# Distracted driving



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Did I hear right that Ontario is about to increase fines/points for distracted driving? I sure hope so. 

Hope it sets a precedent for other provinces. It's been proven that driving while holding a cellphone, or curling your hair or whatever, is as dangerous as drinking and driving. The penalties should be commensurate, IMO. 

I'm a safer driver after three beer (real beer, not US pish) than you are sober and tapping on your phone. My reactions may be slightly slower but at least I am seeing things and reacting to them. I'm glad I don't ride MC anymore with all the morons twittering while driving.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

It is quickly becoming the number one cause of accidents. I still see people on a daily basis with the phone to the ear driving and constantly see people with their heads down reading and sending text messages, Its a real problem and getting worse. You want to talk about RIDE programs.... they are netting nobody compared to distracted drivers. They had a blitz here a week or so ago and laid something like 255 charges. People are not getting the message... no pun intended


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

High/Deaf said:


> Did I hear right that Ontario is about to increase fines/points for distracted driving? I sure hope so.
> 
> Hope it sets a precedent for other provinces. It's been proven that driving while holding a cellphone, or curling your hair or whatever, is as dangerous as drinking and driving. The penalties should be commensurate, IMO.


This is obviously outdated (Alberta passed new legislation this past March) but Ontario is merely playing catch-up at this point:

http://distracteddriving.caa.ca/education/distracted-driving-laws-in-canada.php


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I think they just passed something yesterday - waiting for it to be signed in the ledge? 

$1000 + (3?) points. Getting closer to what it should be.


----------



## Steve_F (Feb 15, 2008)

I hope they do. I'm getting tired of near-misses with people who are driving staring at the cellphone in their lap.

I propose that if you get caught texting and driving, you get your phone rammed up your ass. Too harsh?


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

I think it's "up to" $1000.

Either way, stiffer fines and demerits hopefully gets drivers thinking twice.

Then again, big fines, demerits, license suspension, etc...haven't curbed speeding or drunk driving so who knows...


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

We've had the legislation in place for a few years in BC now and I'm sure there has been little difference in phone use while driving.

I still believe simple courtesy and respect on the road is the true problem.

Constant tailgating, passing on double solid lines, no signal use, taking corners too wide into the next lane, people who have no idea where the lines are in their lane and cross over into yours particularly on corners, these are all big issues for me and are every day occurrences.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I keep harping on this, and folks seem to pooh-pooh it, but I will note the following:

1) There are more vehicles on the road today, and because they are smaller, more vehicles per linear road foot.
2) More drivers commute considerable distances on a daily basis, reducing their patience (and leading to all the misbehaviours Lance details).
3) The overall average speed of traffic is higher.
4) A larger share of vehicles are higher manouverable, compared to the V8 behemoths we would have driven 40 years ago.
5) A great deal of signage is hopelessly out of date in its location, and ends up providing "late" information to many drivers, given the speed of traffic and congestion, obliging them to more frequently engage in desperate last-second manouvers, which point #4 encourages.

All of this points to the escalating risk created by any sort of detraction or distraction from rapid reaction time. It is also a greater problem for older drivers, as it demands greater information-processing in a shorter period of time...which is why it poses risk for ALL drivers.

Folks tend to approach distraction, and driving in altered states, from an egocentric perspective: "I'm a very good driver". The real question to ask yourself is "Do you want to have to drive amongst others who are distracted and unable to react promptly to any sudden moves YOU have to make?".

A high profile case in Pembroke, recently, had a dentist who was alcoholized crossing the line on a non-divided highway and killing another driver, who also happened to be alcoholized. The dentist's attorney tried to make a case that blame should be placed on the other driver for driving under the influence. But this is precisely why one should NOT be either distracted or intoxicated: as a driver, you always need to be ready to react to what someone ELSE might do in a momentary lapse. You don't talk on the phone, while driving, because you can't afford to squander the 200msec of decision-making and reaction-time you'll need in the event that _other_ driver is on the phone, or DUI. In a great many instances, the reaction-time difference between a fatality and much less is less than the amount of delay time you could squeeze out of a 1978 EHX Memory Man.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Sadly there are MANY drivers out there today who seem unable to drive even when not distracted.

Frankly it's shocking to me how some people get their licenses in the first place.

If you can't back out of your driveway and not have your car block both lanes of traffic.....how the F$#k did you pass the driver's test?

I see that one everyday. The person will back straight across the street and then cut their wheels to get into the proper lane, instead of cutting their wheels as they back out so as to end up in the correct lane.

Unbelievable.

Add texting to that......I may start wearing a helmet.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I still see people driving with those things jammed up to their ear. Stupid, just stupid.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

$300 to $1000 is still a joke. $5000 and temporary loss of licence for 3 to 6 months "might" get the idiots attention, but I doubt it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think enforcement of the existing fines would have done the trick.

You can make the fine a million dollars but if nobody really fears getting popped for it......


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I think enforcement of the existing fines would have done the trick.
> 
> You can make the fine a million dollars but if nobody really fears getting popped for it......


True. Though I actually know a few people who have been caught - some more than once. It's the demerit points that will really wake people up.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't think that talking on a cellphone is anywhere near as dangerous as texting ................. however texting is cheap and it is the preferred method of communication these days.

I think if you're caught texting you should be shot.................... using your cellphone as a phone - maybe just winged.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

johnnyshaka said:


> This is obviously outdated (Alberta passed new legislation this past March) but Ontario is merely playing catch-up at this point:
> 
> http://distracteddriving.caa.ca/education/distracted-driving-laws-in-canada.php


Yup they passed legislation here but you still see a lot of people talking on their cell phones while driving.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

they can make all the laws they want, but if there is no enforcement those laws are meaningless. That's the problem. Watching vehicles on the road, it seems to be about 50/50 these days as to how many are on the phone.

