# Spp



## Tarl (Feb 4, 2006)

*SPP Our Furture??*

For those that may be interested....

http://www.ndp.ca/spp_petition?refer=more


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

Thanks Tarl! :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Signed.

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

Thanks.

submitted by a proud to be Canadian!

cheers
RIFF


----------



## Tarl (Feb 4, 2006)

I hope we can get lots of forum members to sign especially with Mr. Bush's latest snub to Canadian sovereinty in the Arctic. Scary stuff.......


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

In response to Bush's predictable and baseless comments on Canadian soveriegnty in the Arctic I say we take Alaska.

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## PaulS (Feb 27, 2006)

also signed...


----------



## Xanadu (Feb 3, 2006)

Tarl said:


> I hope we can get lots of forum members to sign especially with Mr. Bush's latest snub to Canadian sovereinty in the Arctic. Scary stuff.......


h'ok.... so... What? I obviously missed what Bush said about the arctic.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Xanadu said:


> h'ok.... so... What? I obviously missed what Bush said about the arctic.


Basically he thinks the Arctic or at least the NW passage, belongs to everyone and is not really a part of Canada.

Alaska would be a fair exchange I suppose.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

did anyone see the 3 supposed cops undercover trying to make the protesters look bad (and to make it look like the big security budget was worth it) there is a facebook video but unfortunately I do not yet know how to do a link. read about this on Yahoo canada news this am. pretty sick stuff.
cheers
Gerry


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

*Bush and the Arctic*

Warning! Wild Bill Cynic Alert!

I'm much too classic liberal to support SPP but that's ok. We all have a right to our beliefs.

As for this Arctic thing, am I the only one to sense some grandstanding going on?

Why would Bush want the Northwest Passage to be declared international waters, in the interest of security? If the waters are international, then it's not just America that can sail through. It's every country in the world, including those Bush might consider a security threat!

It can't be buried oil and gas. He made a point of respecting the islands, and with the underwater shelves in between that's essentially conceding the buried resources belong to Canada.

Certainly he doesn't want everything handed to Russia!

Meanwhile, the ex-US ambassador to Canada makes a public statement about how it would be in America's best interest to support Canada's claims to the Arctic, AT THE SAME TIME as Bush is having his photo op!

Now, being an ex-ambassador means his words are only his personal opinion and not American policy but I can't believe he would pull such a career limiting move as to cross the policy of his incumbent government. Far more likely he was TOLD to make his speech!

So what's going on? Maybe the answer is quite simple. For over a hundred and some odd years we've invested diddley squat in our far North. We've put the land in our history books but never built much of anything up there, including ships that could reliably cut through the ice. The only defence money spent was by America, with the DEW line. All we've ever done is draft some of the native peoples into the army reserves as Rangers.

Now things are different! We'll cheerfully support investing in our Arctic sovreignity if it means bashing Bush! His administration is not so blind that they don't know how so many of us feel about him. As a lame duck president I don't think he gives a fig as to how he goes down in CANADIAN history so why not make an issue out of the North to light a fire under our collective asses?

I mean, for the first time in our history we actually seem to be doing something! And actually spending money! Since Trudeau's time we've been mostly freeloaders on the international scene. Like a cliche Scotsman we've been long on pride and short on kicking in our share of the cash.

In short, I think it's all just a conspiracy to get us to actually put up or shut up about the Arctic region.

Just my cynical opinion!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> did anyone see the 3 supposed cops undercover trying to make the protesters look bad (and to make it look like the big security budget was worth it) there is a facebook video but unfortunately I do not yet know how to do a link. read about this on Yahoo canada news this am. pretty sick stuff.
> cheers
> Gerry


Why sick stuff? Personally, I'd be more offended if the police DIDN'T infiltrate the protestors! In these times there's always "just another berserker who's prepared to die!", as Firesign Theater put it. Too many of them, in fact.

Don't get me wrong. I've still got enough hippy left in me to support the right to protest. It's just that over the past few years it seems to be a different scene.

There are too many claims about the same faces appearing at virtually every protest about virtually everything to dismiss them as government propaganda. I've been watching the tv news and the newspaper photos myself and I think there's a lot of truth to the story.

If so, that's a LOT different from the protest scene of my formative years! We protested because we BELIEVED! Our numbers were made up of ordinary folks who shared the same values, NOT because we worked for "Rent-A-Gripe"!

