Sooo...driving is a BITCH. Rant here to alleviate stress.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

thing is though, i don't have to take it easy. i have good tires on my car and know how to drive in winter, so other than some really bad side roads i can drive completely normal and at my regular speed. why should i be punished because people are too cheap to buy winter tires and too stupid to learn how to drive in these conditions?

If it annoys you that much then don't drive. Like it or not you're going to encounter those cautious drivers. I'd rather have someone drive slow than the opposite with no regard for the road conditions. Police and RCMP often say that people driving to fast for the road conditions are a major reason for all the accidents you see on the road.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

thing is though, i don't have to take it easy. i have good tires on my car and know how to drive in winter, so other than some really bad side roads i can drive completely normal and at my regular speed. why should i be punished because people are too cheap to buy winter tires and too stupid to learn how to drive in these conditions?

Hey I don't mind if you can drive normal speed - just don't get angry at the rest of us who aren't.

The additional risk people are willing to get so they arrive some place 5 minutes earlier boggles my mind.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

can you defy science?

I could but she would kill me for telling you.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by JorjeHrdina

Hey I don't mind if you can drive normal speed - just don't get angry at the rest of us who aren't.

The additional risk people are willing to get so they arrive some place 5 minutes earlier boggles my mind.

The thing that gets me is that even when people are driving pretty normal speeds, there's always the one d-bag that's just gunning it around everybody. I gotta admit that I automatically think about the winter tire threads.
Today, around 330, Glenmore WB, between Deerfoot and McLeod, d-bag in a black Toyota 4runner, swerving back and forth because the rest of us were doing 70. Is that not fast enough? Ever heard of black ice? Afterall, it's minus 20 out here. 70 is pretty much the fastest you can go, safely.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by 4X4

The thing that gets me is that even when people are driving pretty normal speeds, there's always the one d-bag that's just gunning it around everybody. I gotta admit that I automatically think about the winter tire threads.
Today, around 330, Glenmore WB, between Deerfoot and McLeod, d-bag in a black Toyota 4runner, swerving back and forth because the rest of us were doing 70. Is that not fast enough? Ever heard of black ice? Afterall, it's minus 20 out here. 70 is pretty much the fastest you can go, safely.

My bad.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JorjeHrdina

Honestly the really slow drivers are a problem but with over 400 crashes since Saturday is there anything wrong with taking it easy?

Taking it easy = good.

20-30 below the limit in the left lane = bad. And not just Deerfoot. If you are scared to drive, get the hell out of the left lane on Glenmore and Crowchild too! Agreed wtih 4x4 as well. Frankly, if the going rate on Glenmore is 70, then I find the idiot doing 50 to be just as big a danger as the ###### doing 90. If you can't keep up with the going rate of traffic, then you need to pull over and take the bus.

And +2 on your new name.

[Finny61]

I'd suggest you folks with winter tires suck it up and slow it down a tad because soon enough we'll have that absolute liability policy kick in just like Ontario where a cop can make you pay for an accident without insurance kicking in if he or she feels you went too fast for the conditions regardless of the tires you carry. And yeah I agree 70 on Glenmore is about where the standard is right now but it's getting better, intersections still slick in some areas.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Finny61

... because soon enough we'll have that absolute liability policy kick in just like Ontario where a cop can make you pay for an accident without insurance kicking in if he or she feels you went too fast for the conditions regardless of the tires you carry.

Is that really the case there? Do you have a link? I ask because that sounds absurd- basically that insurance can deny a claim because you were at fault in an accident? Just seems like a slippery slope- what is next? I ran a red light- because the light was obviously red now I have to pay out of pocket? Really defeats the point of insurance.

[Finny61]

Yes it's being implemented there, it's been done in the States for awhile now if I'm not mistaken. Insurance shouldn't have to pay for your carelessness though so that is the argument. It's like saying your insurance should pay for your speeding ticket. It's a good move but I don't see how it can hold because a cop has to prove you've been too aggressive. It would be ludicrous if they can just throw the book at you without witness or proof.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Yes it's being implemented there, it's been done in the States for awhile now if I'm not mistaken. Insurance shouldn't have to pay for your carelessness though so that is the argument. It's like saying your insurance should pay for your speeding ticket. It's a good move but I don't see how it can hold because a cop has to prove you've been too aggressive. It would be ludicrous if they can just throw the book at you without witness or proof.

