they drove with increased fuel consumption.
Drive safe.
Soaring gas prices are responsible for changing the types of cars people drive and the distances they drive. Unfortunatly very few people are linking how aggressively they drove with increased fuel consumption.
Drive safe.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Ontario HTA 172 "Street Racing Law"
In 2007 Ontario, Canada passed Bill 203 - Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act.
As in common media and word of mouth its now very commonly known that one of the main parts of this law is vehicle impound and license suspension for 7 days for doing 50 km/h over the posted limit. This is one of the biggest concerns about this law, and even though I myself agree with trying to make roads safer I don't agree with this law simply for the lack of appeal process.
Written directly into the law is the ability for a law enforcement officer(LEO) to immediately impound your car and suspend your license for 7 days. Also with an HTA 172 charge comes a mandatory court date. Perhaps you weren't aware however if you were not found guilty of the offense in court you don't get any of your money back from the impound fees, which can be over $1000. You also don't receive any remuneration for your loss of license.
Here's the law as written as of the date of this posting.
You might think that this will never apply to you as you will never be caught speeding 50 km/h over the limit. This is probably true for a lot of people, they won't be affected by travelling that fast. However since the media has focused solely on the speed issue they have ignored the broader scope of the law. To see how it may affect you, you would have to look at the definitions of stunting.
You would find them in Ontario Regulation 455/07
As in common media and word of mouth its now very commonly known that one of the main parts of this law is vehicle impound and license suspension for 7 days for doing 50 km/h over the posted limit. This is one of the biggest concerns about this law, and even though I myself agree with trying to make roads safer I don't agree with this law simply for the lack of appeal process.
Written directly into the law is the ability for a law enforcement officer(LEO) to immediately impound your car and suspend your license for 7 days. Also with an HTA 172 charge comes a mandatory court date. Perhaps you weren't aware however if you were not found guilty of the offense in court you don't get any of your money back from the impound fees, which can be over $1000. You also don't receive any remuneration for your loss of license.
Here's the law as written as of the date of this posting.
Racing, stunts, etc., prohibited172. (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.Determining subsequent conviction(3) In determining whether a conviction is a subsequent conviction for the purposes of subsection (2), the only question to be considered is the sequence of convictions and no consideration shall be given to the sequence of commission of offences or whether any offence occurred before or after any conviction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.10-year limitation(4) A conviction that is more than 10 years after the previous conviction is deemed to be a first conviction for the purpose of subsection (2). 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 (5) (b). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Release of vehicle(8) Subject to subsection (15), the motor vehicle shall be released to its owner from the impound facility upon the expiry of the period of impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Early release of vehicle(9) Despite the detention or impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section, a police officer may release the motor vehicle to its owner before it is impounded under subsection (7) or, subject to subsection (15), may direct the operator of the impound facility where the motor vehicle is impounded to release the motor vehicle to its owner before the expiry of the seven days if the officer is satisfied that the motor vehicle was stolen at the time that it was driven on a highway in contravention of subsection (1). 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Duty of officer re licence suspension(10) Every officer who asks for the surrender of a person’s driver’s licence under this section shall keep a record of the licence received with the name and address of the person and the date and time of the suspension and shall, as soon as practicable after receiving the licence, provide the person with a notice of suspension showing the time from which the suspension takes effect and the period of time for which the licence is suspended. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Duty of officer re impoundment(11) Every officer who detains a motor vehicle under this section shall prepare a notice identifying the motor vehicle that is to be impounded under subsection (7), the name and address of the driver and the date and time of the impoundment and shall, as soon as practicable after the impoundment of the motor vehicle, provide the driver with a copy of the notice showing the time from which the impoundment takes effect, the period of time for which the motor vehicle is impounded and the place where the vehicle may be recovered. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Same(12) A police officer shall provide a copy of the notice prepared under subsection (11) to the owner of the motor vehicle by delivering it personally or by mail to the address of the owner shown on the permit for the motor vehicle or to the latest address for the owner appearing on the records of the Ministry. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.No appeal or hearing(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver’s licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Lien for storage costs(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Costs to be paid before release of vehicle(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Owner may recover losses from driver(16) The owner of a motor vehicle that is impounded under this section may bring an action against the driver of the motor vehicle at the time the vehicle was detained under clause (5) (b) to recover any costs or other losses incurred by the owner in connection with the impoundment. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Offence(17) Every person who obstructs or interferes with a police officer in the performance of his or her duties under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Intent of suspension and impoundment(18) The suspension of a driver’s licence and the impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section are intended to promote compliance with this Act and to thereby safeguard the public and do not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Impoundment concurrent with other administrative impoundments(18.1) The impoundment of a motor vehicle under this section runs concurrently with an impoundment, if any, of the same motor vehicle under section 41.4, 48.4, 55.1, 55.2 or 82.1. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (1).(19) Repealed: 2008, c. 17, s. 43.Regulations(20) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,(a) requiring police officers to keep records with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments under this section for a specified period of time and to report specified information with respect to licence suspensions and vehicle impoundments to the Registrar and governing such records and reports;(b) exempting any class of persons or class or type of vehicles from any provision or requirement of this section or of any regulation made under this section, prescribing conditions for any such exemptions and prescribing different requirements for different classes of persons or different classes or types of vehicles;(c) defining the terms “race”, “contest” and “stunt” for the purposes of this section. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Definition(21) In this section,“driver’s licence” includes a driver’s licence issued by another jurisdiction. 2007, c. 13, s. 21.Same(22) In this section and in section 172.1,“motor vehicle” includes a street car, a motorized snow vehicle, a farm tractor, a self-propelled implement of husbandry and a road-building machine. 2009, c. 5, s. 51 (2).Nitrous oxide fuel systems prohibited172.1 (1) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle;(b) there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel connected to that part; and(c) if the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is located inside the passenger compartment, there is no canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide in the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.Same(2) No person shall drive or permit to be driven on a highway a motor vehicle manufactured or modified after its manufacture such that nitrous oxide may be delivered into the fuel mixture unless,(a) the part of the fuel system that may connect to a canister, bottle, tank or pressure vessel capable of containing nitrous oxide is completely disconnected from the part of the system that connects to the engine;(b) the disconnection can be clearly seen by looking at the interior or exterior of the motor vehicle; and(c) the disconnected parts cannot be reconnected from inside the passenger compartment. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.Offence(3) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or to both. 2007, c. 13, s. 22.
You might think that this will never apply to you as you will never be caught speeding 50 km/h over the limit. This is probably true for a lot of people, they won't be affected by travelling that fast. However since the media has focused solely on the speed issue they have ignored the broader scope of the law. To see how it may affect you, you would have to look at the definitions of stunting.
You would find them in Ontario Regulation 455/07
Have you ever ran a yellow advanced green light to try and get in a left turn? With the above definition you could be found a street racer. Read the above carefully and understand that just because you've been getting away with certain behaviours on the highway doesn't mean it can't mean a whole lot of trouble for you. For the record I dislike HTA 172 due to the lack of appeals process and the broad powers given to police. BUT I'm not for street racing and stunt driving.ONTARIO REGULATION 455/07made under theHIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACTMade: June 27, 2007
Filed: August 15, 2007
Published on e-Laws: August 15, 2007