I don't like manipulation, from ANY side of the political spectrum!

In the 60's we had rallies where we were "half a million strong", as Joni sang it. Now what do we have? The same few busloads at every photo-op for the radical left?

Sellouts, the lot of them!

:sport-smiley-002:


----------



## Michelle (Aug 21, 2006)

RIFF WRATH said:


> did anyone see the 3 supposed cops undercover trying to make the protesters look bad (and to make it look like the big security budget was worth it) there is a facebook video but unfortunately I do not yet know how to do a link. read about this on Yahoo canada news this am. pretty sick stuff.
> cheers
> Gerry


Here is a link to an article with the youtube video:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070821180724319

'Agent Provocateurs' have been used all the time, they provoke violence so the coppers can use their fancy toys and bust a few heads, thankfully, there were observant and level-headed people there.

I think the whole arctic thing is to give stevie points in 'standing up to that bully bush' and to distract attention away from what the protest was all about - the NAU.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Warning! Wild Bill Cynic Alert!
> 
> So what's going on? Maybe the answer is quite simple. For over a hundred and some odd years we've invested diddley squat in our far North. We've put the land in our history books but never built much of anything up there, including ships that could reliably cut through the ice. The only defence money spent was by America, with the DEW line. All we've ever done is draft some of the native peoples into the army reserves as Rangers.
> 
> ...


You may be right about this being a way to get us to invest more in our Northern defense.

As for us being freeloaders on the international scene, I presume you mean we've been typical Canadians and minded our own business?

Avoided pi$$ing in the world's collective cornflakes


that sort of thing?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

Wild Bill said:


> Why would Bush want the Northwest Passage to be declared international waters, in the interest of security? If the waters are international, then it's not just America that can sail through. It's every country in the world, including those Bush might consider a security threat!
> 
> It can't be buried oil and gas. He made a point of respecting the islands, and with the underwater shelves in between that's essentially conceding the buried resources belong to Canada.


As I understood oil does play into it. The floor along the NW passage is accessible by modern drilling platforms and assumed rich in oil.

It's also about accessibility. Being able to leave subs and ships in that water without having to declare their presence to either Canada or Russia makes spying on your neighbours a whole lot simpler.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

A little off topic but I suppose if we need to, all Canadians that own Skidoo's could all head to the Artic for a show of Canadian presence. There's not enough snow in southern ontario to use them down here anyway.

I don't care which political party you support but I'm for less USA influence on Canada. NAFTA is bullcrap. remember mad cow. what about the lumber dispute. now they want access to our water . they already control most of our other natural resourses. have you been through the border lately.

cheers
RIFF


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2007)

An online petition... Ya... cause that'll do ANY good at all....


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> As for us being freeloaders on the international scene, I presume you mean we've been typical Canadians and minded our own business?
> 
> Avoided pi$$ing in the world's collective cornflakes
> 
> ...


Well, I won't deny that sometimes the Americans have been pushy. Still, are you saying that if we simply mind our own business every other country in the world will think we are wonderful people and never try anything negative with us?

Off shore foreign fishing fleets, perhaps? I mean, even Spain and Portugal have more powerful navies than we do and made it quite plain that they intend to fish until the last cod and turbot is gone and who cares how Canada feels! We literally have not dared to challenge them and they continue scraping nets across miles of ocean bottom to this day.

Or if Putin wants to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic do you think he actually cares how we feel about it? What could we do back to him? Call him names?

Ever notice how in the neighbourhood even the nicest kids can be bulllied if they are perceived as a weak target.

If someone bullies us, just what do you think we can do about it? Blow them a kiss and sing "One Tin Soldier"?

It's just a sad fact of human nature that usually you have to be strong to avoid being bullied. I wish it weren't true, but the world is as the world will be.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Well, I won't deny that sometimes the Americans have been pushy. Still, are you saying that if we simply mind our own business every other country in the world will think we are wonderful people and never try anything negative with us?
> 
> Off shore foreign fishing fleets, perhaps? I mean, even Spain and Portugal have more powerful navies than we do and made it quite plain that they intend to fish until the last cod and turbot is gone and who cares how Canada feels! We literally have not dared to challenge them and they continue scraping nets across miles of ocean bottom to this day.
> 
> ...



I've always believed the world is what we make of it.


