Jump to content

Legal System missed it again...Humboldt


Poncho

Recommended Posts

Well we missed a big opportunity.....the only way to stop this sort of thing is to hit the owner of the company....... Sure the driver fucked up and IMO should be gone for life; however, the company owner is the accountable executive, and as such should be held accountable.....$5,000.00 fine.  He will reopen and continue under another name.  Are Canadians really that stupid......sad day

 

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-owner-of-truck-in-humboldt-broncos-bus-crash-pleads-guilty-to-safety/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Poncho said:

Well we missed a big opportunity.....the only way to stop this sort of thing is to hit the owner of the company....... Sure the driver fucked up and IMO should be gone for life; however, the company owner is the accountable executive, and as such should be held accountable.....$5,000.00 fine.  He will reopen and continue under another name.  Are Canadians really that stupid......sad day

 

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-owner-of-truck-in-humboldt-broncos-bus-crash-pleads-guilty-to-safety/

I don't know all the deets but I also believe the MTO out there needs to get tougher as well. I watched a program on how easy it was to obtain an AZ license and I couldn't believe what I was watching. Friggin scary knowing some of these truckers can barely drive a car let alone 40 tons down the hwy at 100+ kms/h!! :yikes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, irv said:

I don't know all the deets but I also believe the MTO out there needs to get tougher as well. I watched a program on how easy it was to obtain an AZ license and I couldn't believe what I was watching. Friggin scary knowing some of these truckers can barely drive a car let alone 40 tons down the hwy at 100+ kms/h!! :yikes:

Like I said Irv.  The cancer is at the source, these company’s pop up everywhere, notice the name...s.....Trailtard  love these guys, as does Justine......As a Canadian we watch this just go by....ever wonder why so many trucks crash.....try looking at how that company even came to be.......

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Poncho said:

Like I said Irv.  The cancer is at the source, these company’s pop up everywhere, notice the name...s.....Trailtard  love these guys, as does Justine......As a Canadian we watch this just go by....ever wonder why so many trucks crash.....try looking at how that company even came to be.......

Unfortunately they have decimated the trucking industry nd ran prices way down.  No money left for the honest guys

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sksman said:

Unfortunately they have decimated the trucking industry nd ran prices way down.  No money left for the honest guys

Yes they have......however know one in Canada gets it. Sad.....the Tards rule the country...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Poncho said:

Well we missed a big opportunity.....the only way to stop this sort of thing is to hit the owner of the company....... Sure the driver fucked up and IMO should be gone for life; however, the company owner is the accountable executive, and as such should be held accountable.....$5,000.00 fine.  He will reopen and continue under another name.  Are Canadians really that stupid......sad day

 

 

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-owner-of-truck-in-humboldt-broncos-bus-crash-pleads-guilty-to-safety/

LIFE?  seems harsh for a mistake 

I was surprised he got 8 years

 

Imagine a business not giving a fuck eh!  -  we hate workers instead - Yet we hate the Liberal Government in Ontario for making up so many costly rules around trucking - I remember the outrage here as a WYNNE ATTACK ON BUSINESSES 

 

ONEWAYS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

LIFE?  seems harsh for a mistake 

I was surprised he got 8 years

 

Imagine a business not giving a fuck eh!  -  we hate workers instead - Yet we hate the Liberal Government in Ontario for making up so many costly rules around trucking - I remember the outrage here as a WYNNE ATTACK ON BUSINESSES 

 

ONEWAYS 

We all knew you would miss the point.  No surprise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

lol Stunt driving for following too close 

Definition, “stunt”

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.  O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, odot1 said:

Definition, “stunt”

3. For the purposes of section 172 of the Act, “stunt” includes any activity where one or more persons engage in any of the following driving behaviours:

1. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to lift some or all of its tires from the surface of the highway, including driving a motorcycle with only one wheel in contact with the ground, but not including the use of lift axles on commercial motor vehicles.

2. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to cause some or all of its tires to lose traction with the surface of the highway while turning.

3. Driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to spin it or cause it to circle, without maintaining control over it.

4. Driving two or more motor vehicles side by side or in proximity to each other, where one of the motor vehicles occupies a lane of traffic or other portion of the highway intended for use by oncoming traffic for a period of time that is longer than is reasonably required to pass another motor vehicle.

