this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
75 points (87.1% liked)

Ontario

3056 readers
175 users here now

A place to discuss all the news and events taking place in the province of Ontario, Canada.

Rules

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"I hate these damn bike lanes. Screw your studies. I'm not reading that"

"Cut gas taxes. I see no reason why I should pay to support public transit"

"Fuck speed limits. I'm proud to break the law"

This sense of entitlement is insane.

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 1 points 34 minutes ago

I find that speeders often assume that it is only their driving skill that should define their speed. They don't acknowledge that they will be driving in traffic or what the roads sight lines might be. They are also often delusional about how good a driver they are. There are many times when following a speeder that has woven through traffic that you can visually see all the cars that swerved or hit the brakes so that the "excellent driver" could get through unscathed.

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Their twitter is full of other such wisdumb

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 3 points 49 minutes ago

What a fuckin' traitor.

I'm only like 99.9% against Trump wanting to revoke citizenships. But the there's guys like this and I gotta think "if he's not going to fuck off himself..."

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 58 minutes ago

Wants our government to concede to trump then complains that they nearly need to be threatened to do their job. Pretty sure give up Canadian sovereignty is not listed as the role of our politicians.

[–] discomatic@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 hours ago

As someone who had their life ruined by a speeding driver who ignored a red light, fuck anyone who speeds.

[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 26 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

Speed cameras are a money grab and should be abolished because they don't actually result in safer driving and really is just a revenue generator.

Instead non-highway roads should be narrowed or otherwise calmed (and use that extra space for bike/pedestrian paths), this naturally causes almost all drivers to slow down, which increases safety. (source)

[–] Davriellelouna@lemmy.world 13 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Are speed cameras really effective? There are multiple studies that looked at this.

And the answer is yes, they really are:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1963295/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3861844/

The car crashes that happen in Ontario cost society far more ressources (police, hospitals, nurses, medication, surgeries) that any of the money raised by speeding tickets.

Road narrowing is a great idea. It can be applied to local streets.

But the people who hate speed cameras are going to absolutely FREAK OUT if you suggest road narrowing as a potential solution.

re: first study

Results. The relative risk (RR) of a road collision occurring on the beltway after (vs before) installation of speed cameras was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.63, 0.85). This protective effect was greater during weekend periods. No differences were observed for arterial roads (RR=0.99; 95% CI=0.90, 1.10). Attributable fraction estimates for the 2 years of the study intervention showed 364 collisions prevented, 507 fewer people injured, and 789 fewer vehicles involved in collisions.

I looked it up, it looks like the Beltway is functionally equivalent to a US interstate. This makes some sense, as speeds on interstates are going to be higher than on arterials (and the arterials in Spain probably aren't as bad as our stroads in the US).

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago

OTOH, maybe speed cameras as a money grab is a good thing. We have all sorts of sin taxes - alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc. Why not a sin tax on speeding?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 hours ago

Hitting someone at 60km/h vs 50km/h could mean the difference between whether they survive or not. This person should not be driving.

[–] three_trains_in_a_trenchcoat@piefed.social 9 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

I'm actually sympathetic to these folks, because there's a bunch of studies that show that people drive the speed that feels safe. You can't engineer a road to be safe for 15 mph over the posted speed limit and be shook when folks do the speed that feels safe (the US does this ALL THE TIME). That kind of engineering is all but guaranteeing that an enforcement control is going to be a money printer.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I’m actually sympathetic to these folks, because there’s a bunch of studies that show that people drive the speed that feels safe.

Problem: Driving faster doesn't make anyone safer, so that's not true. Studies usually show that people drive at what "feels comfortable" for the design of the road, which is vastly different from what's safe.

I've been driving for decades and never felt compelled to drive at excess speeds of what's posted. I've certainly never had the urge to go 90km/h in a 40km/h or 100km/h in a 60km/h zone.

If people are unfit to drive at the posted speed limits, they should consider taking other forms of transportation.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

The studies really show that narrow roads make drivers slow down, while wider roads have them increasing their speed.

