Keeping Calgary's roads safe!! (motorcyclist / snowcatxx87/scat thread)

[japan_us]

Originally posted by Toma
I never said what he did was right. If I was the pedestrian, I probably woulda clothes lined him lol.

But this is after the fact, and if we are gonna speculate "what coulda happened", then my scenario is just as likely as the others lol. ie, the pedestrian is alive today cause of SCAT!

^ I don't believe that to be true. If the pedestrian were playing chicken with rush hour traffic, then maybe a close call would serve up a lesson. But, this is a situation where someone decided to cross a (seemingly) deserted street in the middle of the night - something that many others would also do - and got buzzed by a rider whose intent was obvious. The jaywalker is likely just thinking the same thing that most others are, which is that what's-his-face was just being a dick.

Legal or not, what the walker did would be considered the norm. What the rider did, definitely isn't. For that reason, I doubt very much that the encounter has curbed the jaywalker's ways. Realistically, the situation probably just angered him and if there is a next time, he'll probably do what you would do: clothesline the fukker.

I didn't see a jaywalker "asking for it" in that video, so Shat likely didn't save him from anything. All he did was piss him off IMO.

[FixedGear]

a pipe through the front spokes would be even better than a clothesline

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by Toma

No, not worth the odds in my opinion. A million drunks drive home and don't kill anyone.

Let me put it like this since you are a chronic speeder.

Speed is a factor in almost the same number of deaths as alcohol.

Yet speeding is not a criminal offence.

Since speeding is clearly dangerous for the children (and your family), would you support them installing fleet monitors in every car, and then the cops having random checkstops to download the data log, and criminally charge everyone that has gone over the limit. Then, if you tamper with your recorder or refuse to provide it, they could also criminally charge you with "refusal". Seize your car, throw you in jail.

Think of the Children.

This is, in my opinion, a solid argument.

[Shlade]

He should be getting paid for all the views in this thread as well since you guys are making him famous on here.

[DEATH2000]

Originally posted by Shlade
He should be getting paid for all the views in this thread as well since you guys are making him famous on here.

If convicted of a traffic offense as a result of the videos he posted, Youtube has the right to immediatley suspend all income from his views. They don't condone illegal activity, and that video is now evidence against him.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE


This is, in my opinion, a solid argument.

That isn't a solid argument in the least. When you look at this based on the entire picture instead of the selective bits that Toma always uses when making arguments sway in his favour, you'll see what I mean. I have yet to dredge up stats that in any way reflect what Toma is saying about speed causing as many deaths as impaired driving, or anything else that could support his arguments.

He is comparing downloading of ALL information (completely invasion of privacy) on a vehicle's activities, on a completely random basis, and punishing people on a criminal basis for every traffic infraction (a minor summary offence) they commit by analyzing all the date about where they are going, when they are going, what times they were out, who was driving, etc, to performing a checkstop where every vehicle is stopped and if that officer has OBJECTIVE grounds (that is, lawful grounds) to believe that person still has alcohol in their body can demand a sample of their breath and then they can be on their way. They aren't remotely the same thing.

Proportionally, the amount of people who speed and get involved in a lethal wreck where that is the contributing factor is incredibly small compared to the amount of people who drive impaired and get involved in not only lethal collisions but those that are serious enough to cause permanent injuries, etc. That is to say, there is an incredibly high risk element at play when it comes to impaired driving, and that risk is 100% understood and contributed to by that driver who is impaired. Impaired drivers are also incredibly unpredictable and have very little to no control of what they are doing because of their impairment. For these reasons it has been deemed a serious problem and Supreme Courts Justices who know far more about the law than Toma or any of us could ever possibly hope to understand, have unanimously agreed.

People who speed are by in large in control of their vehicles (unless it's incredibly high speeds and then there are other things going on as well, which is why there ARE criminal dangerous driving charges), and don't do so in such an egregious manner that it causes havoc on the roadways. Yes it can be dangerous, but that is why it is targeted in a specific manner. However, speeders are generally predictable and obey traffic lights and all the other rules of the road, and for the most part the speed isn't what causes them to wreck - it's a combination of everything where speed is a factor. There is no overbearing public policy reasons to make it criminal and there is no proportional amount of state intrusion into people's Charter rights outside of traffic stops and regulatory offences that can be justified.

Anyways, there are a number of other reasons that speeding isn't criminal whereas impaired driving is - but that is all legal stuff that I'm sure Toma knows (he was going to be a lawyer once upon a time, doncha know), and I won't bore you with it. Hopefully what I did say was worth the electrons it's written in and helps make some sense of why I don't agree with him.

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Toma


Not really, a record type device can be easily programmed to just signal a "yes or no", was the vehicle speeding, or limit access to just that part of the log for cops.