I'm suggesting we mind our business until someone gives us just cause to do otherwise.

Somehow in more than thirty years of playing bars I've managed to avoid fights.

On the one or two occasions I have had to resort to physical defense it has been over very quickly. Once you attack me, all's fair. Hit me with your fist, I'll hit you with a mic stand.

Get the picture?


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

Milkman said:


> You may be right about this being a way to get us to invest more in our Northern defense.


I had a great idea for this, but the then Minister of Defense just sent a form "Thank you" note.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia needed money. It had lots of leftover military resources. It also had a good arctic defense force. Canada has money and desperately needs military resources. We don't have enough money to make or buy our own military resources. We also need factories, which Russia had an abundance of and we sold ours out to the American's (and overseas) and still continue to do so. We also need a good arctic defense.

It would have been a match made in heaven.

But now we have the US, Russia and Denmark are all wanting a piece of our snowball.


----------



## Tarl (Feb 4, 2006)

I know that as a nation we have not treated the northern part of our country equally in our short history and in the future I hope we do better........but it is our country!! Bush specificaly, and the American atitude in general, make me very nervous. Any little bit that we can attempt to do to keep us a seperate entity as much as possible from the US and I am for it. Has anyone seen the documentry "The Corporation". The talk about fresh water rights in Mexico being owned by American interests is something I hope we never face over here. It is getting a bit hard to keep brushing of the US economic and cultural subversion of our country while our kids are being killed in their fruitless war. All the while hearing how they are our best friends, protect us and help us pay the bills. I'm afraid they see us as nothing more than some resouces and a place to expand their idealism.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I've always believed the world is what we make of it.
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting we mind our business until someone gives us just cause to do otherwise.
> ...


Not a good analogy, I'm afraid.

It would be more like: "Once you attack Canada, all's fair. Just give us a couple of years to draft and train some mic stands, 'cuz we don't have any right now. Also, our mic stands are from 1937, so please be fair and don't use your modern mic stands against us. Pretty please?"

My point is that we don't have any real power to react effectively if some one "hits us". Which is a good reason why if you have to choose a country to "hit" Canada makes a good target. Not much fear of any force to strike back.

I'm not talking military first strikes here. The first hit is usually over something to do with business like resources or markets. It is always understood however that if there IS a credible military force it would be stupid to go there. 

We hear so much today of how Uncle Sam pushes us around. They'll always be a much bigger country than we are but damn it, do we have to make it so easy for them?

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Not a good analogy, I'm afraid.
> 
> It would be more like: "Once you attack Canada, all's fair. Just give us a couple of years to draft and train some mic stands, 'cuz we don't have any right now. Also, our mic stands are from 1937, so please be fair and don't use your modern mic stands against us. Pretty please?"
> 
> ...



LOL, no offence, but you sound so much like an American it's almost funny.

Who exactly are you afraid of?

I guess it's a matter of underlying paradigms. I start every thought of this nature from the idea that the other guys want peace as much as I do.

Until I have someone in my face, I choose not to escalate and encourage conflict. Many conflicts can be avoided with a little less sabre rattling IMO. 


The extreme right wingers tend to view this as naive. 

I think of it as evolved.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> It's just a sad fact of human nature that usually you have to be strong to avoid being bullied. I wish it weren't true, but the world is as the world will be. :food-smiley-004:



...the world is constantly changing. we are slowly but surely emerging from our caves, getting to know the members of the other herds and, as milkman suggests, evolving.

-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> LOL, no offence, but you sound so much like an American it's almost funny.
> 
> Who exactly are you afraid of?
> 
> ...


Hey, don't get me wrong! I sincerely hope that you're right!

It's just that I've never been a man of faith. If I don't have good reason or evidence that a thing is true then I just can't trust it.

When you say underlying paradigms, I hear underlying assumptions. You've obviously chosen to have faith in the best of human nature and of our "rivals" always sharing our values. 

Me, I see lots of evidence that this is not true and precious little that things actually are the way you describe.

I would be more inclined to agree if incidents like foreign overfishing DID NOT keep happening to us! You didn't respond to my points so much as simply stated your beliefs and made a claim of being more "evolved".

You're welcome to your views and I'd be the first to help you defend the right to hold them.