Make roads like 3 inches wide.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

The studies really show that narrow roads make drivers slow down, while wider roads have them increasing their speed.

Because they are uncomfortable or comfortable depending on the road design, not because they want to drive safer. They don't want to hit a plastic bollard, but have no problem driving millimetres away from cyclists, for example. 😱

[–] WiredBrain@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That's exactly the point... If they drive safer because they don't want to scratch the paint on their car or because the feel some kind of communion with others, what difference does it make? We often chalk up problems to "personal responsibility" when we should be focusing waaaay more on systems and the built environment.

People use things the way they're implicitly built to be used.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If they drive safer because they don’t want to scratch the paint on their car or because the feel some kind of communion with others, what difference does it make?

Maybe I didn't get my point across clearly. People may be worried about the paint on their cars, but that doesn't mean they are worried about the safety of others.

Of course, driving slower is still driving slower, to the benefit might still be there.

However...

If someone chooses to only drive "safely" because their car would get scratched, rather than drive safely because it could kill a child, that person should be taken off the road. It's unbelievable that drivers shouldn't be expected to drive with the safety of other human beings (and animals) in mind.

[–] WiredBrain@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Instead of hoping people will feel a particular way, would it not be easier to get people to drive safer using measues that directly cause them to drive more safely, irrespective of their feelings in the moment?

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It may be a matter of opinion, but if a driver doesn't have the ability to drive safely (i.e. defensively, with concern for others, etc.) without the use of the guardrails (no pun intended), then they really shouldn't be driving.

Driving is a skill. If it requires "hacks" or mind games, then we're doing something terribly wrong.

Some countries that have implemented safe street design also have drivers who know their place on the road.

Safe street design won't have the same effect in countries where drivers feel entitled and for which their behaviour has no consequences.

For example, we have stop signs and red lights. Everybody who drives should know what they mean.

But we have the majority of drivers rolling through stop signs, and quite a few ignoring red lights. You can't really design this stupidity out. Roundabouts are not an answer when the attitude of entitlement still exists. We are just shifting the bad behaviours to another part of the road.

And in particular Ontario, where our government would rather build wider roads with fewer safety implements, makes this challenge even more difficult. Drivers need to change their behaviour, and need to, well before we make the roads "safe by design".

[–] WiredBrain@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

By all means: be an advocate for safer driving. Just know that this kind of advocacy been the dominant strategy for decades and the research says it doesn't work, or at least not as well as roads engineered to be safe. Have a look at the work by Strong Towns for more information, if you're interested.

I know there's nothing I can say in this moment that will change your mind, as were just typing to eachother on the internet. I'm just an advocate for this because I believe it has the potential to fix huge portions of Canada and Noth America generally, without a strictly left/right partisan stance.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 minutes ago

For sure. Don't mistake what I wrote (my ideal) vs. my IRL advocacy (i.e. working with my municipality, region, and cycling advocacy groups to get safe road designs implemented).

I know I can't change how people behave behind the wheel, any more than you can change American gun culture. The best we can do is design safer roads by design... those figurative guardrails... and encourage people to do better in the meantime.

We do still need automated enforcement, and more police enforcement, because people going excessive speeds or burning through red lights can, and do, kill other people. Plus, we need more revenue to build safer infrastructure 😀

What you're describing is what I meant. If you're driving at a speed that feels uncomfortable, it's likely because it feels unsafe. I'm glad you're a human cruise control, because I'm not, I often do vibes based speed control and I'd be very vulnerable to speed traps. I know I'm a bad driver, and I'd much rather take the bus, train, or bike lane if it was realistic to do so; I honestly hate driving.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I've encountered a few roads in my time driving where the speed limit doesn't match actual driving conditions at all.

I think by now we should have the technology to do statistical analyses on actual road data (currently observed speed vs. speed limit speed) to more accurately assign speed limits that are safe enough that enough people actually follow them.

