[lenaitch]

No system is perfect or fool proof.

But it would make a material difference, I think.

As to those with money, I would offer 3 points.

1) Make it an offense to tamper with a speed governor, including automatic license suspension and impounding of the offending car.
2) Increase penalties for 'stunt driving' and lower the threshold from '50 over' to '40 over.
3) Finally, and most importantly, make fines income contingent (with a base minimum); this has already been done elsewhere, and it would ensure that if you earn 10x the money, you pay 10x the fine.

*The last one requires some measure of access of computers that print/issue tickets to the Canada Revenue database. I don't really have an issue with this, providing there are appropriate privacy/security controls.

#2 - Already done as of September if the speed limit is under 80kmh.

#3 - I don't know how other jurisdictions do it (Scandinavia?) but for roadside fines issued from the police car would require a distributed data network interfacing with the CRA database. Huge technological and privacy issues. Of course, Ontario would have to pay for it all.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

#2 - Already done as of September if the speed limit is under 80kmh.

#3 - I don't know how other jurisdictions do it (Scandinavia?) but for roadside fines issued from the police car would require a distributed data network interfacing with the CRA database. Huge technological and privacy issues. Of course, Ontario would have to pay for it all.

Not sure if #3 requires access to the CRA database from the police car itself - if it wasn't an absolute monetary amount in the ticket issued (I think Finland uses "day fines" - amount equivalent to income per day). At some point the amount will have to be verified, but I am not sure if the police officer issuing the ticket need to be the one to know/access/verify that information.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

#2 - Already done as of September if the speed limit is under 80kmh.

Good to know, extending that upwards wouldn't hurt though.

#3 - I don't know how other jurisdictions do it (Scandinavia?) but for roadside fines issued from the police car would require a distributed data network interfacing with the CRA database. Huge technological and privacy issues. Of course, Ontario would have to pay for it all.

Yes to Scandinavian countries.

And, as @AlvinofDiaspar notes.............there are different ways to handle the fine amount.

The amount doesn't necessarily be need to be calculated in real time.

Obviously you have to shift the payment date to reflect when that info is available to the offending party.

But its entirely possible to mail/email w/e the fine amount a week or even a month later.

Edit to add a link on the idea (of income-contingent fines)

Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket

Most of Scandinavia determines fines based on income. Could such a system work in the U.S.?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[W. K. Lis]

An article in The Star discussing whether the time has come for laws requiring speed governors (limiters) in all new vehicles.

The limit’s 100 km/h. So why should any new car let you go twice that?

A rash of stunt driving incidents is pushing more voices to call for automatic speed limiting for new cars.

www.thestar.com

They note in the above article that Volvo has actually voluntarily capped the speed of all of its new models at 180km/ph.

Arguably not much of a concession to sanity or safety, but a sensible move in principle nonetheless, in my opinion.

Lest my above statement not make it clear, I am very much in favour of speed limiting all cars at the level of design/built-in limiters.

For the time being, real-time limitation, where the limit on acceleration varies by road, is neither technically practical nor politically feasible; so what we're really looking at is
limits above permissible highway speeds.

I think 140km/ph would be perfectly reasonable in that regard, based on speeds limits across the U.S. and Canada.

At some point thereafter, we need to consider the need for variable limits according to road class/local limit........but that's for the future.

From link.

The forgotten history of how automakers invented the crime of "jaywalking"​

As deaths mounted, anti-car activists sought to slow them down. In 1920, Illustrated World wrote, "Every car should be equipped with a device that would hold the speed down to whatever number of miles stipulated for the city in which its owner lived."

The turning point came in 1923, says Norton, when 42,000 Cincinnati residents signed a petition for a ballot initiative that would require all cars to have a governor limiting them to 25 miles per hour. Local auto dealers were terrified, and sprang into action, sending letters to every car owner in the city and taking out advertisements against the measure.

The measure failed. It also galvanized auto groups nationwide, showing them that if they weren't proactive, the potential for automobile sales could be minimized.