If I witnessed an accident that was caused by sh1tty driving, I'd totally stop and wait till the cops got there so I could vouch for the person who was not at fault. Yeah. I hate bad drivers that much.

[ken0042]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our views- I don't see it as being the same as asking insurnace to pay for your speeding ticket.

If that law exists, then technically any accident that involves losing control on ice could fall under that category; as you would have been going too fast for the conditions; even if you were doing 40 along Deerfoot.

Every accident I have been involved in- my fault or another's fault has been caused by some error in judgement. The reason I have insurance, is so that when I have one of those errors in judgement I don't lose my house.

I also can't see how a police officer can make the choice on behalf of my insurance company either. Their job is to enforce laws, and making charges against people who do wrong. Insurance is a civil matter.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by Finny61

Yes it's being implemented there, it's been done in the States for awhile now if I'm not mistaken. Insurance shouldn't have to pay for your carelessness though so that is the argument. It's like saying your insurance should pay for your speeding ticket. It's a good move but I don't see how it can hold because a cop has to prove you've been too aggressive. It would be ludicrous if they can just throw the book at you without witness or proof.

Not sure where you have heard that, the only province that I am aware of that has implemented that law is Quebec and I believe they are just implementing it....

As for Winter tires... so far the only vehicles that I have seen hit the ditch is 4x4 Trucks... I have seen three of them in the ditch so far.. Sure they help but Ice is Ice...

Oh, I seen a cop car stuck in a drift of snow as well and yes they do have winter tires... It was interesting to see two police officers dig out the car.

[Finny61]

You have to realize that the cop decides whether you are careless, if you hit ice and wipe out and everyone confirms they were all doing 60 then a cop won't hit you with fault. He should (and I say should because cops are hit or miss) write it off as accident due to poor weather conditions. Insurance then comes in with their own fault charts and they determine your fault if at all. The insurance is not there for error caused by carelessness (ie: drunk driving, dangerous driving accidents). If they cover you then you can guarantee they will say we no longer wish to insure you the next day. Cops and insurance work on two different systems of fault. Absolute liability means you can't fight it, you pay it regardless and yes that sucks but I don't expect cops to hammer you unless there is credible evidence like the length of your skid, witnesses, damage severity.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Finny61

I'd suggest you folks with winter tires suck it up and slow it down a tad because soon enough we'll have that absolute liability policy kick in just like Ontario where a cop can make you pay for an accident without insurance kicking in if he or she feels you went too fast for the conditions regardless of the tires you carry. And yeah I agree 70 on Glenmore is about where the standard is right now but it's getting better, intersections still slick in some areas.

Unless your a high ranking government official breaking big news first on CP I call major BS on this report. What you're talking about would completely change the entire insurance system in the province and render the "chart" (to which all major Alberta insurers are signatory) useless.

I work in this industry and have not even heard the slightest whiff of this rumour. Police officers may be good at operating radar guns and writing tickets but they are not qualified to decide liability based off what they see at the scene, its laughable to even think they could. If this system ever came into play almost every single MVA would result in litigation which would mean scary costs for everyone involved. This was the reason the "fault chart" was brought into existance and signed off on by almost every company in Canada, it is the reasonable way fault can be decided without jamming the courts and doubling insurance premiums.

Not to make you look like a complete moron , and I hate to break it to you but Ontario is not this way either. Ontario has "no fault" insurance (which in actuality is the exact opposite of what you're talking about) in any event there is no place in Canada (save Quebec....figures) that police officers have the power to supersede the insurance system with their judgements, nor will their ever be. Crissakes, you can barley get a cop to come to the scene of an injury accident and you think there going to start coming out and rendering decisions on fault? No offence but....

[kipperfan]

And on the general topic at hand...the one thing that gets me, the one thing that might make me commit a bloody, gritty and horribly terrible murder if it happens again this winter is the a-hole who wants to ride my arse, while I am in the right lane doing the speed limit or slighty under. I am talking 16th Ave and crowchild NW for the most part, I drive it everyday, i drive in a 4X4 truck with winter tires and I still prefer to not go the 80km/h (or at the very least, no more then 80km/h. I hate nothing more then slow left laners so i make dam sure I am in the right lane when the roads get this way. Yet I will have some piece of garbage get within a few feet of back bumper and ride me as he thinks 75km/h in a 80 zone when it is -25 and snowing out, IN THE RIGHT LANE is just too slow.