[–] silvermoon82@wandering.shop 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

@Gork @three_trains_in_a_trenchcoat
My understanding is, when they design a road they do calculate the "engineering speed limit", the safe speed given road geometry and surface and visibility, etc., but then they mostly ignore it and assign an arbitrary limit from the standard list for that type of roadway.
We botched raising the limit for 400-series. We should have gone to 120km/h with actual enforcement, but what we did was 110 and a wink, and now 1 in 3 drivers do 130km/h.

[–] baggins@lemmy.ca 19 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 hours ago

61 is almost 49% more kinetic energy than 50.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 11 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

My impression is that there has been an unspoken compromise between safety advocates and ordinary drivers, with the safety advocates getting to set low speed limits and the drivers getting to ignore those speed limits. Speed cameras are putting an end to that compromise. I wonder if that will generate the political will necessary to increase speed limits - there are, after all, a lot more speeders than safety advocates.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Speed cameras are often implemented in areas where heavy pedestrian traffic exists or a history of car crashes has happened. The goal of the cameras is to reduce speed to prevent crashes and reduces injury and death. The solution is not to raise speed limits just because drivers feel entitled to not follow the limit.

Imagine if we did this for other laws. Well people are still murdering each other even though its illegal so we might as well make murder legal. This may seem like an extreme example but speed is one of the biggest factors in how deadly a crash is, so just increasing the speed limit is basically saying we are okay with more people dying so long as they think traffic is moving faster.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 points 25 minutes ago

Making something legal because a lot of people are doing it anyway does happen. Consider, for example, the decriminalization of marijuana. I wonder if, in fact, it's actually the most common mechanism by which something that was once illegal becomes legal. I don't hear a lot about criminal laws that were strictly enforced being repealed.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 hours ago

I think you're right. I wonder where cops fit in that relationship. In Ontario, cops rarely seem to ticket speeding. Is that because of political pressure? Because the police brass don't value speed limits?

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Ontario entitled drivers was one of the tipping points on my pro and cons list of leaving Ontario, to move to BC.

I'll preface by saying I'm a safe driver, no accidents in 38 years of driving.

As a driver of a Honda: I had Chrysler owners try to drive me off the road yelling nonsense about jap scrap.

As a motorcyclist in a curve of on ramp: I was gaining on a lifted truck, not fast or tailgater just started in the ramp later and catching up, douch in truck didn't like that his truck wasn't handling as well so he purpose left the road and drove on the gravel shoulder and gunned it to spray gravel all over the road. Obviously I just back off the throttle to straighten the bike up. While he sped off.

As a cyclist: I had two major ones. A truck didn't like that he had to go around me, he didn't want to leave his lane to pass and just kept honking and yelling get off the road. I countered I have the same right as you. He did not like that so passed me then turned hard to the curb forcing my bike between his truck body and the curb where I had to hop onto the sidewalk.

The other was me cycling on the side of road and passing traffic as they slowed to a stop, some ass threw open his passenger door to block me moving forward. He wanted to be first.

Just losers. BC drivers understand cycling and pedestrians

[–] Kowowow@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 hours ago

Ten over is standard her cops don't even notice anything less than 20 over if you aren't in a school zone

[–] LuxSpark@lemmy.cafe 6 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Speed limits are arbitrary.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

50 vs 49 or 51 may be arbitrary, but overall there's a relationship between speed and car accidents which makes setting speed limits a real judgement call.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

And remember that kinetic energy goes up with the square of the velocity, so a crash at double the speed is theoretically four times as deadly. Even modest reductions in speed greatly increase survivability of an accident.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

Isn't there a relationship between the road surface material, angle, width, and surrounds that dictates a safe speed range?

[–] teslasdisciple@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 hours ago

It's not entitlement if the laws make no sense.

[–] RoquetteQueen@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago

Oh so this is the guy who drives an inch from my bumper whenever I don't speed.

[–] roserose56@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago

If you where driving with 61 inn 50 area, you shouldn't be driving!!!! How many people must die or left permanent disable, for you to drive faster?

[–] warm@kbin.earth 2 points 6 hours ago

They should become speed limits, rather than remaining speed targets.