I would just need more than your last post to change mine.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...the world is constantly changing. we are slowly but surely emerging from our caves, getting to know the members of the other herds and, as milkman suggests, evolving.
> 
> -dh


David, I would agree. It's just that the process is very slow, and actually in some specific cases sliding backwards. Even if in most cases you're right it only takes one nut case with a big bomb...

I just want my children to be reasonably safe for their future and not have them curse me and my generation for being "pollyannas" and letting things fall on them.

Being strong enough to discourage bullying does not mean you must be a bully yourself. In fact, it can also mean that you can defend the weak. And the biggest mic stand in the world is a trivial defense to an AK 47. The weak cannot effectively defend other weak, or their interests.

Do you remember the "Billy Jack" movies? It took me years to understand the real message of those films. The "hippies" were obviously the "good" people and the townsfolk were plainly "********", to borrow from another thread. :smile:

Despite the morality of the two groups, if Billy Jack with his "Kung Fuey Louis" moves hadn't come upon the scene then the hippies would have been seriously hurt, if not killed.

This is getting kinda blown out of proportion but the basic points still stand. With world politics, you're playing with the "big boys". I'm just saying that these last few decades Canada has depleted its military to the point where the big guys find us irrelevant.

When we have generals needing psychiatric care over their helplessness to do anything effective to prevent the genocide of Ruwanda surely we should accept that we've gone a long way down the wrong path. We have some catching up to do. Harper has upped our investment in the armed forces more than we've done in 30 years but we have a long way to go before we have any respect on the world stage.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> We have some catching up to do. Harper has upped our investment in the armed forces more than we've done in 30 years but we have a long way to go before we have any respect on the world stage.



...i respect your view, wild bill - that goes without saying. but my perception is somewhat different: canada has achieved tremendous respect as a world leader, peace keeper, role model and example setter - in all, an enlightened, forward-thinking nation. harper is eroding that, and taking us backward. ultimately, i believe canadians will pull the plug on him.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Hey, don't get me wrong! I sincerely hope that you're right!
> 
> It's just that I've never been a man of faith. If I don't have good reason or evidence that a thing is true then I just can't trust it.
> 
> ...



What in the world would make you think I'm interested in changing your views?

That's a false assumption.

I'm merely stating mine.

I don't meant to sound rude, but I don't have time to address every point in every post. I try to cover the high points and that's it.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i respect your view, wild bill - that goes without saying. but my perception is somewhat different: canada has achieved tremendous respect as a world leader, peace keeper, role model and example setter - in all, an enlightened, forward-thinking nation. harper is eroding that, and taking us backward. ultimately, i believe canadians will pull the plug on him.
> 
> -dh


I agree and I sure hope you're right. The problem is in our lack of a credible alternative.

Still, it couldn't be much worse.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...i respect your view, wild bill - that goes without saying. but my perception is somewhat different: canada has achieved tremendous respect as a world leader, peace keeper, role model and example setter - in all, an enlightened, forward-thinking nation. harper is eroding that, and taking us backward. ultimately, i believe canadians will pull the plug on him.
> 
> -dh


Pull the plug? We might. We get the government we voted for, after all. After Adscam I just don't think I personally have much other choice. At least the Rhinos are back!:smile:

As for your impression of Canada's international rep, I would respectfully disagree. I correspond with a lot of people in other countries and I would suggest that your impression is what WE think of our reputation! After all, we've had politicians for years tell us that everything is just fine and that the world loves us. Kinda like letting Paris Hilton write her own hype sheets, although in this case the sheets are at least legible.

The impression I get from the international press is quite different. Canada is considered more like the Shire of Lord of the Rings. We hobbits are quite proud and convinced we are the finest land anywhere, while we are blissfully unaware that the woods outside are full of wargs and that others have been defending us from dangers beyond our capability of handling.

There is an actual joke that went around Europe in diplomatic circles during the early 90's about a "Canadian Solution". Embassy staff of many countries would suggest a Canadian Solution during some discussion group and the entire table would burst out laughing. I did NOT make this joke up and it is not an "urban myth" and I invite anyone who may move or have friends who move in such circles to confirm the story. 

The joke goes like this:

A European physicist discovers a new scientific principle. Within a week a British/French consortium has brought out a new product that gets the entire world buzzing!

Two weeks after that, an American firm makes a deal to go into mass production of the products. Worldwide distribution is arranged.

Within one more week China is making knockoffs and selling pirate counterfeits.