5. Driving a motor vehicle with a person in the trunk of the motor vehicle.

6. Driving a motor vehicle while the driver is not sitting in the driver’s seat.

7. Driving a motor vehicle at a rate of speed that is 50 kilometres per hour or more over the speed limit.

8. Driving a motor vehicle without due care and attention, without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may endanger any person by,

i. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to prevent another vehicle from passing,

ii. stopping or slowing down a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates the driver’s sole intention in stopping or slowing down is to interfere with the movement of another vehicle by cutting off its passage on the highway or to cause another vehicle to stop or slow down in circumstances where the other vehicle would not ordinarily do so,

iii. driving a motor vehicle in a manner that indicates an intention to drive, without justification, as close as possible to another vehicle, pedestrian or fixed object on or near the highway, or

iv. making a left turn where,

(A) the driver is stopped at an intersection controlled by a traffic control signal system in response to a circular red indication;

(B) at least one vehicle facing the opposite direction is similarly stopped in response to a circular red indication; and

(C) the driver executes the left turn immediately before or after the system shows only a circular green indication in both directions and in a manner that indicates an intention to complete or attempt to complete the left turn before the vehicle facing the opposite direction is able to proceed straight through the intersection in response to the circular green indication facing that vehicle.  O. Reg. 455/07, s. 3.

I know the law, I just find it funny how they name shit 

closer than 30 meters going over 100k/hr LAME for a 7 day impounding IMO 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

I know the law, I just find it funny how they name shit 

closer than 30 meters going over 100k/hr LAME for a 7 day impounding IMO 

Not for tractor trailers...  way too close, no chance of stopping in time.  IMO and experience at the collision scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, odot1 said:

Not for tractor trailers...  way too close, no chance of stopping in time.  IMO and experience at the collision scenes.

giving him a ticket should be good enough unless he is purposely tailgating that rig for some sort of road rage.  

Impounding seems a high price to pay for getting too close without causing any accident 

 

Just my opinion on a so flawed Stunt Law 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1trailmaker said:

giving him a ticket should be good enough unless he is purposely tailgating that rig for some sort of road rage.  

Impounding seems a high price to pay for getting too close without causing any accident 

 

Just my opinion on a so flawed Stunt Law 

 Many others greatly disagree.  Easiest way to avoid this, don't tailgate excessively in a large commercial motor vehicle.  The stunt law has withstood many charter tests...  Just my opinion on a law that's saving lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, odot1 said:

 Many others greatly disagree.  Easiest way to avoid this, don't tailgate excessively in a large commercial motor vehicle.  The stunt law has withstood many charter tests...  Just my opinion on a law that's saving lives.

I feel there is a big difference between doing 150 on an open highway then doing 90 in a 50 zone - The law is full of flaws like this 

One guy  loses his car for a few days the other guy gets a ticket and moves on :dunno:   its not about lives ODOT this law was a reaction to an accident where two cars racing caused death to that transport driver.  

 

With all the high speeds we see daily this law is doing nothing IMO to save lives - for the most part people don't speed

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half the fkrs dont care about the 60 metre law. I'd like to see a stat on accidents prior to the 105 limit vs the amount of accidents after the 105 limit. I won't disclose how fast I've driven in a big truck  and you'd be shocked if I told you lol. One thing I'm proud of is I've never tailgated or cut anybody off. I believe the 105 has made it tough to pass,caused road rage and put drivers to sleep behind the wheel

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 1trailmaker said:

I feel there is a big difference between doing 150 on an open highway then doing 90 in a 50 zone - The law is full of flaws like this 

One guy  loses his car for a few days the other guy gets a ticket and moves on :dunno:   its not about lives ODOT this law was a reaction to an accident where two cars racing caused death to that transport driver.  

 

With all the high speeds we see daily this law is doing nothing IMO to save lives - for the most part people don't speed

 

 

 

Go do a ride along with a traffic unit....  Stop a vehicle at the side of the 401.  You have your opinion and I have my years of experience.   You'll never agree, that's fine.  Doesn't mean you are right however...  The 401 is not exactly an open highway...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, odot1 said:

Go do a ride along with a traffic unit....  Stop a vehicle at the side of the 401.  You have your opinion and I have my years of experience.   You'll never agree, that's fine.  Doesn't mean you are right however...  The 401 is not exactly an open highway...  