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: September 1, 2007RACES, CONTESTS AND STUNTSReport to Registrar1. (1) A police officer who requests, under clause 172 (5) (a) of the Act, that a person surrender his or her driver's licence shall, before providing the person with the notice of suspension required by subsection 172 (10) of the Act, report the request and the following information to the Registrar:1. The driver's name.2. If known, the driver's address, date of birth and driver's licence number.3. The date and time of the request.4. The location at which the alleged offence under subsection 172 (1) of the Act took place.(2) The report under subsection (1) shall be made by any form of telecommunication.(3) A police officer who has made a report under subsection (1) shall, as soon as practical after making the report, complete a form provided by the Registrar for that purpose and forward the completed form to the Registrar.Definition, "race" and "contest"2. (1) For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, "race" and "contest" include any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:1. Driving two or more motor vehicles at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed and in a manner that indicates the drivers of the motor vehicles are engaged in a competition.2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to chase another motor vehicle.3. 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 at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed,ii. outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed, oriii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed.(2) In this section,"marked departure from the lawful rate of speed" means a rate of speed that may limit the ability of a driver of a motor vehicle to prudently adjust to changing circumstances on the highway.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, oriv. 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(C) 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.Exceptions4. (1) Despite section 2, "race" and "contest" do not include,(a) a rally, navigational rally or similar event that is conducted,(i) under the supervision of the Canadian Association of Rally Sport,(ii) under the supervision of a club or association approved in writing by the Ministry, or(iii) with the written approval of the road authority or road authorities having jurisdiction over the highway or highways used;(b) motor vehicle owners engaged in a tour, scenic drive, treasure hunt or other similar motoring event in which the participants drive responsibly and in a manner that indicates an overall intention to comply with the provisions of the Act; or(c) an event held on a closed course with the written approval of the road authority having jurisdiction over the highway, including any event lawfully using any of the trademarks "CART", "Formula One", "Indy", "IndyCar", "IRL" or "NASCAR".(2) Despite sections 2 and 3, "race", "contest" and "stunt" do not include any activity required for the lawful operation of motor vehicles described in subsections 62 (15.1) or 128 (13) of the Act, or the lawful operation of an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1) of the Act.Commencement5. This Regulation comes into force on the later of the day section 21 of the Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act, 2007, comes into force and the day this Regulation is filed.
Thursday, 12 May 2011
Scooter with Father and Infant hit by car.
Here's a video that makes me cringe every time I see it. Not sure who was at fault but I'm just glad the kid was ok.
Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Simply wanted to share a great advert for buckling up. Actually there are alot of great adverts for buckling up, not talking on your cell phone, drinking or driving, watching out for motorcycles. But do they work? I'm not really sure.
There seems to be a certain shock factor involved in these videos when a viewer first views them but do they stick in the mind when someone is driving? Here is a UK anti texting and driving commercial.
Its a very graphic video and tragic in nature. But will you remember it when driving down the road. But more importantly will the person next to you remember it when driving down the road. It unfortunatly seems like an exercise in showing the after effects of actions people take, when the same people will probably take those actions anyways.
Here's a clip of someone texting next to me on the highway.
The driver of this car, looked up and saw my considerably larger vehicle. Then he looked back down to text again. He straddles 2 lanes for roughly 20 seconds, then once he's completed his text he returns to the center of his lane and speeds up. 20 SECONDS! thats an eternity when you're doing 100 km/h! And 100 km/h is considered slow on this highway! I'm just happy that no one is dead, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the driver of the vehicle didn't stop texting when they realized that their driving was severely compromised by it.
Perhaps one of the consequences of constant public reminder campaigns is a sense of desensitization and a feeling that yes this happens on our highways and roads, but only to other people. I don't mean to harp on people about their driving, but the reality of things is.
Please drive safe.
There seems to be a certain shock factor involved in these videos when a viewer first views them but do they stick in the mind when someone is driving? Here is a UK anti texting and driving commercial.
Its a very graphic video and tragic in nature. But will you remember it when driving down the road. But more importantly will the person next to you remember it when driving down the road. It unfortunatly seems like an exercise in showing the after effects of actions people take, when the same people will probably take those actions anyways.
Here's a clip of someone texting next to me on the highway.
The driver of this car, looked up and saw my considerably larger vehicle. Then he looked back down to text again. He straddles 2 lanes for roughly 20 seconds, then once he's completed his text he returns to the center of his lane and speeds up. 20 SECONDS! thats an eternity when you're doing 100 km/h! And 100 km/h is considered slow on this highway! I'm just happy that no one is dead, but I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the driver of the vehicle didn't stop texting when they realized that their driving was severely compromised by it.