What they really need is an electronic device in every car that jams cell phone signals once the vehicle is moving faster than 10 kph. And put those devices into cop cars and highway trucks as well. Problem solved.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

LanceT said:


> We've had the legislation in place for a few years in BC now and I'm sure there has been little difference in phone use while driving.
> 
> _*I still believe simple courtesy and respect on the road is the true problem.*_
> 
> Constant tailgating, passing on double solid lines, no signal use, taking corners too wide into the next lane, people who have no idea where the lines are in their lane and cross over into yours particularly on corners, these are all big issues for me and are every day occurrences.


You nailed it! Taking corners too wide into the next lane is a big one for me. I turn into my lane and am ready with the horn if I see people doing it. One of the reasons people go wide is because most drivers are too scared (or don't know the rules) and sit at the light instead of turning as they can legally do. If drivers did make their allowable turn, the drivers going wide would quickly learn to stay in their own lane.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Loud pipes interrupt idiots using cell phones while driving, especially in city traffic.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

They found his mobile phone still in his hands and his head in the back seat. Isn't texting fun?
Pass this on. You may save some idiot's life.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Lincoln said:


> they can make all the laws they want, but if there is no enforcement those laws are meaningless. That's the problem. Watching vehicles on the road, it seems to be about 50/50 these days as to how many are on the phone.
> 
> What they really need is an electronic device in every car that jams cell phone signals once the vehicle is moving faster than 10 kph. And put those devices into cop cars and highway trucks as well. Problem solved.


I thought that as soon as the vehicle is engaged into gear, that should disable any device.
Instead, the brilliant engineers at GM (that's all that I've seen advertized) offer WiFi in their vehicles now?!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> I thought that as soon as the vehicle is engaged into gear, that should disable any device.
> Instead, the brilliant engineers at GM (that's all that I've seen advertized) offer WiFi in their vehicles now?!



You've touched on a good point there. Some modern cars are so loaded with tech options and LCD screens they create their own distractions.

It's particularly troublesome when you rent a lot. Some dashes are so "busy" you have to look long and hard to make simple adjustments to heating, cooling......

WiFi in a car? Wow.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

My wife's Audi tells her when the battery on her phone is low and displays the first line of text messages and emails when they come in and who sent them. Safety first though-it won't let you read them on the car's display while driving.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Was a time when the only 'distracted driving' was when your girlfriend slid close to you on the bench seat and you shifted left handed through the steering wheel. That and having to physically change the radio station by turning the dial. Now, the display screen in the wife's car is bigger than the tablet I'm using right now. There should be a function where, it there is a cell phone on while in the car, the car will not start.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

sulphur said:


> I thought that as soon as the vehicle is engaged into gear, that should disable any device.
> Instead, the brilliant engineers at GM (that's all that I've seen advertized) offer WiFi in their vehicles now?!


The thing about disabling any device is that it poses virtually no risk at all if a passenger is texting .
I suppose if you could hook up a sensor in the seats you could disable if the driver was the only occupant,or perhaps develop some sort of jamming device that surrounds the driver's seat only,that might help.

I'm hopeful that the demerit points will convince some,I know it won't get all to quit,but some is better than none.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

laristotle said:


> They found his mobile phone still in his hands and his head in the back seat. Isn't texting fun?
> Pass this on. You may save some idiot's life.


Lost a good friend a few summers ago and the scene supposedly looked a lot like this one. Very tragic.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

johnnyshaka said:


> I think it's "up to" $1000.
> 
> Either way, stiffer fines and demerits hopefully gets drivers thinking twice.
> 
> Then again, big fines, demerits, license suspension, etc...haven't curbed speeding or drunk driving so who knows...


There are still people who speed or drive drunk, but I don't know if its fair to say the fines, demerits, etc. having curbed some of the activities. I think the public education/shaming of drunk driving has come some way to reducing it. At least, I think it would be much worse if there wasn't the punishment and public re-education.

- - - Updated - - -



laristotle said:


> They found his mobile phone still in his hands and his head in the back seat. Isn't texting fun?
> Pass this on. You may save some idiot's life.


Vettes don't have back seats - but I get your point.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

LanceT said:


> We've had the legislation in place for a few years in BC now and I'm sure there has been little difference in phone use while driving.
> 
> I still believe simple courtesy and respect on the road is the true problem.
> 
> Constant tailgating, passing on double solid lines, no signal use, taking corners too wide into the next lane, people who have no idea where the lines are in their lane and cross over into yours particularly on corners, these are all big issues for me and are every day occurrences.


I agree. I see instances of aggressive driving and road rage every day. I seldom notice anyone texting or on their cell. If I do its usually while in a traffic jam when everyone is going slow.
Me, I couldn't text while driving if I wanted to. I need my reading glasses just to read my texts. However I did recently get nailed for talking on my cell on the 403 going from Brantford to Woodstock. Not something I usually do but was on call for work and I took the call. The cop asked me why I didn't pull over and really it was stupid not to. There was hardly anyone else on the highway and it would have been easy to do.
I had no idea what the fine was until he wrote the ticket. I was kind of freaking as I had heard talk of $1000 fines and demerit points. I was relieved when it was only $280 and no point loss.
Since I work from home a lot I decided to go to the court for it just to ask time to pay. Luckily I was still in Brantford jurisdiction. I went to the court house and they arranged a judge to see me. My experience left me feeling that they weren't aggressive about nailing those of us using our cells while driving. She explained all my options to me and with out me soliciting for it she said that I could ask her for time to pay or reduced fine or both. So obviously I asked for both. I asked for 30 days to pay. And without asking she gave me 70 days to pay and reduced the fine to $125 + $30 administration\court fees. So a total of $155. I was very surprised.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

laristotle said:


> They found his mobile phone still in his hands and his head in the back seat. Isn't texting fun?
> Pass this on. You may save some idiot's life.



right on man


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

texting is one thing but for christ sake spend $30 and get a blue tooth for your phone. Any new car has them built right into the stereo so there is no reason to be using hand held for phone calls anymore. Texting is the real dangerous one. A few weeks back a pregnant girl ran right in the back of the guy that owns the pizza shop in our plaza. Had her head down texting and he stopped to turn into the plaza for traffic. Hopefully that was a wake up call for her.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

It's become a really big deal for anyone who works road construction or road maintenance. People texting have run over several sets of barricades and warning cones before running down the road crews. Flagmen are in grave danger from texters as well. A lot of crews are now using "crash attenuater" trucks to protect their people.