In response, automakers, dealers, and enthusiast groups worked to legally redefine the street — so that pedestrians, rather than cars, would be restricted.

The idea that pedestrians shouldn't be permitted to walk wherever they liked had been present as far back as 1912, when Kansas City passed the first ordinance requiring them to cross streets at crosswalks. But in the mid-20s, auto groups took up the campaign with vigor, passing laws all over the country.

Most notably, auto industry groups took control of a series of meetings convened by Herbert Hoover (then secretary of commerce) to create a model traffic law that could be used by cities across the country. Due to their influence, the product of those meetings — the 1928 Model Municipal Traffic Ordinance — was largely based off traffic law in Los Angeles, which had enacted strict pedestrian controls in 1925.

"The crucial thing it said was that pedestrians would cross only at crosswalks, and only at right angles," Norton says. "Essentially, this is the traffic law that we're still living with today."

Use of the word "jaywalking" increases steeply starting in the 1920s. (Google Ngram Viewer)

 

[crs1026]

Good to know, extending that upwards wouldn't hurt though.



Yes to Scandinavian countries.

And, as @AlvinofDiaspar notes.............there are different ways to handle the fine amount.

The amount doesn't necessarily be need to be calculated in real time.

Obviously you have to shift the payment date to reflect when that info is available to the offending party.

But its entirely possible to mail/email w/e the fine amount a week or even a month later.

Edit to add a link on the idea (of income-contingent fines)

Finland, Home of the $103,000 Speeding Ticket

Most of Scandinavia determines fines based on income. Could such a system work in the U.S.?

www.theatlantic.com

Much as that might give some a thrill of sticking it to the affluent, in our society confounding income taxation with road safety is not likely to get the message across, and it has both backlash effects and counterproductive byproducts. If I face a $50K fine, I will most certainly hire a lawyer (a good one, not an ex-copper paralegal) to try to knock that down.

Conversely, my Honda Fit can achieve stunt-driving velocity if I drive badly enough. Granting leniency based on non-affluence is not just either, and doesn’t discourage the behaviour.

Instead - Change the points assessed for speeding so that there is no “no points” zone for lesser speeding infractions - to reduce the incentive for police or courts to downsize the offense as a matter of expediency. Raise the points assessed for every level of speeding. Let convicted drivers direct their fines to the registered charity of their choice (no tax receipt, of course), to remove the (lame) argument that traffic fines are a state tax grab. Create an electronic registry of convictions so that insurance companies can learn of infractions (and raise premiums) in real time rather than by periodically reviewing driver abstracts. Implement far more intensive radar camera enforcement. Allow drivers caught on speed cameras to bypass the fine if they admit to the offense and accept the demerit points. Implement a “three strikes and you’re out“ (ie three speed convictions of any magnitude forces license suspension and/or retesting).

Skip the discussion about fines and Implement a “three strikes and you’re out“ (ie three speed convictions of any magnitude forces license suspension and/or retesting) policy. Make the discussion about the behaviour, not about dollars.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Much as that might give some a thrill of sticking it to the affluent

That isn't the point.

We very much disagree here.

The point is for punishment to 'feel' the same to each person, irrespective of their income.

It is neither to lessen nor to increase the punishment on any one person.

Its so that everyone feels 'like' pain.

To think of it another way, the punishment isn't so much deprivation of 'x' dollars; its the relative pain their deprivation will cause you.

****

If we punished people today by making them drag a weight behind them; should the punishment for a 5ft woman of carrying a 10lbs ball; be the same we hand to a 6'6 football player in his prime?

Or should the burden for the latter feel the same as the former; therefore the ball must weigh 100lbs? (at a guess that might be the comparison if you measured ability to lift)

Clearly asking those two persons to carry the same weight does not carry an equal effect; nor does handing out the same fine to the poor as the rich.

I firmly believe a punishment should feel the same to each offender; that that is in fact an inherent legal principle (proportionality) which is, in fact embedded in Canadian law even now.

Its also not novel Montesquieu; an affluent man, was a champion of the notion centuries ago.