Perhaps one of the consequences of constant public reminder campaigns is a sense of desensitization and a feeling that yes this happens on our highways and roads, but only to other people. I don't mean to harp on people about their driving, but the reality of things is.
You can spend a life time driving perfectly, but it only takes one mistake by you or someone else to end that lifetime.
Please drive safe.
Here's a simple video of an impatient driver who feels that traffic in the left lane should be moving faster. So he proceeds to move over two lanes in a single change (he does signal though), and pass on the right. Although I don't really agree with passing on the right, he doesn't do anything really wrong yet. Until he moves back left, which causes the hatchback in the middle lane to tap their brakes. The driver of the grey car then moves left another lane and puts himself between two close grouped cars in the left lane.
I think his actions were a bit dangerous for everyone on the road, and I don't agree with them. But would you believe that I understand his frustration. If we look at the road leading up to him catching up to the cars ahead of him. We'll see that all 3 lanes are travelling at about the same speed. This is a recipe for disaster in my personal opinion simply because people spend to much time in each other's blind spots when all lanes travel at the same speed, and North American drivers are not known for their diligent shoulder checks. On a typical day the right lane in the express will travel at roughly 100 km/h. Traffic in the middle lane of the express will be between 105 and 110 km/h because trucks use this lane and they are speed limited in Ontario to 105 km/h approx. Traffic in the left lane of the express will vary wildly however as sometimes it will be travelling at 130 km/h and sometimes slower than the other lanes as seen in this video.
I'm not saying that I think the left lane of traffic should always be cruising at 130 km/h, however I do believe that 120 km/h is a reasonable speed to expect in this lane. So in this case for the slow moving vehicles HTA 147.1 might apply. It reads
Notice how it doesn't define the legal speed limit but simply states that if you are moving slower than traffic at the time. However I don't feel the cars travelling in the left lane should have gotten tickets for being so slow, I just think they should speed up to complete their pass and then return to the middle lane and travel at the speed they want to travel.Slow vehicles to travel on right side147. (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).
As for the driver of the car that passed to the right, they actually fit into HTA 172 territory. Yes that infamous street racing law. You might ask, "How could they fit into that, they weren't racing or doing 50 km/h over the limit!"
However if you check the definitions for street racing in the Ontario laws (Ontario Reg 455/07 Races, Contests and Stunts), you will find inside the following definition.
iii. repeatedly changing lanes in close proximity to other vehicles so as to advance through the ordinary flow of traffic while driving at a rate of speed that is a marked departure from the lawful rate of speed. O. Reg. 455/07, s. 2 (1).
Do I believe he is guilty of a street racing offence? Not really....
But that's not up to me.
Drive Safe!
Monday, 9 May 2011
Shoulder Check Please. Twice!
Here is my first post on my blog where I both complain about people's driving, but at the same time try and justify their actions. It's not that I don't get upset when i see some genuinely bad driving. However I have to admit that after having spent many years and over 1 million kilometers on the road, it is simply not possible for a person to drive at 100% of their capacity 100% or the time. So as long as nobody dies, lets try and learn from other peoples mistakes.
There are many distractions on the roads which people have to deal with. However some distractions can be worse than others. Rain is a pretty bad distraction for most people as it can make it harder to see on a fast moving highway with over spray and if your wing mirrors are wet it can be hard to see out of them as well. Also paying attention to what other drivers are doing or attempting to do on the road can also be a considerable distraction.
In the particular case in the video above, the driver of the white sedan reacts to the dump trucks signal lights by braking. As they brake they decide to lane change to allow the truck over, they proceed to signal. Almost immediately after signalling they proceed to make their lane change, which forces an SUV to take an evasive action. The driver of the white sedan notices that they have pulled into the lane with the SUV, however they do not immediately pull back into their original lane. They allow room for the SUV to pass them and then apply brakes to pull in behind the SUV.