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2015)

High/Deaf said:


> Vettes don't have back seats - but I get your point.


I thought of that too (I just did a copy/paste from FB).
There is space for a head though.


----------



## TA462 (Oct 30, 2012)

I watched a lady last year rear end a older couple who were stopped waiting to make a left hand turn. The lady didn't even take her foot off the gas and I saw her cell phone plain as day. After she got out she put it in the trunk. I hung around and told the police what I saw.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I use bluetooth constantly, and I still easily manage to get from point A to B. I also check texts and emails at red lights and then call the person, if it's important.

To disable the phone when entering my car would suck, but I suppose I'd be okay with it, if the government hired me out a call answering service.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> You've touched on a good point there. Some modern cars are so loaded with tech options and LCD screens they create their own distractions.
> 
> It's particularly troublesome when you rent a lot. Some dashes are so "busy" you have to look long and hard to make simple adjustments to heating, cooling......
> 
> WiFi in a car? Wow.


Ironic, isn't it , that cars get safety-rated for head-on and side crashes, but nobody rates cars for the extent to which they assist you in driving safely enough to actually _avoid_ a head-on or t-bone crash.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Bubb said:


> The thing about disabling any device is that it poses virtually no risk at all if a passenger is texting .
> I suppose if you could hook up a sensor in the seats you could disable if the driver was the only occupant,or perhaps develop some sort of jamming device that surrounds the driver's seat only,that might help.
> 
> I'm hopeful that the demerit points will convince some,I know it won't get all to quit,but some is better than none.


Disabling all devices in a car is less of a concern to me than anyone using them in a vehicle.
If you must make a call, pull over and put it in park and use your phone.

I think that would be more effective than any deterrent, disable and there's NO choice.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

adcandour said:


> I use bluetooth constantly, and I still easily manage to get from point A to B. I also check texts and emails at red lights and then call the person, if it's important.


As I keep reminding people, it's not whether YOU can get from A to B, despite distraction or impairments. It's whether you will have the critical 250msec of additional decision-time and reaction time available to you to avoid someone else's lousy drivng, or a kid who never learned not to dash out from the sidewalk. Whoever the owner of thatVette under the truck was, they could have done a whole lot with an extra 250msec. They might have even been alive to call their insurance agent with that cellphone and make a claim on the car.

This is the mistake people make. They think "I can disengage from activity X". And I'm sure you can. But, as mountains of research amply demonstrates, switching attention takes time, and as the Vette illustrates, sometimes you don't have the luxury of that time.

If we all drove at 20kmh, we would have the luxury of doing all sorts of stuff in our cars, worry-free. But the sad fact is that things on the road happen faster than that, and we don't have the luxury of dividing our attention up under those circumstances.

I recommend the Albert Brooks movie "Defending Your Life" to illustrate my point.


----------



## Bubb (Jan 16, 2008)

sulphur said:


> Disabling all devices in a car is less of a concern to me than anyone using them in a vehicle.
> If you must make a call, pull over and put it in park and use your phone.
> 
> I think that would be more effective than any deterrent, disable and there's NO choice.


Oh,I'm with you,It wouldn't bother me a bit if all devices were disabled,hell,I don't even own a cellphone,but I fear that horse has already left the barn.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Bubb said:


> Oh,I'm with you,It wouldn't bother me a bit if all devices were disabled,hell,I don't even own a cellphone,but I fear that horse has already left the barn.


Same here.

I could imagine that I'd see drivers leaning over into the other seat if you'd just surround the drivers area with a disabling unit.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

At 100 km/h you travel almost 28 metres in one second.

Just for kicks, measure that out some day and look at it.


----------



## rollingdam (May 11, 2006)

How about a fine for distracted walking-go to any major Canadian city at noon and watch all the walking idiots staring in their phones.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

rollingdam said:


> How about a fine for distracted walking-go to any major Canadian city at noon and watch all the walking idiots staring in their phones.



That may be a bit tongue in cheek, but it's true. If you can't walk (without walking into me) and text at the same time........


PICK ONE.


Airports are the worst for that. I've stood there and let someone walk right into me. She almost wiped out, purse went flying.......

And she looked at me like....why weren't you watching where I was going?????


----------



## Judas68fr (Feb 5, 2013)

Milkman said:


> That may be a bit tongue in cheek, but it's true. If you can't walk (without walking into me) and text at the same time........
> 
> 
> PICK ONE.
> ...



ahah I do the same! I am working at Queen's University, and during the year when the students are around it used to be a slalom game to get back home for lunch. Now I just walk a straight line and bump into those people who can't live 5 minutes without having a look at Facebook...


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I live a hundred feet from a four lane highway (21) as it passes through Goderich Ontario. I can't leave the side street I live on without seeing someone apparently distracted, and often speeding. There are traffic lights, lots of pedestrians, school buses, etc at certain times of the day. Why anyone would take the risk of using their cell phone completely boggles the mind. 

Most recent I noticed? About 45 minutes ago.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Judas68fr said:


> ahah I do the same! I am working at Queen's University, and during the year when the students are around it used to be a slalom game to get back home for lunch. Now I just walk a straight line and bump into those people who can't live 5 minutes without having a look at Facebook...


I guess my approach was a bit passive-agressive but if it was a wall or a car she could have been badly injured. I did her a favour.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I laughed out loud at someone who walked into a streetlight while texting. They gave me the evil eye like I should have pitied them. I kinda did, because apparently they have a serious addiction problem.

This morning? How about a fully loaded gravel truck turning left across a busy road. The 'driver' had a phone shoulder to his left ear, driving with his left hand and holding a cup of coffee in his right. I remember when those things required two hand just to drive. Now, apparently one hand and only a half dozen brain cells will cover it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Milkman said:


> That may be a bit tongue in cheek, but it's true. If you can't walk (without walking into me) and text at the same time........
> 
> 
> PICK ONE.
> ...


