Please continue any discussion on random news items here.

And it all goes back to the fact that if people obeyed the law they wouldn't get tickets which would mean there was no money grabbed. 

 

4 hours ago, Jacquie said:

And it all goes back to the fact that if people obeyed the law they wouldn't get tickets which would mean there was no money grabbed. 

 

The issue is that they used entrapment on a man with a kind heart to squeeze him of money and then used a flimsy excuse that it is for safety reasons.

Meanwhile a person can sell drugs on the street corner and the police will turn a  blind eye because the payout/fine usually is only 50 dollars and much more complicated and expensive to collect.

 

 

4 hours ago, Brandon said:

The issue is that they used entrapment on a man with a kind heart to squeeze him of money and then used a flimsy excuse that it is for safety reasons.

 

It was initially about that and I said I felt sorry for the guy if he had his seatbelt back on when he was driving away but it then turned into cell phone and school zone laws with no mention of entrapment.

You guys should slow down around schools.  It will cost you a minute out of your day, maybe less.  Could save a life.  Easy risk-reward there.  Kids are dumb.

3 hours ago, Atomic said:

You guys should slow down around schools.  It will cost you a minute out of your day, maybe less.  Could save a life.  Easy risk-reward there.  Kids are dumb.

Yeah but was there a need in the first place?

23 hours ago, Jacquie said:

And it all goes back to the fact that if people obeyed the law they wouldn't get tickets which would mean there was no money grabbed. 

 

You continue to miss the point.  An unjust law is not a law deserving of respect.  Laws get changed.  When they increased the highway speed to 110, does that mean all those people that used to drive 110 when the limit was 100 were vile law breakers or were they driving a reasonable speed and the law eventually caught up?

There was no need to introduce the school zone traps.  My understanding is there was already a law that called for a reduction in speed to 30 when children were present.  And guess what, they didn't need signs or enforcement because there was never an issue.  If there were reports of reckless driving, the police can do enforcement when needed.  Blanket enforcement is moronic and doesn't do anything.   It punishes people for driving safely for the conditions.  It doesn't punish people for driving unsafely during other conditions.  

12 hours ago, Atomic said:

You guys should slow down around schools.  It will cost you a minute out of your day, maybe less.  Could save a life.  Easy risk-reward there.  Kids are dumb.

Thats not the issue.  2pm in the afternoon, not a kid to be seen because they are in school?  Who is at risk?  5:20PM, not a kid to be seen, who's at risk?  3:30 PM, kids streaming through the area, but one foot on the other side of the school zone sign, its okay to drive 50 even with kids all over.  Its a silly law because its not designed for safety.  Its designed for revenue.,  And the shameful thing is, they used "save our children" as there bogus means to ram the law through.  Either support this law or support the death of children.  Its stupid.

5 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Thats not the issue.  2pm in the afternoon, not a kid to be seen because they are in school?  Who is at risk?  5:20PM, not a kid to be seen, who's at risk?  3:30 PM, kids streaming through the area, but one foot on the other side of the school zone sign, its okay to drive 50 even with kids all over.  Its a silly law because its not designed for safety.  Its designed for revenue.,  And the shameful thing is, they used "save our children" as there bogus means to ram the law through.  Either support this law or support the death of children.  Its stupid.

What is silly is that when I used to live near a school zone the soccer field / play structure which was empty from 4 - 5:30...

However the games of soccer were played around 5:30 - 6:30 pm and during the games the area would be full of the players and their siblings.   Also during winter time I used to see kids playing on the mini hills sledding towards the streets until late hours of the night.   For a city determined to protect the children it's weird that they didn't make these school zones 24 hours.

O won't someone please think of the children!  

What did work well is on Roch they have a couple of very wide speed bumps that forces everyone to slow down unless you wanted to get air or wreck your car.   Seems like a much cheaper and safer solution to me.  

