What’s going on here?

Thursday, April 16, 2009

In today’s Toronto Star yet-another-story about the impact of the one-year old(?) law against excessive speeding:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/619354

“At least 798 drivers have had their licences suspended for extreme driving on Toronto streets since March 23, the Ministry of Transportation says.”

MANAGEMENT MEASURES.

My little spreadsheet calculation indicates that over a three-week period, drivers are being clocked and penalized at an average rate of one every forty minutes.

50 KM/hour over the limit.

Toronto streets (and highways), which I take to mean within the City of Toronto, bounded on the north by Steeles Avenue, the west by Highway 427 (as good as) and the east as the Rouge River valley.

Even if it is the GTA (7,125 square kilometers) as distinct from Toronto city (630 square kilometers), it seems to me that there is something wrong somewhere.

Assume the newspaper report is correct.

I know my calculations are correct.

“Suspending a license” cannot be seen as a deterrent, if, after over a year in operation (Sept. 2007), with license suspension and (police optional) immediate impounding of the vehicle, drivers still think that it’s worth the risk of being caught, then, for 798 drivers, the risk and cost is low enough to drive at high speeds.

The risk of being caught remains the same - same number of police on the roads, drivers still willing to go 50 KM/hour above the posted limit, what other variable can be modified in an attempt to reduce the incidence of obscenely high-speeds on the road?

“… the 34-year-old suspect …”. Huh? In case you were wondering, this is not a 16-year-old immortal teenager. This is a supposedly sane adult. Old enough to read the newspapers for the past eighteen months.

It seems to me that the only variable is the degree of penalty.

Suspending a license, no matter for what period, must have little impact on scofflaws. I’d be willing to bet a meal at The Montreal Deli that over 50% of suspended drivers drive while their license is under suspension.

Impounding the vehicle, likewise, seems to be little deterrent. My theory is that drivers who have high-powered cars capable of doing 180+ Km/Hour have a second car that is used for running to the mall and back again. Impound my Ferrari and I still have my Honda Civic.

If I am correct in theorizing that taking away a license and a vehicle has little negative impact as a deterrent, then what is left?

Take away the freedom.

Instantly.

Jail.

One telephone call only.

From the highway, into the back seat of the police car, to the lockup. No diversions. In whatever clothes you happen to be wearing, your possessions, and those of those you work for or love, locked up with you.

Seven days minimum. Make sure that no driving takes place for the seven days.

Yes, you might lose your job; yes your children might not be collected from day-care; yes you might miss your flight back home to Phoenix Arizona. Whatever.

I feel sorry for your cat, dog, and guppy. I really do.

But I feel even more sorry for the mother who receives that dreadful 3 a.m. knock on the door by a sad-faced police officer, and I feel sorry for the little girl or little boy who struggles to comprehend “Mummy won’t be coming home any more”. Forever.

UPDATE:

This afternoon’s Toronto Star ( http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/633636 ) has a report of A man driving with a suspended license after a previous street-racing conviction … clocked at 190 km… driving his sister's black Acura without insurance. … He faces a maximum penalty of up to $10,000.

And his sister? Either she gave him permission, or she didn’t. If she didn’t it is, presumably, a charge of theft.

And if she did, she must have asked why he didn’t have his own car …..

What are YOU thinking?

Search