I'll trade you airports (havn't been in one for probably 30 yrs.) for stores with shopping carts.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Did I hear right that Ontario is about to increase fines/points for distracted driving? I sure hope so.
> 
> Hope it sets a precedent for other provinces. It's been proven that driving while holding a cellphone, or curling your hair or whatever, is as dangerous as drinking and driving. The penalties should be commensurate, IMO.
> 
> I'm a safer driver after three beer (real beer, not US pish) than you are sober and tapping on your phone. My reactions may be slightly slower but at least I am seeing things and reacting to them. I'm glad I don't ride MC anymore with all the morons twittering while driving.


I prefer motorcycle. Better chance of escape, especially on the narrow streets around where I live. If people are parked on both sides of the street there is room for maybe a car and a bike. There's one driver who does the cell phone/hair/being an idiot thing. To get to where she is dangerous to me she has to slalom around the school buses dropping kids off. I agree with the 3 beer thing but unless things have changed since the last time I had a beer, 3 beer will get you a 24 in B.C. and other places. Been a while since I had staple holes in my drivers liscence. Being a DFC on your phone will just get you a fine, that you can pay later.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Better chance of escape - but much higher cost if you aren't successful. 

I was run over by a inattentive cabby turning left at an intersection 20 years ago. That rehab was a tough month (and I was 20 years younger). Nope, if I'm surrounded by idiots, I'm at a stage now where I want that steel cage around me.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

High/Deaf said:


> Better chance of escape - but much higher cost if you aren't successful.
> 
> I was run over by a inattentive cabby turning left at an intersection 20 years ago. That rehab was a tough month (and I was 20 years younger). Nope, if I'm surrounded by idiots, I'm at a stage now where I want that steel cage around me.


I've had my share of accidents and broken a few bones and still ride. And given the way most cars are made now you're probably surrounded by a plastic cage. I'm not a big fan of helmets either.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I rode for a few years after that. It was when I moved to the Worst (drivers in the world) Coast that I gave up the motorized bike. I still pedal in traffic and that is much more nimble and maneuverable than a MC (I'm also going alot slower). 

Funny you mention about the cars. While they have lots of plastic, they are still primarily steel structures (bulkheads, doorbeams, etc). And crash testing shows us cars have never been as safe as they are right now, from a collision point of view. While the steel may be lighter and newer alloys, it is still sized for the job and the engineering is light years ahead of where we were in the 90's, let alone 70s.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> I've had my share of accidents and broken a few bones and still ride. And given the way most cars are made now _*you're probably surrounded by a plastic cage. I'm not a big fan of helmets either.*_


Cars are definitely more safe now than they were years ago.

As for the helmet, I hope you never fall off and hit your head.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Cars are definitely more safe now than they were years ago.
> 
> As for the helmet, I hope you never fall off and hit your head.


I wear a helmet to comply with the letter of the law and that's it. You can quote studies and I can tell you about accidents where the helmet didn't help or was the cause of death. Same with cars being safer now than they were years ago. One of the biggest distractions in my wife's Charger is the radio display screen. There's too much going on there. If I set it up it would show who's calling on her phone, then I believe you have to push a button to accept or discard the call.....all the time looking at the screen and not the road.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

Then I shouldn't tell you my story of distracted driver! wink wink nudge nudge. Distraction in a major way. This might keep you guessing for awhile! LMAO! The devil made me do it.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

My first car had a tilt wheel, which I found improved headroom.

And I don't see that big screen as a distraction, no more than stereos of 20 or 30 years ago. I learn where the knobs are, what they do and adjust accordingly with hardly a glance. If the display was a problem to read, I wouldn't buy the car. I don't answer the phone - EVER - when I'm driving. There's nothing that can't wait.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Lola said:


> Then I shouldn't tell you my story of distracted driver! wink wink nudge nudge. Distraction in a major way. This might keep you guessing for awhile! LMAO! The devil made me do it.


I thought there was only one person in the front seat but now it seems there are two. I'll see that and raise you a story or two about distracted riding on a motorcycle. 

- - - Updated - - -



High/Deaf said:


> My first car had a tilt wheel, which I found improved headroom.
> 
> And I don't see that big screen as a distraction, no more than stereos of 20 or 30 years ago. I learn where the knobs are, what they do and adjust accordingly with hardly a glance. If the display was a problem to read, I wouldn't buy the car. I don't answer the phone - EVER - when I'm driving. There's nothing that can't wait.


Years ago you put an 8 track in the player and let it go until it wore out. If you had the radio on it was AM and you didn't change the station, there was only one. Tilt steering wheels were ok but when parked station wagons were better.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> I wear a helmet to comply with the letter of the law and that's it. You can quote studies and I can tell you about accidents where the helmet didn't help or was the cause of death. Same with cars being safer now than they were years ago. One of the biggest distractions in my wife's Charger is the radio display screen. There's too much going on there. If I set it up it would show who's calling on her phone, then I believe you have to push a button to accept or discard the call.....all the time looking at the screen and not the road.


Well it's your brain, but I can't imagine many scenarios where a helmet would actually make an accident more dangerous.

When I drive through states with no helmet laws and see guys riding Harleys wearing muscle shirts, shorts, sandals and a bandana I'm stunned and shocked every time. I've even seen a guy with scars from a major head surgery (bald head) riding in similar garb. I guess he didn't learn the first time.

We used to hear similar arguments against seat belts back in the day.

I guess some folks were pretty scared about being trapped under water.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The best commercial for a helmet I ever saw was one I witnessed some 20 years ago.

I was walking our older son back from school, and another kid comes barreling along the sidewalk on his raised-handlebar-banana-seat bike. All of a sudden the bike completely seizes ( I imagine it was a pebble in the chain or something), and the kid does a complete 180, doing a headfirst piledriver into the sidewalk. A bit dazed, he gets up, dusts himself off, checks the bike, and drives away.