 

I slow down around school zones 24 hours a day ever since 2 foolish kids darted out from between 2 parked cars a couple years ago.  If I had been going even 50 kmh they would have been dead or horribly injured.  At 35-ish kmh I was able to slam on my brakes and stop just short of plowing them down.  Kids are so unpredictable.  I guess that's not limited to school zones though.

Saw this on the Twitter feed.  Sounds like a wild night.

 

 

2 hours ago, Atomic said:

I slow down around school zones 24 hours a day ever since 2 foolish kids darted out from between 2 parked cars a couple years ago.  If I had been going even 50 kmh they would have been dead or horribly injured.  At 35-ish kmh I was able to slam on my brakes and stop just short of plowing them down.  Kids are so unpredictable.  I guess that's not limited to school zones though.

I generally slow down too. In fact people with me often say "it's after 5:30" or whatever because I slow down. But it's that slowing down to 40 or 34 and getting nailed with no kids around. 

And like the other point, many kids doing evening sports and rec. law should revert to a common sense "drive safely" when kids present. If city received complaints the police can do some police work and do specific area enforcement. Police work instead of tax collectors. 

 

On 9/26/2016 at 4:39 PM, FrostyWinnipeg said:

World heavyweight champion Tyson Fury will never fight again, leading British promoter Eddie Hearn has said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/37465746

 

And the real reason for his leaving the sport has been revealed.

http://www.fightnews.com/Boxing/report-fury-tested-positive-cocaine-355474

 

4 hours ago, Rich said:

Saw this on the Twitter feed.  Sounds like a wild night.

 

 

It's been snoped but still funny.

17 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You continue to miss the point.  An unjust law is not a law deserving of respect.  Laws get changed.  When they increased the highway speed to 110, does that mean all those people that used to drive 110 when the limit was 100 were vile law breakers or were they driving a reasonable speed and the law eventually caught up?

There was no need to introduce the school zone traps.  My understanding is there was already a law that called for a reduction in speed to 30 when children were present.  And guess what, they didn't need signs or enforcement because there was never an issue.  If there were reports of reckless driving, the police can do enforcement when needed.  Blanket enforcement is moronic and doesn't do anything.   It punishes people for driving safely for the conditions.  It doesn't punish people for driving unsafely during other conditions.  

The school zone speed limit was introduced in 1976 - the only thing that has changed was they put up signs. The hours of the day and the months the by-law is enforced haven't changed during that time. I also wouldn't be surprised if enforcement hasn't actually changed much. I've lived down the street from one school and a block over from another for almost 20 years and have never seen any type of "trap" to enforce it.

 

 

Edited October 1, 20169 yr by Jacquie

 

On 9/30/2016 at 5:35 PM, Jacquie said:

The school zone speed limit was introduced in 1976 - the only thing that has changed was they put up signs. The hours of the day and the months the by-law is enforced haven't changed during that time. I also wouldn't be surprised if enforcement hasn't actually changed much. I've lived down the street from one school and a block over from another for almost 20 years and have never seen any type of "trap" to enforce it.

 

 

I always thought creating artificial safety zones was the wrong approach to teaching kids about preserving their own safety, children trust that they are in a protected zone and naively believe they will be safe crossing the street,  while two streets over there is no protective zone or speed reductions.   Same goes for crossing guards and electronic walk signals, kids follow their orders blindly and don't bother to take responsibility for their own safety by looking both ways and accessing the oncoming traffic situation.  Children are only stupid if we teach them to be stupid.

 

 

Edited October 2, 20169 yr by Throw Long Bannatyne

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/09/30/rogers-to-stop-print-editions-of-four-magazines.html

On 9/30/2016 at 7:35 PM, Jacquie said:

The school zone speed limit was introduced in 1976 - the only thing that has changed was they put up signs. The hours of the day and the months the by-law is enforced haven't changed during that time. I also wouldn't be surprised if enforcement hasn't actually changed much. I've lived down the street from one school and a block over from another for almost 20 years and have never seen any type of "trap" to enforce it.