Six months later, Canada appoints a federal commission to decide if it's a federal or a provincial matter.

The truth, David. I swear! That's our rep at that level of international politics, deserved or not.

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> As for your impression of Canada's international rep, I would respectfully disagree. I correspond with a lot of people in other countries and I would suggest that your impression is what WE think of our reputation! After all, we've had politicians for years tell us that everything is just fine and that the world loves us. Kinda like letting Paris Hilton write her own hype sheets, although in this case the sheets are at least legible.
> 
> The impression I get from the international press is quite different. Canada is considered more like the Shire of Lord of the Rings. We hobbits are quite proud and convinced we are the finest land anywhere, while we are blissfully unaware that the woods outside are full of wargs and that others have been defending us from dangers beyond our capability of handling.



...yeah, it probably depends who you talk to.

my liberal friends in sweden see us as evolved. my conservative friends in the US see us as gay socialists.

in my view, we are tokers, not fighters.

:smilie_flagge17:

but we all seem to agree that we have been seriously let down by liberal governments in this country.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Pull the plug? We might. We get the government we voted for, after all. After Adscam I just don't think I personally have much other choice. At least the Rhinos are back!:smile:
> 
> As for your impression of Canada's international rep, I would respectfully disagree. I correspond with a lot of people in other countries and I would suggest that your impression is what WE think of our reputation!
> :food-smiley-004:



My experience is quite the opposite. I both correspond with and travel to countries all over the world. We are still widely thought of as a more evolved and peaceful nation by the folks I interact with. The only exception is with some Americans, and American "thinking" individuals and surprisingly few at that.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> What in the world would make you think I'm interested in changing your views?
> 
> That's a false assumption.
> 
> ...


Well, that would explain some misconceptions!:smile:

I guess I too am guilty of holding misconceptions. You see, I've always thought simply stating one's views to be in itself a waste of time!

Everybody has views, so what? It's only if we thrash out opposing views that we can come up with any solutions. To me, the only reason to point out any problem is to start a process to fix it. To simply state how we feel about it and then go away seems pointless, at least to me.

Too often I find that politicians make appeals to my feelings instead of actually fixing anything. It seems to me that much of the problem with things today is that most fellow citizens WANT to get feel-good BS! If we have gun crime, we're happy to get a gun registry. Of course, we already had a registration system and the crooks just laugh at the new law while only the legal owners comply yet vast numbers of voters think something was actually done about the problem!

We let the Americans pay for our defense for years and then get upset about our sovereignty if they yank the chain once in a while.

We call for photo radar when all it can do is grab cash from speeders. Idiot drivers that actually cause most accidents can do whatever they like, as long as its below the speed limit. What about putting a few more cops on patrol? What about putting ANY cops on patrol??!!

Things can only change if enough voters clearly understand the issues and refuse to be BS'd. Politicians don't give a damn if we simply state our opinions. They tend to be unfocused and not solid enough in any particular riding to affect which of them wins the seat.

If large numbers of us thrash out our views and start to see clearly, that would be a different story! Then something might begin to change.

If you don't believe that common beliefs can affect which politicians we choose to lead us, pay attention to the vote breakdown in Caledonia this October.

If the McGuinty candidate isn't totally thrashed with the lowest vote share in the riding's history, I'll sing an ABBA tune at a karaoke bar!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...yeah, it probably depends who you talk to.
> 
> my liberal friends in sweden see us as evolved. my conservative friends in the US see us as gay socialists.
> 
> -dh


"Gay socialists"? Now there's another question!:smile:

Like most folks these days, I have a number of gay friends. However, only one of them is not a socialist!

All the others are fervent NDP. Is being socialist caused by genetics? Are socialists unable to choose their political persuasion?

Just wondering!:wink:

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> My experience is quite the opposite. I both correspond with and travel to countries all over the world. We are still widely thought of as a more evolved and peaceful nation by the folks I interact with. The only exception is with some Americans, and American "thinking" individuals and surprisingly few at that.


Well, it would be nice to know that the common folk approve of us. Sadly, it's their leaders who make the decisions on relations with other countries and it was the attitude of the political leadership that I was talking about.

During the Tobin "Cod Wars" the papers reported that the citizens of Spain and Portugal were absolutely in favour of their governments sending warships over to protect their right to overfish the waters off Newfoundland and the Grand Banks.