Had he not been wearing a helmet, his parents would likely be either visiting his gravesite regularly, or visiting his bedside to feed him.

The lesson for me was that the helmet is not for the things you know about, or can plan to avoid. Whether a pedal bike or a motorbike, it's for the things you never saw coming or never expected.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Well it's your brain, but I can't imagine many scenarios where a helmet would actually make an accident more dangerous.
> 
> When I drive through states with no helmet laws and see guys riding Harleys wearing muscle shirts, shorts, sandals and a bandana I'm stunned and shocked every time. I've even seen a guy with scars from a major head surgery (bald head) riding in similar garb. I guess he didn't learn the first time.
> 
> ...


Bee flies into the helmet. With full face helmets if the chin piece hits something the back of the helmet can break your neck.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2015)

I had one fly into mine one time.
Got rid of that helmet pretty quick and picked up a brain bucket.
Also, the 3/4 and full face cuts off your peripheral vision.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

laristotle said:


> I had one fly into mine one time.
> Got rid of that helmet pretty quick and picked up a brain bucket.
> Also, the 3/4 and full face cuts off your peripheral vision.


I can't understand why someone will put in ear plugs then a full face with a tinted visor and complain because motorcycling is dangerous. Can't hear or see a damned thing.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> I can't understand why someone will put in ear plugs then a full face with a tinted visor and complain because motorcycling is dangerous.* Can't hear or see a damned thing*.


maybe they should also put the mufflers back on their Harleys as well


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> I can't understand why someone will put in ear plugs then a full face with a tinted visor and complain because motorcycling is dangerous. Can't hear or see a damned thing.


Put the mufflers back on the bike. As for the tinted visor, it's not different than wearing sunglasses.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> As for the tinted visor, it's not different than wearing sunglasses.


I suppose it would depend on the glasses and the visor. Easy to imagine the one providing obstacles to effective peripheral vision that the other doesn't, and vice versa. And even though I'm not a bike afficionado, I would imagine peripheral vision to be fairly important in the bike context.

That's not an argument for or against helmets or visors, but rather an argument for better design of helmets/visors. As Electraglide makes clear, safety is not just a matter of what's covered, but all relevant forms of visibility and minimized distractions.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> I suppose it would depend on the glasses and the visor. Easy to imagine the one providing obstacles to effective peripheral vision that the other doesn't, and vice versa. And even though I'm not a bike afficionado, I would imagine peripheral vision to be fairly important in the bike context.
> 
> That's not an argument for or against helmets or visors, but rather an argument for better design of helmets/visors. As Electraglide makes clear, safety is not just a matter of what's covered, but all relevant forms of visibility and minimized distractions.


I used to ride and it's not a problem. You can see much more with a full face helmet than you can in any car and there are no posts or beams in your way. You only get one head in your life. Wear the best helmet money can buy. 

You may find it interesting that race car drivers wear full face helmets. Why? Because they are the safest and don't seem to restrict view, even at 250 mph.

[video=youtube;KAbldaHRxAw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAbldaHRxAw[/video]


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Diablo said:


> maybe they should also put the mufflers back on their Harleys as well


Most of the people I see doing this are on hondas and kawis and the like. The leathers match the bikes.

- - - Updated - - -



Steadfastly said:


> Put the mufflers back on the bike. As for the tinted visor, it's not different than wearing sunglasses.


There's a lot of diference betwixt good sunglasses and a visor. Tinted visors tend to distort your vision among other things.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> Most of the people I see doing this are on hondas and kawis and the like. The leathers match the bikes.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ...


I have never found that. Maybe you had a poor one. And if that was the case, racers would not use them. At the speeds they are going, they need clear vision.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I used to ride and it's not a problem. You can see much more with a full face helmet than you can in any car and there are no posts or beams in your way. You only get one head in your life. Wear the best helmet money can buy.
> 
> You may find it interesting that race car drivers wear full face helmets. Why? Because they are the safest and don't seem to restrict view, even at 250 mph.
> 
> [video=youtube;KAbldaHRxAw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAbldaHRxAw[/video]


Compare a nascar or an indy helmet with your standard fullface mc helmet. I still ride, it is a problem.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I can understand how arguments can be made with regards to the _type_ of helmet that is the safest.

Not wearing ANY helmet, whether the law allows it or not seems just plain crazy to me.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> Compare a nascar or an indy helmet with your standard fullface mc helmet. I still ride, it is a problem.


Then you need to change the helmet if you're having a problem with it.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Milkman said:


> I can understand how arguments can be made with regards to the _type_ of helmet that is the safest.
> 
> Not wearing ANY helmet, whether the law allows it or not seems just plain crazy to me.


Should be personal choice.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> Should be personal choice.


But I am sharing in the costs of health care for a motorcyclist who is injured in a crash without a helmet--normally well beyond the cost of what the care would be if they were wearing a helmet...


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> Then you need to change the helmet if you're having a problem with it.


I would change the helmet but the law says that here I have to wear a helmet and that helmet has to have a dot sticker so I wear a bucket because my B.C. Beanies don't have a sticker. Comparing a custom made racing helmet to a mass produced helmet just don't work. Among other things quality control on racing helmets is a lot better than regular helmets.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

zontar said:


> But I am sharing in the costs of health care for a motorcyclist who is injured in a crash without a helmet--normally well beyond the cost of what the care would be if they were wearing a helmet...


You could use that argument compareing riding motorcycles to driving cars. I would say that in the last 4 motorcycle accidents here in Alberta this past week end helmets/no helmets would not have helped. The car drivers are at fault, 4 riders and one passanger are dead.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> Should be personal choice.



I feel the same way about seat belts but it is what it is.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

guitarman2 said:


> I feel the same way about seat belts but it is what it is.


True but at least you have a choice in helmets.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Electraglide said:


> Should be personal choice.


So should blowing your brains out in public or stepping in front of a train?

What about the kids who have to watch your body shredded as you fly through the windshield?

