News   Dec 12, 2025
Year in Review: Amexon's Residences at Central Park in 2025
 395     0 
News   Dec 12, 2025
Seven-Tower TOC Proposed Beside Clarkson GO in Mississauga
 1.1K     4 
News   Dec 12, 2025
VAST Industrial Corp. Announces Acquisition of The Whalen Company
 531     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

zang said:
Except that the camera system can't issue demerit points. So, drivers are already getting a "discount" over being caught by an officer. The question is though, why should anyone be given a margin of grace? Everyone driving on the road (legally) has been tested on and issued a license based on their ability to follow the rules of the road. A single warning first maybe, by email, automated phone call and mail seems more than reasonable. But why reduce fines? If someone commits theft under $1000, I don't personally think they should be allowed to keep some of it for themselves. The maximum speed limit is also not simultaneously the minimum. Even by driving the exact maximum, people know that is the maximum.
Click to expand...
I don't know if Toronto's Automated Speed Enforcement cameras have a 'grace' margin, either baked in or by policy, but expecting an absolute accurate speed control by a driver is a bit unrealistic. Transport Canada - or the US DOT for that matter - do not have regulatory standards on speedometer accuracy. North American manufacturers use an SAE target as their benchmark:

"Manufacturers are guided by a standard set by the Society of Automotive Engineers known as J1226 Electric Speedometer Specification. At speeds above about 90 km/h the allowable range for speed is 4% of the highest reading shown on the speedometer."​

As for issuing warnings, I don't know if the technical aspects of the ASEs allow them to be networked and store incident data. Even if they are or could be, the legislation would have to allow increased fines for subsequent convictions (note, 'convictions', not incidents, so it would have to be a previous infraction where the fine was paid). Actions such as phone calls and letters sounds like an administrative nightmare. As far as I know, the MTO does not record email address of vehicle owners.
 
Crombie's resignation is far less surprising than her staying on given Paikin's and John Michael McGrath bits of knowledge they shared on the onpoli podcast.

edited down quotes from the recent episode (Youtube link):

SP: Joe Clark, got I think 66.9% of the vote at his leadership review. And he decided at that moment that that wasn't enough and that therefore he was resigning. [...] in doing so he set a precedent for future candidates.

JMM: Let's say [Crombie] wins in that 50 to 65% range where technically she's won and she's the leader, she would still have a substantial disaffected minority within her her party who would frankly still be there and still be loudly agitating to say that she was not the right person to lead them into the next election
 
afransen said:
Police generally never enforce speeding within a certain margin of the maximum.

You can wall yourself off in an absolutist position, but if you try to understand and empathize with those who might not be so happy with these cameras, we might arrive at a solution that has more social license and is less likely to spark a backlash. This attitude is what will lead to Ford outright prohibiting speed cameras.

I want safer streets. Cameras are an inferior way to make streets safer. I'd rather solutions that actually worked rather than just angering a lot of people. Cameras have a place, which is deterring a small percentage of people egregiously breaking the speed limit despite the design of the roadway. If the design speed of the street results in a fine, that's unjust.

It's like putting a pull handle on a door that's actually a push and fining people for pulling on it, even if it says push in writing. If users are being punished for poor design, I don't think that's right.
Click to expand...

I would say an absolutist position is being against speed cameras. At a certain point, you need to say, you can't go faster than X, as there will always be people which will test the limits. If you're not willing to go that far, why even have speed limits at all? It makes the act of getting a ticket subjective, which is never a good idea. Also, imagine the amount of money we can save by not producing all those useless signs, and reducing all the visual clutter.
 
Northern Light said:
Her overall vibe of Hazel/Doug Lite; wasn't one that appealed to me; she's always given me real estate agent vibes (apologies to the good agents out there, but in this case, not a compliment)
Click to expand...
This. I got the same sense of slimy realtor, fake Liberal from Crombie.

