Hey, Cannuck- I know Bear has the fault of being overly subtle at times but I've been detecting a hint or two from him to you, you might want to take a look at. :smile:
Alberta passes .05% law that was just declared unconstitutional in BC
- Thread starter PoliticalNick
- Start date
The RCMP in the Northwest Territories of Got the law figure out N.W.T. Mountie found not guilty of drunk driving - North - CBC News
This is like a bad soap opera
This is like a bad soap opera
If anything, multi-tiered speed limits should make the road less safe. Uniform speed of all vehicles would be preferred.
Without searching the net, I would say yes (because I see no reason to believe it would be any different than Canada) but as I said, having varying speeds of vehicles on a given stretch of road is more hazardous. It's one of the reasons slow moving vehicles use hazard lights.
I reiterate, my link, does not supports JLM's position. Whether or not you think so
Didn't miss it. Can't be bothered to search for it. If you have a point maybe you should just make it.
CB is a fool. He thinks having vehicles traveling on a highway at varying speeds makes for a safer highway. A simple drive down Alberta Hwy #3 during harvest shows that he clearly has no idea what he is talking about (surprise surprise).
Did you check out any of links I supplied as requested?
As you well know, some of us have been known to have brushes with the authorities on our way home from a social session over the years. Well, I’ve done something about it.
A couple of nights ago I was out for a few drinks with some chums and had a few too many. Knowing full well I may have been slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before -- I took a bus home.
I arrived home safely and without incident, which was a real surprise since I had never driven one before.
;-)
A couple of nights ago I was out for a few drinks with some chums and had a few too many. Knowing full well I may have been slightly over the limit, I did something I've never done before -- I took a bus home.
I arrived home safely and without incident, which was a real surprise since I had never driven one before.
;-)
The seniors included in that group can be in their 80s or even 90s, which of course doesn't help the group as a whole. Seniors demographically start at age 65 (55 in some instances) . I see people trying to drive quite often who have very few of their faculties left and shouldn't be anywhere near the drivers seat of a vehicle, and I wouldn't be comfortable if they even drove one mile a year. But from the statistics, to surmise a person 65 or even 75 is less safe than the rest of the population is pure nonsense. Not only that older people often have enough sense to limit their driving. My sons for instance will drive down town 6 times a day for some reason on a whim, I might drive down town once a day - if I have a 3 P.M. dental appointment, I will save everything until then and do it all at once- so actually older people on average are safer because they are more sensible. :lol:
Have you considered limiting the amount YOU drive?
...statistically speaking senior citizens.
You can make all the justifications you want but the simple reality is that the stats show that seniors are worse drivers than the young kids and only have a lower accident rate because they don't drive as much. Do you think it may be time to, in your words, "tighten the screws". Maybe we can pass a law that seniors are not allowed to drive during rush hour. I'm sure that would help. No night time driving for you could definitely make things safer. We could get the cops to crack down on people that leave their signal light on for three days. I'm sure you would be in favour of these measures as it only targets the worst drivers (statistically speaking)
Let me make sure I have this straight because "seniors" include all people between age 65 and 110 who are driving and as a group have an inferior record, that means an individual, 66 years old should have his driving curtailed without doing any individual checking? Do I have that right? F.Y.I. there are people well into their 70s driving semi trailers 14 hours a day. Should they be taken off the road?
Let me make sure I have this straight because "under thirty" include all people between age 16 and 30 who are driving and as a group have an inferior record, that means an individual, 29 years old should have his insurance jacked up without doing any individual checking? Do I have that right?
What's good for the goose as they say. You don't seem to like it much when the shoe is on the other foot.
You don't think tailgating, failing to yield etc. are black and white?
Actually you make a good point. But how do you pass a law that singles out certain impaired drivers? All drivers are at risk for having an accident and I just don't feel it's in anyones best interest to have one while impaired even though the impairment may have nothing to do with the accident. Also I think the impaired's chances are greater of having an accident than when he/she is not impaired. When passing laws you can't pass them for certain individuals. When granting drivers licences you can issue them according to the qualifications of the individual. :smile:
I have to chime in on this. As a professional driver I would say that as a group seniors and new drivers are about equal as dangers on the roads.
To directly answer you JLM there should be mandatory medical and vision/hearing tests once a year starting at age 65 and increasing to twice a year at age 70 and going to every quarter at age 75. We know that once a person passes into senior status the chance to develop many illnesses that would impair judgment or physical ability increase exponentially as the years pass so I want to know they are being monitored closely.
Now new drivers and those under the age of 22 are another bad lot so lets make the age for obtaining a DL higher...say 18 or 19. We should also require every new driver, regardless of age, to pass a language test (I have heard the excuse many times of "i couldn't read the sign") and participate in professional driving education until they pass with 95% or higher. There should also be a federal system like BC uses for new drivers where they have to display an L or an N depending on their status to warn other drivers they are new. There should also be restrictions on when and where a person may drive until they prove they have enough experience.
Good points, Nick. I too have a problem with the signs. They never should have switched from text to graphic. Make it compulsory for anyone getting a drivers license that they can read and understand the prevaling language in the area and then post all signs in that language. Years ago I encountered a picture of a guy swinging a golf club, so naturally was alert for a golf ball entering the right of way, but much to my chagrin later came to the conclusion the sign was just advertising the golf club. I have had a drivers license for almost 50 years and have not once been called in for testing. My sight and hearing are OK but I've no clue about my reaction time............I just suspect it is more than adequate.
Cannuck just happens to think we should all drive a highway at the same speed (meaning that because he likes to drive at 120 khm., I should). I would suggest that one who drives at 120 isn't anticipating any unforseen events. I might choose to drive at 90 anticipating a person suddenly rolling onto the highway off an access on a bicycle. People who persistantly drive over the posted limit might be better off leaving 10 minutes earlier. :smile: Why is it when some people get into a car half (or 3/4) of their brain suddenly goes dead?
Seems you have overlooked a large number of the population that are younger than 65 but have serious medical problems.