This whole situation seems to stem from the original mistake by the sedan driver. While attempting to accommodate the dump truck, they did not sufficiently check the lane next to them for approaching vehicles. I'm of the opinion that when the dump truck put on their signal it gave a slight swerve into the sedans lane. This caused a panic situation for the driver in which they thought the truck didn't adequately see them. Probably the more correct situation would have been to simply brake and make sure the truck was well ahead of them. However the sedan driver decided they would move into the left lane. The reason I think the driver was slightly panicked is due to the inadequate shoulder/mirror checking the driver performed. It's my opinion the driver did a quick single check to check for anyone in the lane. Which at that snapshot in time there was no one. However he should have noticed that there was an SUV in the lane behind him, which should have prompted a second shoulder check to gauge the speed at which the SUV was gaining on him.
The second part is when the car notices that the SUV is in his lane and does not immediately dive back into the lane he came from. In my opinion this was actually pretty smart of him. Once he saw the SUV next to him, he probably became target fixated. His brain did not let him move his eyes from the SUV for fear of hitting it, however in the back of his mind he knew that the dump truck has seen him move over. Without looking at where the dump truck was, the driver decided to stay in his lane. The fear of returning to his lane would be that the truck is already making its lane change and the driver of the sedan would crash into the side of it.
I wouldn't say that the driver of the sedan is a bad driver. I would say that he had a moment of bad driving. After the incident he merged back into the middle lane in heavy traffic just fine. It's funny how the mind can work when its pressed.
But in summary, Shoulder + Mirror checks should always be done at least twice to gauge the speed of traffic in the next lane. Especially when changing into the slow lane, because of the fact that many people use the slow lane to pass.
Safe Driving!
There are many distractions on the roads which people have to deal with. However some distractions can be worse than others. Rain is a pretty bad distraction for most people as it can make it harder to see on a fast moving highway with over spray and if your wing mirrors are wet it can be hard to see out of them as well. Also paying attention to what other drivers are doing or attempting to do on the road can also be a considerable distraction.
In the particular case in the video above, the driver of the white sedan reacts to the dump trucks signal lights by braking. As they brake they decide to lane change to allow the truck over, they proceed to signal. Almost immediately after signalling they proceed to make their lane change, which forces an SUV to take an evasive action. The driver of the white sedan notices that they have pulled into the lane with the SUV, however they do not immediately pull back into their original lane. They allow room for the SUV to pass them and then apply brakes to pull in behind the SUV.
This whole situation seems to stem from the original mistake by the sedan driver. While attempting to accommodate the dump truck, they did not sufficiently check the lane next to them for approaching vehicles. I'm of the opinion that when the dump truck put on their signal it gave a slight swerve into the sedans lane. This caused a panic situation for the driver in which they thought the truck didn't adequately see them. Probably the more correct situation would have been to simply brake and make sure the truck was well ahead of them. However the sedan driver decided they would move into the left lane. The reason I think the driver was slightly panicked is due to the inadequate shoulder/mirror checking the driver performed. It's my opinion the driver did a quick single check to check for anyone in the lane. Which at that snapshot in time there was no one. However he should have noticed that there was an SUV in the lane behind him, which should have prompted a second shoulder check to gauge the speed at which the SUV was gaining on him.
The second part is when the car notices that the SUV is in his lane and does not immediately dive back into the lane he came from. In my opinion this was actually pretty smart of him. Once he saw the SUV next to him, he probably became target fixated. His brain did not let him move his eyes from the SUV for fear of hitting it, however in the back of his mind he knew that the dump truck has seen him move over. Without looking at where the dump truck was, the driver decided to stay in his lane. The fear of returning to his lane would be that the truck is already making its lane change and the driver of the sedan would crash into the side of it.
I wouldn't say that the driver of the sedan is a bad driver. I would say that he had a moment of bad driving. After the incident he merged back into the middle lane in heavy traffic just fine. It's funny how the mind can work when its pressed.
But in summary, Shoulder + Mirror checks should always be done at least twice to gauge the speed of traffic in the next lane. Especially when changing into the slow lane, because of the fact that many people use the slow lane to pass.
Safe Driving!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)