If I ever get a hold of one of these pricks they better start praying as it wouldnt likely be pretty.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Unless your a high ranking government official breaking big news first on CP I call major BS on this report. What you're talking about would completely change the entire insurance system in the province and render the "chart" (to which all major Alberta insurers are signatory) useless.

I work in this industry and have not even heard the slightest whiff of this rumour. Police officers may be good at operating radar guns and writing tickets but they are not qualified to decide liability based off what they see at the scene, its laughable to even think they could. If this system ever came into play almost every single MVA would result in litigation which would mean scary costs for everyone involved. This was the reason the "fault chart" was brought into existance and signed off on by almost every company in Canada, it is the reasonable way fault can be decided without jamming the courts and doubling insurance premiums.

Not to make you look like a complete moron , and I hate to break it to you but Ontario is not this way either. Ontario has "no fault" insurance (which in actuality is the exact opposite of what you're talking about) in any event there is no place in Canada (save Quebec....figures) that police officers have the power to supersede the insurance system with their judgements, nor will their ever be. Crissakes, you can barley get a cop to come to the scene of an injury accident and you think there going to start coming out and rendering decisions on fault? No offence but....

You might want to check this out. It's not yet law btw - just OPP raising the issue.

A law targeting reckless drivers is already in place in many areas of the United States, Fantino said. He noted that the legislation would help officers do their job "more effectively."

Offenders can't always be charged under the current "careless driving" offence because there is a high burden of proof officers must meet to make the charge stick in court.

"This would be a charge that specifically speaks to people who don't keep with the conditions of the weather, not only in winter but in the fog, rain, whatever," he said. "These are measures that can hold people accountable where we don't have the evidence to charge them with careless driving."

The Ontario government has not formally responded to Fantino's request for an amendment to the current traffic laws.

Public Safety Minister Rick Bartolucci was unavailable for comment but his office said the ministry is not considering any changes to the Highway Traffic Act to reflect winter driving.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...22?hub=Toronto

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Dion

You might want to check this out. It's not yet law btw - just OPP raising the issue.



http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...22?hub=Toronto

That is interesting, thanks for the link Dion. But with that said, a few things must be pointed out. As you aptly mentioned this is just the OPP posturing right now and is nowhere near legislation. (in fact the article addresses the issue of a police commisioner trying to propose legislation) Not only that but even if it were passed it appears to me this would only be another charge the cops could lay (a dangerous driving charge without the exivence needed for a DD charge basically) and would not effect the role of insurance companies. If I sign a legal contract for liability with my insurance company the police do not have the power to supersede that and say I now have to pay and not the company I am paying to pay (yeah confusing).

If this ever gets closer to law the legal action taken should be intersting and as I mentioned in my earliest post, if this became law the litagation would increase tenfold - everybody and their brother that got this "msystery ticket" would fight it..i know I would. Some cop with likely no education, knowledge or training (in relation to MVA's, their causes and the underlying factors) wont be deciding if I am at fault, at the very least I would let a judge do that.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

And on the general topic at hand...the one thing that gets me, the one thing that might make me commit a bloody, gritty and horribly terrible murder if it happens again this winter is the a-hole who wants to ride my arse, while I am in the right lane doing the speed limit or slighty under. I am talking 16th Ave and crowchild NW for the most part, I drive it everyday, i drive in a 4X4 truck with winter tires and I still prefer to not go the 80km/h (or at the very least, no more then 80km/h. I hate nothing more then slow left laners so i make dam sure I am in the right lane when the roads get this way. Yet I will have some piece of garbage get within a few feet of back bumper and ride me as he thinks 75km/h in a 80 zone when it is -25 and snowing out, IN THE RIGHT LANE is just too slow.

If I ever get a hold of one of these pricks they better start praying as it wouldnt likely be pretty.

I hate these people almost as much as the ones that pull in front of me when I am slowly stopping for a light. I left that much room for a reason d-bag, I am in a truck, it takes longer to stop.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Boblobla

I hate these people almost as much as the ones that pull in front of me when I am slowly stopping for a light. I left that much room for a reason d-bag, I am in a truck, it takes longer to stop.

Thats right.

"No arsehole I didnt leave those two car lengths for you to ram in front of me and cause me jam on my brakes and probably hit you. I left the space because....its SHEER ICE and I am in a TRUCK. You bloody fool"

The title of this thread should be "People are Stupid.....on Ice!!" Enough said.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

The title of this thread should be "People are Stupid.....on Ice!!" Enough said.

But then people might think the thread is about the Oilers.