Canadian Election Looming...

[Stunt]

Convenient you mention the programs that literally presumably cost the least to run, i was thinking more along the lines of HRDC, Public Works, Firearms registry, CBC, Heritage Canada, etc.
There are some bloated a$$ programs in this country, where i would fully support less funding for the sake of tax relief.
Again, i am in no position to judge where the conservatives would cut, how deep, and if the cuts would have any impact on governmental affairs.
For example giving less to fund corporate welfare, adscams, and gun registry is not going to hurt any government office.

Again i think the Conservatives will look at where to cut and how deep when the get into power, see which offices are bloated/overfunded and allocate funds accordingly. I trust them in doing so. Pointing out specifics now would be ignorant on their part, not seeing operations first.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kntx
*cough* photo radar *cough*

There's nothing wrong with photo radar as long as the trigger limit is reasonably set.

It's much more effective and fair than random speed traps.

 

[Stunt]

Speed Limits Suck 😉

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Speed Limits Suck 😉

But they exist for a reason.

I've had one speeding ticket, and I damn well deserved it.

 

[silverpig]

I think: The Conservatives will win
I want: The Liberals to win
I'll vote: Independent. My riding voted in the only indep last election, and he's a good guy.
Wouldn't mind seeing: The Green party win a few seats

I really hope the Green party wins at least one seat and gets a good chunk of the vote all over the place just as a protest. 🙂

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: silverpig
I think: The Conservatives will win
I want: The Liberals to win
I'll vote: Independent. My riding voted in the only indep last election, and he's a good guy.
Wouldn't mind seeing: The Green party win a few seats

I really hope the Green party wins at least one seat and gets a good chunk of the vote all over the place just as a protest. 🙂

Hahahhaha!
You elected the only independent last election yet want liberal rule?!
The only independent elected last election was Chuck Cadman the old Alliance Party candidate. The only reason he ran indy was because he lost the Conservative nomination to some oriental guy with tons of friends to skew the nomination.
Chuck has voted on side of the conservative the whole time in parliament, and is voting against the SSM bill. Go right ahead and vote Chucky...he will probably be a conservative next round 😉

All you get when you vote green is liberal vote split accross 3 parties instead of 2. This will benifit the conservatives as we have a first past the post system. If the Greens were smart, they'd work within the NDP which at least has some force in the government.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Kntx
*cough* photo radar *cough*

There's nothing wrong with photo radar as long as the trigger limit is reasonably set.

It's much more effective and fair than random speed traps.

How fair is it when I lend someone my car then 2 weeks later I get a ticket in the mail?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Kntx
*cough* photo radar *cough*

There's nothing wrong with photo radar as long as the trigger limit is reasonably set.

It's much more effective and fair than random speed traps.

How fair is it when I lend someone my car then 2 weeks later I get a ticket in the mail?

Uhh... that would be 100% fair. There's no license or insurance ramifications to photo radar tickets (or photo red-light tickets), because they can't prove who was driving the car, but the system was actually very effective. The only legitimate complaint is that the threshold was set inconsistently (for reasons other than weather conditions); that could be fixed.

You know who had your car: take it up with them, and take them to small claims court if you need to. Did it ever occur to you that rather than somehow being 'unfair', the ticket was a reason for you to consider more carefully who you lend your car to?

Have you ever tried driving between the 401 and Peterborough on 35/115? It's dangerous because trucks travel so quickly on those sections (kind of like between Kitchener and London on the 401).

Photo radar was an effective system for bringing speeds on those routes down to safer levels. The only time I have ever driven the 115 midday midweek and felt remotely safe was under photo radar.

 

[Stunt]

Chuck Cadman

He was first elected to Parliament for Surrey North in the 1997 election as a member of the Reform Party of Canada. He was reelected under the banner of the Canadian Alliance in the 2000 election, and was appointed Justice Critic.

Cadman was again reelected in the 2004 election and was the only candidate not affiliated with a party to win a seat. Cadman had lost the nomination for the Conservative Party to Jasbir Singh Cheema, a former television news anchor.

As the only independent in an unusually-stacked minority government, Cadman holds a heightened degree of power. Should a vote break strictly along party lines, and the Liberal and New Democratic MPs vote one way (154 votes) and the Tories and Bloc Québécois MPs the other (153 votes), Cadman could make the difference between the vote being deadlocked or the vote going in favor of the Liberals/NDP. His history with the right-wing Reform/Alliance suggests he would vote to deadlock, but as he no longer is affiliated, this is not guaranteed.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Have you ever tried driving between the 401 and Peterborough on 35/115? It's dangerous because trucks travel so quickly on those sections (kind of like between Kitchener and London on the 401).