 

[crs1026]

That isn't the point.

We very much disagree here.

The point is for punishment to 'feel' the same to each person, irrespective of their income.

It is neither to lessen nor to increase the punishment on any one person.

Its so that everyone feels 'like' pain.

To think of it another way, the punishment isn't so much deprivation of 'x' dollars; its the relative pain their deprivation will cause you.

****

If we punished people today by making them drag a weight behind them; should the punishment for a 5ft woman of carrying a 10lbs ball; be the same we hand to a 6'6 football player in his prime?

Or should the burden for the latter feel the same as the former; therefore the ball must weigh 100lbs? (at a guess that might be the comparison if you measured ability to lift)

Clearly asking those two persons to carry the same weight does not carry and equal effect; nor does handing out the same fine to the poor as the rich.

I firmly believe a punishment should feel the same to each offender; that that is in fact an inherent legal principle (proportionality) which is, in fact embedded in Canadian law even now.

Its also not novel Montesquieu; an affluent man, was a champion of the notion centuries ago.

I don’t disagree - in principle. I’m just not convinced we would increase the justice of this specific system by adding this complex and hard to manage bit of legalese?

Affluence (as measured by taxable income) is a very crude and imprecise test. Many will slip through the loopholes. Even if the CRA data were discoverable without privacy objections, there are doubts in our society about how fair those tax assessments are especially for the affluent. To my mind, carrying this potential variability over into road safety creates a second error rather than equalises the accountability.

There was a case recently where a very affluent driver killed multiple people while driving while intoxicated. Long before the verdict was delivered, there was abundant public concern that the typical fine and license suspension would be a meaningless consequence for somebody who could afford to hire their own driver. Opinions varied on whether the eventual penalty had the right impact….doesn’t matter what our individual views might be, the point is, I totally recognise where you are coming from.

I do suspect that some portion of the population would cheer such a system out of a very superficial sense that it stuck it to the right people…. but I would question that we could actually get it right. Feels like a bit of mob mentality to me to go down this route.

That’s why I would rather focus on the key variable…. removing the right to drive at all. We are far too lenient about who gets the privilege of driving.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don’t disagree - in principle. I’m just not convinced we would increase the justice of this specific system by adding this complex and hard to manage bit of legalese?

Affluence (as measured by taxable income) is a very crude and imprecise test. Many will slip through the loopholes. Even if the CRA data were discoverable without privacy objections, there are doubts in our society about how fair those tax assessments are especially for the affluent. To my mind, carrying this potential variability over into road safety creates a second error rather than equalises the accountability.

There was a case recently where a very affluent driver killed multiple people while driving while intoxicated. Long before the verdict was delivered, there was abundant public concern that the typical fine and license suspension would be a meaningless consequence for somebody who could afford to hire their own driver. Opinions varied on whether the eventual penalty had the right impact….doesn’t matter what our individual views might be, the point is, I totally recognise where you are coming from.

I do suspect that some portion of the population would cheer such a system out of a very superficial sense that it stuck it to the right people…. but I would question that we could actually get it right. Feels like a bit of mob mentality to me to go down this route.

That’s why I would rather focus on the key variable…. removing the right to drive at all. We are far too lenient about who gets the privilege of driving.

- Paul

Except historically removing the privilege (not a right) to drive is even harder to achieve than fines, and fines proportionate to income isn't about mob mentality/sticking it to the rich; but ensuring that the deterrence function is divorced from socioeconomic status. It's a matter of fairness.

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

We're dancing in the dark quite a bit here. The example of Finland is a much more social welfare state with a populace that likely more readily accepts state intrusion into their lives than here, and apparently a justice system that allows it. Given our Charter and the rulings that have flown from it, warrantless access to financial records by law enforcement, let alone for provincial regulatory enforcement, seems to me to be highly unlikely. There is also the 'equality before the law' provision that may cause some problems.