We can't leave stuff like this up to personal choice IMO.


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

I disagree with you Electraglide! How do you explain to your granddaughters that Grandpa could of been with us here today if he had of chosen to wear his helmet. 

I am glad that they are the law same as seatbelts. 

I was in a fatal car accident with my fiancé! If he had of worn it, he would of not died before my very eyes! That was a nightmare that I will never forget. That was 33 years ago!


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

An extremely petty point on my part, particularly in light of what you are describing, but every single use of the word "of" in your post should be replaced with "have". Common mistake. If I had a nickel for every time I had to correct it on a student submission, I'd be rich. It stems from the fact that we use contractions in speech, but can't "hear" the spelling. "Could've" (a contraction of "could have") sounds like "could of", "would've" and "had've" sound like "would of" and "had of", and people simply write the closest approximation to what they hear. Like I say, you join an extremely long line-up of folks making the same ear-to-pen error.

And with that little bit of pedantic interjection, carry on. :sFun_dancing:


----------



## Lola (Nov 16, 2014)

mhammer said:


> An extremely petty point on my part, particularly in light of what you are describing, but every single use of the word "of" in your post should be replaced with "have". Common mistake. If I had a nickel for every time I had to correct it on a student submission, I'd be rich. It stems from the fact that we use contractions in speech, but can't "hear" the spelling. "Could've" (a contraction of "could have") sounds like "could of", "would've" and "had've" sound like "would of" and "had of", and people simply write the closest approximation to what they hear. Like I say, you join an extremely long line-up of folks making the same ear-to-pen error.
> 
> And with that little bit of pedantic interjection, carry on. :sFun_dancing:


I don't really care because you got the juste of my story. Okay then!


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Theres far more positive outcomes to wearing a helmet than negatives. I think they should go one further and make eye protection mandatory as well. ive gotten hit with enough rocks, bugs etc to not understand the appeal of not wearing a visor...and the potential dangers of it. other than bikers, only a small % of car drivers would want to drive without a windshield (a handful of Jeep idiots).

- - - Updated - - -



Lola said:


> I don't really care because you got the *juste *of my story. Okay then!


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gist

sorry, couldn't resist!


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2015)

mhammer said:


> And with that little bit of pedantic interjection, carry on. :sFun_dancing:


The one that irritates me is the use of 'ignorant' when the person means 'arrogant'.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The entire field of public health and health promotion is one that the public has mixed feelings about. On the one hand, we clamour for more safety and more protection from things we don't want to happen to ourselves and those we care for. And I suppose, to a lesser extent, in a society where health-care costs are shared, we don't wish to be burdened by the poor health choices of others. On the other hand, we desire as much freedom and decision-latitude as we can get. Part of us says "You're not the boss of me!", and another part screams just as loudly "Please be the boss of everyone else!".

We want the-powers-that-be (TPTB) to make sure there's no e. coli in my damned salad, nobody strolling into Canada with avian flu, that my kid doesn't get their head knocked off by an air bag, and nobody choking up the surgical suites of the nation with bypass operations because they ate, smoked, and drank themselves into a mess that only 6hrs of surgery could repair. But we want them to bugger off our unpasteurized cheese, let us ride our bikes as we wish, use our cellphones when they ring, and toke when we wanna toke.

There's just no winning. I'd like to see some research into public perception of public health measures; what they think is okay for all, what they think is okay for others but not for them, and what they think is just too much for anyone. I'll bet we'd see a lot of paradoxical beliefs, with folks rejecting measures that prevent absolute catastrophes, and endorsing things that have less impact.

This is one more reason why I think a post-secondary course in probability and statistics is one of the best things you can do for yourself. People have a lot of misconceptions of relative risk.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

My father was an avid rider all of his life. His particular passion was hill-climbs and trials riding. He was always a proponent for helmets for racing and other competitions. He would however ride his bike to the event (the nearer ones) without wearing a helmet and put one on once the competition started.

I recall a humorous story he used to tell about when the helmet law was passed there was this guy who would ride around town with the required helmet strapped to his knee. He was stopped by the cops and told to wear it on his head. Two blocks down the road he was hit by a car and broke his knee.

Another of his quips was that it was ambulance drivers who insisted on helmets to make it easier to find the head.

For me, the helmet law was in place in Ontario when I first started to ride. I rode my bike out west one summer and it was not law yet in one of the provinces (Manitoba?) so I stopped and removed my helmet. The sun and the wind in my hair were overcome by grasshoppers and all the new noises I could hear emanating from my engine.

The helmet was back on quite quickly.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Ok, it is my personal choice to not wear a helmet and where I can legally get away with not wearing a helmet then I don't. To ride a motorcycle over a certain size engine in Canada (provincial law varies) you have to wear a helmet so I usually wear the least amount of legal helmet that I have to. There have been times when I have broken the law. Both for mc helmets and seat belts.  
Here's another one. I am allowed in Alberta, if my motorcycle has a cup holder, to drink non-alcholic beverages and to eat a burger etc. while riding. Also in Alberta, as long as the helmet was a legal mc helmet at the time of manufacture it is legal to wear it
"Motorcycle Helmets 
Motorcycle helmets are required by riders of: 
1.
Power Bicycles 
2.
Mopeds 
3.
Motorcycles 
Approved Helmet Standards: 
The rider and passenger must wear an approved motorcycle 
safety helmet. Helmets must have the mark or label stating it meets one of the following 
standards: CSA, DOT, BSI or the Snell Memorial Foundation M2000. 
Section 108 Vehicle Equipment Regulation
:
108(1)
A safety helmet intended for the use of 
an operator or a passenger of a cycle must
meet one or more of the standards for 
motorcycle safety helmets adopted under subsection 
(3)
in effect on the date on which it 
was manufactured. 
The following are adopted and apply to safety helmets in accordance with subsection (1): 
a)
CSA Standard CAN3-D230-M85; 
b)
Standard 218 under part 571.218 of the co
de of Federal Regulations (United States), 
Title 49; 
c)
British Standards Institute Standard BS 6658 – 1985; 
d)
Snell Memorial Foundation Standard M2000; 
e)
Snell Memorial Foundation Standard M2005"
allthumbs56....I believe....from a different post....that your father knew people that I knew. Walt Healy for one. As you say, they would ride to sanctioned events with out a helmet. If the rules at the event said they had to wear a helmet then they did. If they didn't have to wear a helmet then sometimes they did and some times they didn't. 
http://www.bikerhelmets.com/worlds-smallest-lightest-dot-beanie-helmet-flat-black-no-peak/ 
This is probably going to be my next helmet. 
If I'm wearing a helmet of any sort and I get left turned by another vehicle while keeping up with traffic on the QE2 or the Trans Canada will a helmet save me, I doubt it. If it's some idiot talking on his cell phone, hopefully I take him out as I pass thru the car thanks to my helmet breaking the glass in the drivers window. If I wasn't wearing a helmet I would probably just splatter all over the window.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