Should we respect their beliefs?

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Well, that would explain some misconceptions!:smile:
> 
> I guess I too am guilty of holding misconceptions. You see, I've always thought simply stating one's views to be in itself a waste of time!
> 
> ...



I like ABBA



and I'd be happy for the Americans to not bother defending us. It just increases the risk IMO.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> We call for photo radar when all it can do is grab cash from speeders.



...you say that like its a bad thing.



-dh


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...you say that like its a bad thing.
> 
> 
> 
> -dh


Not in itself, David!:smile:

I would just like to see just ONE of those idiots who change lanes without looking or who stop on merge lanes to get pulled over!

It seems to me the emphasis is on just getting all the idiots to just drive more slowly, while continuing to be idiots! 

Oh well...

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> Not in itself, David!:smile:
> 
> I would just like to see just ONE of those idiots who change lanes without looking or who stop on merge lanes to get pulled over!
> 
> ...




On this one we agree. Speed in itself is not the main problem in my opinion. It's agressive and careless driving I worry about.

Left lane bandits are every bit as dangerous as guys driving thirty over, maybe more so.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> On this one we agree. Speed in itself is not the main problem in my opinion. It's agressive and careless driving I worry about.
> Left lane bandits are every bit as dangerous as guys driving thirty over, maybe more so.



...no, speed IS definitely the problem, my friends, along with callous disregard etc.

i agree that left lane bandits can be a nuisance, but can you give me ONE specific example of left lane bandits being dangerous? can you cite an example of a left lane bandit causing an accident? one will example will suffice.

do we need a separate thread for this topic?

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Wild Bill said:


> It seems to me the emphasis is on just getting all the idiots to just drive more slowly, while continuing to be idiots!



...its a start.

-dh


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

david henman said:


> ...no, speed IS definitely the problem, my friends, along with callous disregard etc.
> 
> i agree that left lane bandits can be a nuisance, but can you give me ONE specific example of left lane bandits being dangerous? can you cite an example of a left lane bandit causing an accident? one will example will suffice.
> 
> ...



Here's two for you.

They cause accidents simply by requiring faster traffic to pass them on the right.

Even the OPP cite slow traffic in the left lane as a hazard.

Also if you're driving 120 on the 400 series highways and suddenly come over a hill to encounter someone driving 100 or 90 there's an obvious danger there.

Don't bother telling me the limit is 100. Drive 100 on the 401 and you had better install a jump ramp on the back of your car.


----------



## Wild Bill (May 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Here's two for you.
> 
> They cause accidents simply by requiring faster traffic to pass them on the right.
> 
> ...


+1, Milkman!

Bless his old heart, my old man has always been one of the worst drivers I've ever known. He's had precious few accidents, mainly because of luck and the grace of other drivers.

Anyhow, I still remember as a kid being in the car when a cop pulled my old man over for going too slow over the Burlington Skyway. He was slowpoking along in the passing lane, ranting at the rest of the family to join him in gawking at the view over the lake. 

The cop told him that he was genuinely sorry that there was no law (in those days) to give my dad a ticket. He chewed him out good, pointing out that if a big rig had come up and over the peak of the Skyway to discover a car with a bunch of kids doing 45 in a 60 mph passing lane we likely would all have been flattened!

Sadly, the warning was wasted on my father. Once we were on the way again he stayed in the curb lane until we were no longer in view of the cop but as soon as practical he went back to his old habits. In his view the cop had no right to pull him over 'cuz he was under and not over the speed limit. He had a right to be in whatever lane he chose and it would have been the trucker's responsibility to look out for HIM!

Somehow we all survived over the years. My folks now winter in Florida and some nephews went down to visit them. I was proud of them when after one ride they flat out refused to ever ride with their Grandpa again!

Incidently, he's a big booster for photo radar. He wants the world to slow down to his pace!

:food-smiley-004:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Here's two for you.
> They cause accidents simply by requiring faster traffic to pass them on the right.
> Even the OPP cite slow traffic in the left lane as a hazard.
> Also if you're driving 120 on the 400 series highways and suddenly come over a hill to encounter someone driving 100 or 90 there's an obvious danger there.



...these are great examples....in theory.

sorry, i'm not buying it. i drive approximately 50,000 kms per year. i see a lot of dangerous driving, _none_ of it _caused_ by so called left lane bandits.

-dh


----------