Not in this country, it can't. At the minimum it would have to include GPS data about where that person was, the time of day (construction zones, playground/school, etc), and who was driving at the time, so that it could support a charge. But this isn't a totalitarian regime, which is why that would never happen. Our system is based on both subjective and objective reasons to believe someone has done something wrong, not a box that just gives a yes/no answer without anything to support it. How is that fair?

Originally posted by Toma
Do you have data to support the rest? Statistics of how many people drank and drove, versus how many caused death? how many drank, were over the limit versus how many caused death? How many people sped and caused death? etc

Tough stats to find. But, as I recall, 2010 Canada wide, I think 1000 fatals alcohol "was a factor", resulting in just 50 actual convictions, and 700 fatals "speed was a factor".

I don't have data in front of me to support the rest but the information I have seen has suggested that upwards of half of us speed on a regular basis. It's a common offence, and unfortunately has become a part of driving. However, people who get hammered and then drive while legally impaired - over .08, so wasted - are not as common as people who speed. If they were, impaired stats would be through the roof. There have been comparisons made based on research and incredible amounts of data, and that is why it has been determined that on a proportional basis impaired drivers are incredibly dangerous and cause way more fatalities per person than other road users, despite their smaller numbers.

I have never seen this hysterical hyperbole you are implying is out there. What we are told is that impaired driving outpaces the culpable homicide rate in Canada because although homicide is obviously awful and there are people dead because of it, it's generally something that we can't prevent whereas impaired driving is something we can have tangible control of and help to prevent through law enforcement efforts, and in spite of these efforts still kills more people than other criminal acts.

[Toma]

Homicides.... yup, 600 of them in 2011.

So, realistically, getting killed by a drunk driver that could be convicted as such is 10x LESS likely than being murdered. Interesting statistic.



Phil, I understand what you are saying, and I buy it "somewhat", I just REALLY do not believe that being randomly stopped by armed men, and forced to provide ID and or a breath sample, having them sniffin in my car, looking in my backseats and around my car interior etc is the way to go in a "free and democratic" society.

I would not even be offended by a manufacturer installed ignition interlock to start the car (but not like the current ones that force you to blow WHILE driving...talk about distraction).

Or as I said, look for swerving and erratic behavior and target THOSE individuals, not the random public at large.

[sr20s14zenki]

Saw something interesting awhile ago from lexus. They had a steering wheel in this concept car that could read your sweat and tell if you were drinking. Also it had monitoring for your eye movements and could tell if you were tired or fell asleep

At any rate, don't be mad at the law, and the people that made the law. Be mad at the people who ruin it for others. To have it the way you want would mean that everybody needs to follow the rules. Won't happen. you will always have the scumbags and retards that need to be slapped silly with the law to get it. Wish we could all live in harmony but it won't happen in this lifetime.

The way I see it if you have nothing to hide........

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Toma
Homicides.... yup, 600 of them in 2011.

So, realistically, getting killed by a drunk driver that could be convicted as such is 10x LESS likely than being murdered. Interesting statistic.

Interesting indeed, but I would like to know how you arrived at that odds.

Originally posted by Toma

Phil, I understand what you are saying, and I buy it "somewhat", I just REALLY do not believe that being randomly stopped by armed men, and forced to provide ID and or a breath sample, having them sniffin in my car, looking in my backseats and around my car interior etc is the way to go in a "free and democratic" society.

I would not even be offended by a manufacturer installed ignition interlock to start the car (but not like the current ones that force you to blow WHILE driving...talk about distraction).

Or as I said, look for swerving and erratic behavior and target THOSE individuals, not the random public at large.

I appreciate you acknowledging what I'm saying here, and I understand where you are going with it too. I guess I have always been of the belief that it really isn't that intrusive and it doesn't bother me, and knowing what I know now just reinforces it.

We look for the serving and all the other impaired driving indicia as much as we can, but as I mentioned in another thread our reach is short when we don't have dedicated checkstops as our manpower is pulled a bit thin. I see it as as better odds of us getting someone off the roads before they get into an area of the city where they potentially may not be stopped.

Really, there is no best solution and at the end of the day I see it as the best we can do given the resources we have.

[Toma]

Originally posted by phil98z24


Interesting indeed, but I would like to know how you arrived at that odds.

I was goggling the shit out of it, and found somewhere that out of the 1100 fatals where drinking was a factor (whatever that actually means), only 100 and some odd charges were laid with only 50 or so convictions. I actually think it was on MADD's website somewhere. Creative use of statistics, just like the power that be like to use them

AS an interesting psychological/propaganda based aside.... Was listening to the news today about how "Federal Public Servants" make more than equivalent "private sector employees".... interesting but subtle "hypnosis" for the untrained listeners. Don't you think?