Northern Light said:
I take for granted Nate is going to have another run at this, as he was instrumental in drumming up opposition.
Click to expand...
I liked Nate, heck I voted for him in the last leadership review but his crybaby pouts for being left out of Carney’s cabinet showed me that he’s neither ready for leadership nor should be trusted with the role given he doesn’t understand that this is a team sport.

Northern Light said:
I wonder if anyone else will take a shot.
Click to expand...

We can’t go into yet another election with a low tier politician. What happened to all the big guns? We need someone who can outwit Doug Ford, who can expertly expose his incompetence and how he’s hurt every day Ontarians with anti democratic self interested moves. Where’s our Gavin Newsom to Doug Ford’s Trump?
 
nightstreak said:
We can’t go into yet another election with a low tier politician. What happened to all the big guns? We need someone who can outwit Doug Ford, who can expertly expose his incompetence and how he’s hurt every day Ontarians with anti democratic self interested moves. Where’s our Gavin Newsom to Doug Ford’s Trump?
Click to expand...
They don't exist. Nate's probably the best you're gonna get as far profile and name recognition. Crombie's replacement would be asked to lead the province's third party (by seats) for as much as 3 years. Not too attractive.
 
goreckm said:
I would say an absolutist position is being against speed cameras. At a certain point, you need to say, you can't go faster than X, as there will always be people which will test the limits. If you're not willing to go that far, why even have speed limits at all? It makes the act of getting a ticket subjective, which is never a good idea. Also, imagine the amount of money we can save by not producing all those useless signs, and reducing all the visual clutter.
Click to expand...
There is a difference in ticketing people for going 45 in a 40 vs 90 in a 40.
 
I'm curious as to why this is such a hard concept for so many to grasp.

If there's a sign saying "no trespassing; trespassers will be prosecuted" at the edge of a property, you may have the right to venture right up to that edge, but you 're not entitled to dance a jig on the line, then complain when you're caught with a foot over it.

At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. As I said before, the maximum speed is not simultaneously the minimum. You are not forced to drive on the edge of the maximum. That is your choice.

Yes, speedometers can be inaccurate, I get that. But you're still choosing to drive right to the very limit.
 
Last edited:
zang said:
I'm curious as to why this is such a hard concept for so many to grasp.

If there's a sign saying "no trespassing; trespassers will be prosecuted" at the edge of a property, you may have the right to venture right up to that edge, but you 're not entitled to dance a jig on the line, then complain when you're caught with a foot over it.

At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play. As I said before, the maximum speed is not simultaneously the minimum. You are not forced to drive on the edge of the maximum. That is your choice.

Yes, speedometers can be inaccurate, I get that. But you're still choosing to drive right to the very limit.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree here.

If the speed limit is 40 and you choose to do 50, that's on you. It's like on the 401 where if you do 110 or 120, catch air, do barrel rolls and kill 6 people you chose to do that speed.

The law is the law, if you are breaking it then there are consequences.

If you are doing 110 on the 401 and suddenly someone slams on the brakes causing you to ram into the back of them, the OPP won't let you off because "10 over is the norm". They will follow the law and act accordingly.

My point is, if someone is speeding down parkside drive above and beyond the speed limit that is their choice. There are consequences for doing so even if you don't agree with them.
 
Monarch Butterfly said:

Ontario government proposes new safety measures after daycare crash that left toddler dead​

See https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-driver-charges-toddler-killed-ontario-daycare-crash/

But who will pay for those "safety measures", since the province refuses to increase the needed funding for daycare or schools overall. It will cost a pretty penny nickel to put in bollards or platters.
Click to expand...
I suspect most of this will fall on the property owners but, you're right, the cost could be reflected in the rent.

Dropping a couple of concrete barriers ('Jersey barriers'/'K-rails') won't be all that expensive if they are allowed.
 
zang said:
But how are the liberals ever going to attract more voters if they don't swing harder to the right?!
Click to expand...
The Cons might as well keep the government if that was ever the case. /sigh
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top