Photo radar was an effective system for bringing speeds on those routes down to safer levels. The only time I have ever driven the 115 midday midweek and felt remotely safe was under photo radar.

I'm pretty sure that trucks have a max speed of 110 locked into their transmissions. That would mean that it's unlikely that they were going too fast.

Of course, with photo radar, you could probably safely cruise at 115 in the left hand lane, instead of the 140 it takes to stay out there now.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Have you ever tried driving between the 401 and Peterborough on 35/115? It's dangerous because trucks travel so quickly on those sections (kind of like between Kitchener and London on the 401).

Photo radar was an effective system for bringing speeds on those routes down to safer levels. The only time I have ever driven the 115 midday midweek and felt remotely safe was under photo radar.

I'm pretty sure that trucks have a max speed of 110 locked into their transmissions. That would mean that it's unlikely that they were going too fast.

Of course, with photo radar, you could probably safely cruise at 115 in the left hand lane, instead of the 140 it takes to stay out there now.

I'm 99.9% sure that semi's have no max speed of 110 locked into their transmissions. If they are governed, it'll cut their engine, if anything.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kibbo

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Have you ever tried driving between the 401 and Peterborough on 35/115? It's dangerous because trucks travel so quickly on those sections (kind of like between Kitchener and London on the 401).

Photo radar was an effective system for bringing speeds on those routes down to safer levels. The only time I have ever driven the 115 midday midweek and felt remotely safe was under photo radar.

I'm pretty sure that trucks have a max speed of 110 locked into their transmissions. That would mean that it's unlikely that they were going too fast.

Of course, with photo radar, you could probably safely cruise at 115 in the left hand lane, instead of the 140 it takes to stay out there now.

Nope, trucks can go considerably faster than that - on the 35/115 the major issue is the large up and downhill sections; trucks would absolutely fly down the hills, then slow down considerably on the uphill sections, making it impossible to pass OR follow without constatnly being in danger of hitting a truck.

Even with a speed limiter, on a steep downhill, all a driver needs to do is push in the clutch.

 

[Kntx]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Kntx

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Kntx
*cough* photo radar *cough*

There's nothing wrong with photo radar as long as the trigger limit is reasonably set.

It's much more effective and fair than random speed traps.

How fair is it when I lend someone my car then 2 weeks later I get a ticket in the mail?

Uhh... that would be 100% fair. There's no license or insurance ramifications to photo radar tickets (or photo red-light tickets), because they can't prove who was driving the car, but the system was actually very effective. The only legitimate complaint is that the threshold was set inconsistently (for reasons other than weather conditions); that could be fixed.

You know who had your car: take it up with them, and take them to small claims court if you need to. Did it ever occur to you that rather than somehow being 'unfair', the ticket was a reason for you to consider more carefully who you lend your car to?

Have you ever tried driving between the 401 and Peterborough on 35/115? It's dangerous because trucks travel so quickly on those sections (kind of like between Kitchener and London on the 401).

Photo radar was an effective system for bringing speeds on those routes down to safer levels. The only time I have ever driven the 115 midday midweek and felt remotely safe was under photo radar.

This is getting a bit off topic, but I'd like to point out that due to there being "no license or insurance ramifications to photo radar tickets" it is pretty much a license for the rich to speed.

I would rather have more officers on the road who can respond to safefy concerns that a system which has as at least as many flaws as benefits.

 

[Kibbo]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Even with a speed limiter, on a steep downhill, all a driver needs to do is push in the clutch.

Right, dammit, I always have problems with gravity.

It all started the first time I drank Pernods. . .

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Kntx
This is getting a bit off topic, but I'd like to point out that due to there being "no license or insurance ramifications to photo radar tickets" it is pretty much a license for the rich to speed.

I would rather have more officers on the road who can respond to safefy concerns that a system which has as at least as many flaws as benefits.

That license already exists to some extent; keep out of license suspension territory, and all you have to do is pay fines and possibly higher insurance. If you had a 1/10 chance of a ticket everytime you decided to drive over 115-120 on a 400-series highway, you would have to be pretty rich to not care in the long run - tickets are expensive, and there's not much reason to allow fine reductions on photo tickets.

More importantly, increased officer presence is financially inefficient in the extreme; do you forget that we were promised exactly that when Ontario cancelled photo radar ten years ago? It never materialized, because it's quite simply inefficient and impractical; if we hired a few hundred traffic-only cops, there would be immediate public pressure to have them 'investigating real crimes' (i.e. it's effectively impossible to increase highway patrols, both economically and politically).

Personally, I think adding photo radar to current highway patrols is ideal; they complement each other well.