Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[direwolf]

Man, I'm so thankful that I left Alberta when I did. What the UCP has done to that once great province is beyond shameful. What a f'n disaster.

[Fuzz]

POLICY RESOLUTION #27
j. Defend Albertan's freedom of assembly by declaring all places of Worship and their outreach as Essential Services.

Jesus ####ing Christ wouldn't even think this is a good idea. What backwater bible-thumping child rape factory are these people crawling out of?

POLICY RESOLUTION #19
Resolution
i. Should review the use of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, policies, and consultants in Alberta's K–12 education system to ensure that instructional practices remain politically neutral, inclusive, and focused on academic excellence.

Rationale
Public schools serve diverse communities and should maintain a politically neutral stance. Approaches that categorize students by race or identity can unintentionally create division or discomfort and undermine the goal of fostering mutual respect. Instead, schools should focus on creating inclusive environments where all students feel valued and heard.

In the United States, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divers..._and_inclusion


We should make sure DEI isn't happening in education by making sure we do DEI. They don't even understand how to fight against what they've been told to fight against. "Wait, that's DEI? But that's good! We should do that!"

[Point Blank]

A policy resolution on defending the freedom of assembly when they literally just took that right away from teachers a few weeks ago. Sigh I’m exhausted.

[woob]

hey if they want to make Churches, etc. essential, then make them pay taxes too.

[GordonBlue]

POLICY RESOLUTION #33
Submitted By: Calgary-Foothills

Purchase the assets and operations of RCMP K-Division to create an Alberta Police Force that would replace services currently offered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

Previous efforts to create an Alberta police force faced public opposition because they aimed to replace the RCMP.
This new approach—acquiring RCMP K Division—would retain the experienced officers and assets that have long served Alberta with distinction.

[GordonBlue]

POLICY RESOLUTION #32
Submitted By: Calgary-South East

Provide intergovernmental advocacy to ensure that mRNA products are not being injected into our livestock or food sources in Alberta.

[GordonBlue]

and yet another Calgary proposal. what's with you C=NG people?

POLICY RESOLUTION #28
Submitted By: Calgary-Acadia, Calgary-BuƯalo, Calgary-Fish Creek, Calgary-Mountain
View, Leduc-Beaumont, Calgary South-East

End the Practice of Community Water Fluoridation.

[puffnstuff]

This is like a school group project, but the dumb lazy kids are actually participating instead of letting the smart kid just do all the work so they can get a good grade.

[GordonBlue]

here's a dumb one.

POLICY RESOLUTION #11
Abandon/rescind net-zero laws, regulations, policies and agreements

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

and yet another Calgary proposal. what's with you C=NG people?

POLICY RESOLUTION #28
Submitted By: Calgary-Acadia, Calgary-BuƯalo, Calgary-Fish Creek, Calgary-Mountain
View, Leduc-Beaumont, Calgary South-East

End the Practice of Community Water Fluoridation.

Fun, so we just voted for Water Fluoridation... so this is just government overreached to appease the minority and override the mandate given by the people to resume water fluoridation. Sounds like fascism.

[puffnstuff]

Ban water flouride while at the same time trying to deny Albertans the federal Dental Care program? Very on-brand.

[Monahammer]

Why do they always have to release these right before I go to Ottawa, allowing everyone I know there to point and laugh at me for the stupidity of Albertans...

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

No you are not, it totally makes sense. Those level crossings are already death traps. I know what people are saying - but everyone drives 120 already what’s the big deal. Well of course we all know that means people will drive 130-135 as the new normal, there will be greater speed differentials and more incidents. All to save 10 minutes between Edmonton and Calgary.

That take just goes against pretty much every study ever done on the matter.

In reality, most drivers travel at the speed they feel safe at, not the one posted on the side of the road. For some, sure, that just so happens to match the current limit, and for others, it's already 120-135 KM/H. If you raise the posted limit, most will just recalibrate to the new number because it reflects what they were already doing. The ones who were going faster were doing so because they felt safe doing that speed; if nothing else about the roadway has changed, it doesn't follow that they'll speed up commensurate with the increase of the PSL alone.

Speed limits are supposed to represent the 85th percentile, the speed most people naturally drive at in good conditions. When the limit is set too low, you create a wider gap between normal and outlier behavior, which actually causes more conflict between vehicles. You fix that by setting limits that match reality (what's already going on) and enforcing against the small fraction who still push beyond it, like the occasional black Ram pickup doing 165 KM/H while pulling a fifth-wheel.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by woob

Make AHC cards electronic, and then tie them to your vaccination status. If you go because your kid got measles, and you didn't vaccinate them, then there's a cost. If you go because you got COVID and didn't vaccinate, then there's a cost. (yes I know COVID vax don't prevent COVID) We don't have to make it $US style costs, but significant enough that people stop and think about their choices. If they want to continue being reckless members of society, then they pay for it. The system isn't offl imits to you, but there's now a cost.