 

[crs1026]

Except historically removing the privilege (not a right) to drive is even harder to achieve than fines

AoD

True…. Because the entire demerit sustem is badly calibrated and sets an incredibly low bar for screening out bad drivers. Especially when speed offenses (which statistically are very prevalent in fatalities) may not even accrue demerits.
There is less institutional change, and fewer legal principles to overcome to have a simple “three strikes and you’re out” approach. Money may not even need to come into the discussion.


- Paul

 

[tiffer24]

A complete failure. Vision Zero 2.0 will cost $123 million to implement between 2020 and 2024, according to the staff report. Council approved its first comprehensive road-safety plan in July 2016

Toronto is still failing to meet its Vision Zero goal, as at least 58 people were killed on the city's roads and 183 more seriously injured in 2021.

The deaths include a beloved couple killed by a speeding driver on Parkside Drive and a teenager struck by a driver at a crosswalk near her Scarborough high school. And just this week, six pedestrians and a driver were raced to hospital after a crash sent an SUV flying onto a downtown sidewalk. Their injuries aren't yet included in the city's statistics.

Road safety advocates continue to call on the city to do better — four years after Toronto officially launched the road safety plan with the goal of zero traffic-related deaths and injuries.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-vision-zero-1.6300706

 

[Northern Light]

A complete failure. Vision Zero 2.0 will cost $123 million to implement between 2020 and 2024, according to the staff report. Council approved its first comprehensive road-safety plan in July 2016

Toronto is still failing to meet its Vision Zero goal, as at least 58 people were killed on the city's roads and 183 more seriously injured in 2021.

The deaths include a beloved couple killed by a speeding driver on Parkside Drive and a teenager struck by a driver at a crosswalk near her Scarborough high school. And just this week, six pedestrians and a driver were raced to hospital after a crash sent an SUV flying onto a downtown sidewalk. Their injuries aren't yet included in the city's statistics.

Road safety advocates continue to call on the city to do better — four years after Toronto officially launched the road safety plan with the goal of zero traffic-related deaths and injuries.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-vision-zero-1.6300706

I certainly take issue w/the way in which Vision Zero has been delivered thus far in Toronto and believe that more can and should be achieved. But......

Lets take a look at the 10-year running stats and observe they may not be quite as bad as you think (which is not to say acceptable)

Its worth noting that while total traffic fatalities are only marginally below the 5-year rolling average..........

Pedestrian deaths are down substantially vs the same; though up slightly from last year. Cyclist deaths are also way down.

This years totals are driven by motorist and motorcyclist deaths.

For clarity, we need fewer of those as well, and Vision Zero is supposed to reduce all traffic deaths; but i do think those numbers imply some measure of progress.

****

I also think you're going to see a lot more progress in the next 2 years than in the last 5; at least I'm hopeful based both on road design changes coming forward and stepped up levels of redlight and speeding enforcement.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A complete failure. Vision Zero 2.0 will cost $123 million to implement between 2020 and 2024, according to the staff report. Council approved its first comprehensive road-safety plan in July 2016

Toronto is still failing to meet its Vision Zero goal, as at least 58 people were killed on the city's roads and 183 more seriously injured in 2021.

The deaths include a beloved couple killed by a speeding driver on Parkside Drive and a teenager struck by a driver at a crosswalk near her Scarborough high school. And just this week, six pedestrians and a driver were raced to hospital after a crash sent an SUV flying onto a downtown sidewalk. Their injuries aren't yet included in the city's statistics.

Road safety advocates continue to call on the city to do better — four years after Toronto officially launched the road safety plan with the goal of zero traffic-related deaths and injuries.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-vision-zero-1.6300706

They already spent billions to make the city roadways acceptable for the almighty automobile. It will take millions (not billions) to correct that.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Link to get a "Walk Score" for your address.

Cities & Neighborhoods​

Walk Score is available for any address in the United States and Canada. We've also ranked more than 2,800 cities and over 10,000 neighborhoods so you can find a walkable home or apartment.


We believe that walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit, better commutes, and proximity to the people and places you love are the key to a happier, healthier and more sustainable lifestyle.

 

[tiffer24]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1477088983121375235