 

 

You're arguing a different point or missing the one we're discussing.  Its a trap to "enforce" something that doesnt need to be enforced.  If there are 100 kids on a street and that requires enforcement for safety but ten feel over those same 100 kids dont need safety enforcement, what else can I say?  The school zone enforcement has zero to do with safety because its done in such a way that its apparent safety isnt the issue.  Its about revenue.  And shamefully using "lives of children" as an excuse to generate revenue is just wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

http://www.tsn.ca/mlse-gets-assist-from-u-s-government-in-marijuana-fight-with-snoop-dog-1.579400

Just caught the end of Dr Phil before the news and apparently he had Steven Avery's fiancee on for those still following the case.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/04/did-dr-phil-break-up-making-a-murderer-star-steven-avery-s-engagement.html

 

On 03/10/2016 at 10:41 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

You're arguing a different point or missing the one we're discussing.  Its a trap to "enforce" something that doesnt need to be enforced.  If there are 100 kids on a street and that requires enforcement for safety but ten feel over those same 100 kids dont need safety enforcement, what else can I say?  The school zone enforcement has zero to do with safety because its done in such a way that its apparent safety isnt the issue.  Its about revenue.  And shamefully using "lives of children" as an excuse to generate revenue is just wrong.

The only way to have consistency with enforcement throughout the city is to have set times. There is no trap if you just slow down.

Edited October 5, 20169 yr by Jacquie

7 hours ago, Jacquie said:

The only way to have consistency with enforcement throughout the city is to have set times. There is no trap if you just slow down.

I would disagree with this.  Enforcement shouldnt be based on set times.  it should be based on need.  You should not arbitrarily change speed limits to try and catch motorists.  We've seen this with construction enforcement where people were nailed even though no workers or work was present and I believe these were successfully argued.  It should never be about revenue, it should be about safety.  And doing school zone enforcement when there is no school or kids around is not about safety.  The city would also address all the signage issues that have been pointed out if it was about safety.  But it isnt.

On ‎09‎/‎30‎/‎2016 at 7:26 AM, Brandon said:

What did work well is on Roch they have a couple of very wide speed bumps that forces everyone to slow down unless you wanted to get air or wreck your car.   Seems like a much cheaper and safer solution to me.  

Right by Kingsford, I think?

Those are such a pain, but you're right - they work. Way more than that awful school zone nonsense does. What I think is awfully telling is that the school zones in most elementary school areas don't even have the same reach that the patrol system does. There's frequently patrols set up beyond the school zone markings when I drive by Sun Valley or John de Graff schools. It's so clear that it's a cash grab that it isn't even worth debating.

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

What I think is awfully telling is that the school zones in most elementary school areas don't even have the same reach that the patrol system does. There's frequently patrols set up beyond the school zone markings when I drive by Sun Valley or John de Graff schools. It's so clear that it's a cash grab that it isn't even worth debating.

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think they're giving tickets for people going over 30 outside of the school zones?

25 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think they're giving tickets for people going over 30 outside of the school zones?

I think he is saying that the schools recognize that for safety, they need school patrols at intersections that fall outside the school zone area.  So if it was safety, the school zones would be larger.  But its not about safety, its about maximizing tickets. 

I made the same point.  That 300 kids dont walk one block and disappear.  The city says "hey you can drive 50KM/H a block away" where the same kids are still walking home and crossing streets.  So its not about safety.  And the argument is, well we cant enforce everywhere.  Exactly.  So enforce where needed, not a blanket zone where you get maximum revenue.

If the city believes the amount of kids dissipates enough a block or two away that safety is not an issue, then why do they still do enforcement at 5:20PM in deserted school zones?  Because they are relying on people instinctively driving the general city limit (50) in an area where it is clearly safe to do so.  Look, I slow down in my area school zones as a reflex now to avoid tickets.  But if I drive in an unfamiliar area, I dont always see the school zone sign.  Thats what they rely on.  If I see kids, I slow down, regardless of whether its 3:00 or 7:00 because its safe.  But they dont want that.  They want to catch you.