The problem is that the kid's the one who suffers if the cheap ass parent doesn't pay that added fee.

[GordonBlue]

so, guess who party decided a Remembrance Day wreath needed their branding?
such pieces of crap.

[Reggie28]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That take just goes against pretty much every study ever done on the matter.

In reality, most drivers travel at the speed they feel safe at, not the one posted on the side of the road. For some, sure, that just so happens to match the current limit, and for others, it's already 120-135 KM/H. If you raise the posted limit, most will just recalibrate to the new number because it reflects what they were already doing. The ones who were going faster were doing so because they felt safe doing that speed; if nothing else about the roadway has changed, it doesn't follow that they'll speed up commensurate with the increase of the PSL alone.

Speed limits are supposed to represent the 85th percentile, the speed most people naturally drive at in good conditions. When the limit is set too low, you create a wider gap between normal and outlier behavior, which actually causes more conflict between vehicles. You fix that by setting limits that match reality (what's already going on) and enforcing against the small fraction who still push beyond it, like the occasional black Ram pickup doing 165 KM/H while pulling a fifth-wheel.

I see this on a highway I regularly drive, the speed limit goes from 65 mph (105 km/h) to 75 mph (121 km/h) to 80 mph (129 km/h) as you clear the built up area. I roughly observe the speed limit and people blow the doors off me in the 65 zone, then I catch up to them in the 80 zone. In the 80 mph zone most passenger vehicles are driving between 78-82 mph, the drive is relaxing with few high differential interactions.

I swear, some people drive 78 in the 65 zone, 78 in the 75 zone and 78 in the 80 zone, because that is their comfort level and they don't really care about the posted limit.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

That take just goes against pretty much every study ever done on the matter.

In reality, most drivers travel at the speed they feel safe at, not the one posted on the side of the road. For some, sure, that just so happens to match the current limit, and for others, it's already 120-135 KM/H. If you raise the posted limit, most will just recalibrate to the new number because it reflects what they were already doing. The ones who were going faster were doing so because they felt safe doing that speed; if nothing else about the roadway has changed, it doesn't follow that they'll speed up commensurate with the increase of the PSL alone.

Speed limits are supposed to represent the 85th percentile, the speed most people naturally drive at in good conditions. When the limit is set too low, you create a wider gap between normal and outlier behavior, which actually causes more conflict between vehicles. You fix that by setting limits that match reality (what's already going on) and enforcing against the small fraction who still push beyond it, like the occasional black Ram pickup doing 165 KM/H while pulling a fifth-wheel.

I have found differing analysis of this, but even if I concede your point the fact remains average speeds will likely still go up, I think there’s little debate about that. And with that comes more risk. This is not an issue the public should be voting on, this is one you ask your engineers to model. Traffic counts, travel patterns, road design, etc are all inputs and you come up with a risk based recommendation. My feeling, they are probably close to the design threshold given a number of factors but my feelings shouldn’t matter, the data and science should.

Of course data and science are not a particular strong point of our friends the UCP.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

so, guess who party decided a Remembrance Day wreath needed their branding?
such pieces of crap.

On brand, both ignorant and offensive.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

I have found differing analysis of this, but even if I concede your point the fact remains average speeds will likely still go up, I think there’s little debate about that.

Yes, if you reduce the gap between the slowest moving vehicles and the fastest ones by raising the floor, the average speed will go up. That's just a product of recalculating an average when you take out the lowest numbers from the data.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

And with that comes more risk.

Again, this conclusion does not automatically follow. In a vacuum, sure, you can say higher speed presents with higher risk, but we're talking about real-world situations, and what matters is variance, not the absolute number on the speedometer. Collisions are far more likely when there's a wide gap between the fastest and slowest vehicles. If higher limits bring everyone's speeds closer together, you actually reduce that risk. We're not talking about cranking the speed limit to match the black Ram driver.

The data consistently shows that when limits are properly aligned with how people already drive, crash rates stay the same or even decline. It's when you have slow drivers acting as moving chicanes and impatient drivers weaving around them that things get messy.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Of course data and science are not a particular strong point of our friends the UCP.

A broken clock is correct twice a day, this is one of those times. [shrug]

[Fuzz]

I think the biggest issue with raising speed limits and assuming most people will rise 10k above that is that it can result in a large speed delta between most people traffic and the slow movers. Semi's can't necessarily go that fast, campers shouldn't, school buses...lol. You can mitigate this with enough lanes, but with two it can end up being a bit of a hazard.