I have been saved by serious injury twice by wearing a helmet.

The first time was in Quebec after riding through a few hours of rain and my brakes were wet. I couldn't stop in time and I slammed into the back of a gravel truck. My head hit the back of the metal box but I turned my head in time and all it did was knock me off my bid and on the road.

The second time was skiing where I landed very hard on the hard packed snow. I was a bit dazed but was okay after a couple of seconds with not even a concussion.

People who are against helmets remind me of the people who put up a big fuss about seat belts when they became law and tried to argue about getting trapped in a burning car. Frankly, both arguments are ridiculous and dangerous because they have swayed some people who don't know the facts and they have died or been seriously injured because of it.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

reminds me of my buddy the undertaker. He won't wear a seat belt because, "he's seen so many bodies cut wide open by them in a crash". Think about it a sec. If the accident was bad enough that the seat belt opened you up, or broke your neck, there is no way in hell you would have survived the impact with the dash board, windshield, or steering column if you weren't wearing a belt. Either way you're dead. But there is no reasoning with him.

Seat belts save lives. Specially in roll-overs.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Steadfastly said:


> I have been saved by serious injury twice by wearing a helmet.
> 
> The first time was in Quebec after riding through a few hours of rain and my brakes were wet. I couldn't stop in time and I slammed into the back of a gravel truck. My head hit the back of the metal box but I turned my head in time and all it did was knock me off my bid and on the road.
> 
> ...


As far as the brake scenerio goes sounds like maybe inexperience and possibly riding too fast, too close and in the middle of the lane instead of one of the sides where the driver in front of you can see you in his mirrors and where you can dodge the vehicle in front of you if it stops fast. I've ridden bikes with disc brakes, drum brakes, mechanical and hydraulic brakes in all types of weather including snow and and open water. Wet brakes have never been a much of a problem.
One of the problems with mc helmets is that they don't crack and break and sometimes keep the skull intact and it stops moving very quickly. The brain on the other hand does not stop moving as quickly and hits the skull. If you're lucky you have a concusion. As far as the burning car scenerio goes, talk to any first responder about how they tried to get someone out of a burning car but the seat belt was stuck and unfortunately they had to back off.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Electraglide said:


> As far as the brake scenerio goes sounds like maybe inexperience and possibly riding too fast, too close and in the middle of the lane instead of one of the sides where the driver in front of you can see you in his mirrors and where you can dodge the vehicle in front of you if it stops fast. I've ridden bikes with disc brakes, drum brakes, mechanical and hydraulic brakes in all types of weather including snow and and open water. Wet brakes have never been a much of a problem.
> One of the problems with mc helmets is that they don't crack and break and sometimes keep the skull intact and it stops moving very quickly. The brain on the other hand does not stop moving as quickly and hits the skull. If you're lucky you have a concusion. As far as the burning car scenerio goes, talk to any first responder about how they tried to get someone out of a burning car but the seat belt was stuck and unfortunately they had to back off.


The point was is that the helmet saved me from death or a serious head injury. Without the helmet, your brain stops a lot quicker and with a lot more force. 

With the seat belt, more people have been saved by them, than jammed in tight in a burning car because of them. You are aware that very few cars (except in the movies) end up on fire. For the odd time it does happen, there is a good chance the occupants will still be conscious and able to free themselves before being burned alive. BTW, that was a stupid argument that opponents to seat belts tried to use when the laws were put in place. The numbers put that argument in the grave in a hurry. 

Look, you know all of this. You're not stupid. You're just rebelling at the thought that you have to wear a helmet whether it's for your own good or not. Forcing rebels to wear helmets have saved a lot of them from never seeing their grandchildren grow up or having their grandchildren only remember their grandfather only as a vegetable in a hospital bed.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> As far as the brake scenerio goes sounds like maybe inexperience and possibly riding too fast, too close and in the middle of the lane instead of one of the sides where the driver in front of you can see you in his mirrors and where you can dodge the vehicle in front of you if it stops fast. I've ridden bikes with disc brakes, drum brakes, mechanical and hydraulic brakes in all types of weather including snow and and open water. Wet brakes have never been a much of a problem.
> One of the problems with mc helmets is that they don't crack and break and sometimes keep the skull intact and it stops moving very quickly. The brain on the other hand does not stop moving as quickly and hits the skull. If you're lucky you have a concusion. As *far as the burning car scenerio goes, talk to any first responder about how they tried to get someone out of a burning car but the seat belt was stuck and unfortunately they had to back off.*


Maybe the first responders you know should carry knives.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2015)




----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Diablo said:


> Maybe the first responders you know should carry knives.


All of them do, some even carry guns. To say that it doesn't happen is wrong.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Another common habit I see on the highways and even in the city is people who trust their brakes ENTIRELY too much.

I drove all the way to Columbus, Ohio and back Tuesday and Wednesday (12 hours total + 3 meetings). I had almost zero close calls, untill three blocks from my house. I was stopped waiting for a driver in front of me to turn into his driveway and any time I stop in traffic, the first thing I do is check my rear view mirror.