You missed the point 

not sure how you can think driving 150 on a highway is the same as doing 90 in a 40 zone :dunno:  

 

I will never agree to this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1trailmaker said:

You missed the point 

not sure how you can think driving 150 on a highway is the same as doing 90 in a 40 zone :dunno:  

 

I will never agree to this 

I didn't miss the point at all.  I didn't argue that 90 in a 50 is unsafe.  The truth however is that you see far more 150+ in a 100 than you'll ever see 90 in a 50.  I'm not sure how you think doing 150 on the highway is safe?  The beauty of this is that you do not have to agree ever...  Because it really doesn't matter.  The laws exist regardless of your thoughts on them. Either way...don't exceed the limits and you'll never have to worry about being ticketed, losing your veh or your licence.  It couldn't be any simpler. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, odot1 said:

I didn't miss the point at all.  I didn't argue that 90 in a 50 is unsafe.  The truth however is that you see far more 150+ in a 100 than you'll ever see 90 in a 50.  I'm not sure how you think doing 150 on the highway is safe?  The beauty of this is that you do not have to agree ever...  Because it really doesn't matter.  The laws exist regardless of your thoughts on them. Either way...don't exceed the limits and you'll never have to worry about being ticketed, losing your veh or your licence.  It couldn't be any simpler. 

never said doing 150 was  safe :dunno:  I said it isn't the same for the BLANKET STUNT FLAW LAW 

I drive the highways daily for 30 years and have a valid opinion,   the people doing 135 in the fast lane are rarely the problem.

 

At a certain point speed does matter for control of your vehicle - 100k/hr isn't that point

 

AS for Tickets I don't get them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, odot1 said:

I didn't miss the point at all.  I didn't argue that 90 in a 50 is unsafe.  The truth however is that you see far more 150+ in a 100 than you'll ever see 90 in a 50.  I'm not sure how you think doing 150 on the highway is safe?  The beauty of this is that you do not have to agree ever...  Because it really doesn't matter.  The laws exist regardless of your thoughts on them. Either way...don't exceed the limits and you'll never have to worry about being ticketed, losing your veh or your licence.  It couldn't be any simpler. 

Pretty sure we won't have to worry about Fail driving +150, his car would fall apart before ever hitting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1trailmaker said:

never said doing 150 was  safe :dunno:  I said it isn't the same for the BLANKET STUNT FLAW LAW 

I drive the highways daily for 30 years and have a valid opinion,   the people doing 135 in the fast lane are rarely the problem.

 

At a certain point speed does matter for control of your vehicle - 100k/hr isn't that point

 

AS for Tickets I don't get them

Yet...  like I said..try a ride along with a traffic guy.  Attend some major collisions and help clean up body parts and do some next of kin notification...  Speed is fine while in control.  your injuries at 130 are quite a bit more substantial than at 100.  It's not only about vehicles traveling safely at speed.. the result of vehicles coming to sudden stops from various speeds is also factored in.  You may think you are safe at 135..  and you may be.  But not everyone around is safe at that speed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, odot1 said:

Yet...  like I said..try a ride along with a traffic guy.  Attend some major collisions and help clean up body parts and do some next of kin notification...  Speed is fine while in control.  your injuries at 130 are quite a bit more substantial than at 100.  It's not only about vehicles traveling safely at speed.. the result of vehicles coming to sudden stops from various speeds is also factored in.  You may think you are safe at 135..  and you may be.  But not everyone around is safe at that speed.  

Hitting a tree at 100km/hr compared to 50km/hr on a sled is going to hurt more, everyone knows this...  I doubt anyone thinks driving a sled at 100km/hr is unsafe :dunno: 

Just another flawed traffic law - IMO 

 

Personally I think if you can't drive 135 on a highway comfortably  you should be allowed on it - lack of skill and just plain scared drivers are more of an issue.

 

You seem to be taking this personal for some reason - We still love you Sean :3gears:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol



×
×
  • Create New...