[Toma]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
Saw something interesting awhile ago from lexus. They had a steering wheel in this concept car that could read your sweat and tell if you were drinking. Also it had monitoring for your eye movements and could tell if you were tired or fell asleep

At any rate, don't be mad at the law, and the people that made the law. Be mad at the people who ruin it for others. To have it the way you want would mean that everybody needs to follow the rules. Won't happen. you will always have the scumbags and retards that need to be slapped silly with the law to get it. Wish we could all live in harmony but it won't happen in this lifetime.

The way I see it if you have nothing to hide........

That has nothing to do with it, and I'm not mad at anything. The law is wrong, plain and simple and clearly violates our Charter Rights. I recognize the courts have thus far interpreted in the cops favour, but they are wrong.

Things will either continue as they are, and we will lose more and more rights, because we are on that path, or people will wake up and start to say "No! I will not sacrifice my freedom and rights for this illusion and lie of safety!"

[phil98z24]

Originally posted by Toma


I was goggling the shit out of it, and found somewhere that out of the 1100 fatals where drinking was a factor (whatever that actually means), only 100 and some odd charges were laid with only 50 or so convictions. I actually think it was on MADD's website somewhere. Creative use of statistics, just like the power that be like to use them

AS an interesting psychological/propaganda based aside.... Was listening to the news today about how "Federal Public Servants" make more than equivalent "private sector employees".... interesting but subtle "hypnosis" for the untrained listeners. Don't you think?

I see what you did there, very clever...

I looked at Transport Canada statistics and they bounce between 1500 to 800 fatals a year since 2000. They have a good breakdown of percentage of licensed drivers who commit these offences, and not shockingly most of them are around 4%. However, I'm not sure exactly how the powers that be are using them for fear campaigns... they are just telling us how many alcohol related traffic fatalities are out there, and leaving people to draw their own conclusions. I figure if the government were to break it down as a percentage of people who are driving the roads at any given time and really illustrate how a ridiculously small number of people are causing numerous deaths, it would probably lend some credibility to the seriousness of the issue.

Regarding the next bit, where do you think they were going with that? I agree that taking it as face value and not factoring in everything, it is something that would likely solicit less than positive reactions from people for a number of reasons. You mention it as a subtle form of hypnosis, but what do you feel is the effect or point of that? I think it's a statement that could go either way, and be used for a variety of negative and positive purposes when it comes to activities of the government and it's employees.

Originally posted by Toma


That has nothing to do with it, and I'm not mad at anything. The law is wrong, plain and simple and clearly violates our Charter Rights. I recognize the courts have thus far interpreted in the cops favour, but they are wrong.

Things will either continue as they are, and we will lose more and more rights, because we are on that path, or people will wake up and start to say "No! I will not sacrifice my freedom and rights for this illusion and lie of safety!"

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'd like a full legal explanation of why the law is wrong. I've seen it from Supreme Court Justices who have an incredible understanding of our Charter and criminal law and can unanimously articulate in great detail why the law is deemed acceptable, but I think your argument is based on emotion and the desire to do what you want so long as you don't hurt anyone.

You are right about it being a violation of our Charter Rights, but as section 1 of the Charter states, these rights are not absolute. The Supreme Court has numerous times stated that any of our rights can be suspended or violated as necessary if under legal analysis and scrutiny they can be justified for the greater good. The Supreme Court has said in numerous decisions that yes it is a violation and considered arbitrary detention, but public policy reasons outweigh this very minor violation.

It is being interpreted for the purposes of justice and public good. It just happens to be that this has allowed us greater ability to get impaired drivers off the road. Maybe you didn't mean specifically in favour of the police, but if you did I would caution against that because the function of the court is to make rulings based on law and not specifically in favour of the State or the accused.

I also have to disagree with your assertion that we are headed down some path of losing our rights. Our rights are not being further eroded or taken away from us, not in the least. Since the Charter went into effect and has been interpreted, our rights have grown tremendously and our freedom has been supported more than ever and that is due in part to our justice system. I don't think anyone who has had to deal with the state pre-1985 would refer to those as the good old days in comparison to what we have now.

[alloroc]

Ever notice Toma almost always posts twice in a row?

[wtf im nameless]

Originally posted by alloroc
Ever notice Toma almost always posts twice in a row?

I'd assume that's because beyond has no "multi-quote" option to reply like some forums do.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by wtf im nameless


I'd assume that's because beyond has no "multi-quote" option to reply like some forums do.

yes it does. hit the quote check box in the top right and then hit the post reply button at the bottom of the post.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by Go4Long
yes it does. hit the quote check box in the top right and then hit the post reply button at the bottom of the post.

Holy fuck. I've looked at that checkbox before but never actually thought about what it could do.

[Go4Long]

lol...I'm here to help

[wtf im nameless]

Originally posted by Go4Long


yes it does. hit the quote check box in the top right and then hit the post reply button at the bottom of the post.

mind=blown

Is that new? wtf, i've been here 7-8 years and never noticed it before.

[Go4Long]

ummm...I'm sure a mod will chime in, but I think it's been there for a few years at the least.