I saw a Civic approaching at a very good clip. I'd guess 70 kmph or more. As he got closer I could see he was not looking down, but was looking right at my car.

Suddenly the brakes screeched and I braced for impact. His car went sidways a little but didn't
hit me. 

I even layed on the horn just before he hit the brakes.

Then he gave me the stink eye for having the audacity to wait while a guy turns into his driveway.

I try to predict and anticipate stops, alwasy looking way ahead on the road.

I see people drive like hell and then brake at the last minute all the time.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

As much as safety features are a good thing, the belief in impunity because something _has_ safety features, is dangerous.

I suspect that the implementation of the various protective head-gear in professional hockey has not really reduced the number of concussions, relative to the days when only goalies wore something on their heads, although I'm open to being refuted by data if anyone has it.

I may have mentioned it before, but there was a study described several years back on CBC _As It Happens_. The researchers provided a bunch of undergraduate athletes with the exact same running shoes. All were told the shoes were for a study, but were given a ruse about the focus of the study. Half were told they were simply regular shoes, and half were told the shoes had a bunch of new safety features. After a trial period lasting several months, the researchers found that athletes, who believed the shoes had advanced safety features, had experienced more sports-injuries (of the sort where they had to seek an X-ray or other documentable medical attention).

Trouble is, when you _think_ you're safe, you tend to take more chances.


----------



## JHarasym (Mar 27, 2007)

Diablo said:


> *Theres *far more positive outcomes


Should be " There are...."

sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2015)

sorry, couldn't resist  lol.


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

Coming from me, the worst of the grammar nazi bunch who avoids getting beat up through disciplined restraint and the knowledge that I am simply better than everyone else...


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Milkman said:


> Another common habit I see on the highways and even in the city is people who trust their brakes ENTIRELY too much.
> 
> I drove all the way to Columbus, Ohio and back Tuesday and Wednesday (12 hours total + 3 meetings). I had almost zero close calls, untill three blocks from my house. I was stopped waiting for a driver in front of me to turn into his driveway and any time I stop in traffic, the first thing I do is check my rear view mirror.
> 
> ...


A habit I've seen around here and in other places is 'running the light'. When approaching a traffic light people will speed up to try and make it thru before it turns red and then have to jam on the brakes at the last moment, or, run the red. Or, as soon as the light turns green, they go. Which is ok unless someone else is running the red.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2015)

how's this for a helmet? lol.
http://tv.bamargera.com/looking-for...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Electraglide said:


> A habit I've seen around here and in other places is 'running the light'. When approaching a traffic light people will speed up to try and make it thru before it turns red and then have to jam on the brakes at the last moment, or, run the red. Or, as soon as the light turns green, they go. Which is ok unless someone else is running the red.


This habit is part of a lrger pattern that I attribute to general growing societal impatience, but especially to increasing driver impatience. I think that impatience stems from the seemingly excessive amount of driving so many of us have to do, as a function of the size and layout of cities and the spacing of where we live. We resent the amount of driving we have to do in our daily lives, resent the other drivers that impede us, and resent the rules and roadway features that we feel impede and penalize us.

Fess up. Say you're waiting behind a few cars, in a left-turning lane, for an advance green. Whether because of poor traffic planning, or because the person at the start of the line wasn't paying attention, if you finally get up to the front of the line and the light changes to amber before you've begun your turn, you WILL claim that light and turning opportunity as _yours_, and continue through. Because, dammit, you waited long enough and you _deserve_ that turn!

It's easy to talk about drivers as feeling "entitled". I'm proposing that the impatience stems from the perceived imposition that driving seems to place on us these days. Obviously, it is our option to be more laissez faire and relaxed about it, but the frequent frustration faced as a driver makes that self-control hard for most maintain.

Maybe driver's education courses need to include a module on selfless "zen-driving".


----------



## bluzfish (Mar 12, 2011)

I live at a busy intersection with bus stops on either side that I often have to sit at for a while waiting for the bus. On every red light in all directions I've noted that at almost EVERY red light there are one or more cars entering the intersection as the light turns.

At least in Alberta, apparently an amber light means "STEP ON IT!!". Needless to say, that intersection has a very high collision rate. I pity the fool who is not familiar with this 'etiquette' and does not look for assholes speeding through the red as their light turns green.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> This habit is part of a lrger pattern that I attribute to general growing societal impatience, but especially to increasing driver impatience. I think that impatience stems from the seemingly excessive amount of driving so many of us have to do, as a function of the size and layout of cities and the spacing of where we live. We resent the amount of driving we have to do in our daily lives, resent the other drivers that impede us, and resent the rules and roadway features that we feel impede and penalize us.
> 
> Fess up. Say you're waiting behind a few cars, in a left-turning lane, for an advance green. Whether because of poor traffic planning, or because the person at the start of the line wasn't paying attention, if you finally get up to the front of the line and the light changes to amber before you've begun your turn, you WILL claim that light and turning opportunity as _yours_, and continue through. Because, dammit, you waited long enough and you _deserve_ that turn!
> 
> ...


I wait because I know there's some damned idiot who will run the light so he can wait in line at the coffee drive thru instead of going inside an almost empty shop. Every morning going to work I usually pass the same cars at the coffee shop line ups.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

laristotle said:


> how's this for a helmet? lol.
> http://tv.bamargera.com/looking-for...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


I would love that for skiing!


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

When I lived in Milton, the amber light was long and the red was short. Here in St. Catharines, the amber is short and the red is long. In some cases the amber is so short you can't make it through the intersection before it turns red, even if you're right at the intersection when it turns amber. I mentioned this to a cop once and he said you would never get a ticket for going through an amber light if it turned red while you were in the intersection in St. Catharines. He said the police all know how stupidly the lights are set up here.

If the people who set the lights up here ever moved to a big city and had the same job, they would have to go take some courses or get fired.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

laristotle said:


> how's this for a helmet? lol.
> http://tv.bamargera.com/looking-for...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Keep the goggles and trash the helmet. The goggles would work for grinding steel.


----------

