SELF HELP - The Enhanced Driving Decisions Workbook

University of Michigan MResearch indicates that the (Enhanced) Driving Decisions Workbook significantly increases the self-awareness of older drivers and facilitates discussion about driving-related problems with family members. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute and The UM Drive-Ability Program have developed and host the on line assessment tool. The site introduction says that this on-line workbook will help you think more carefully about the health concerns you may be experiencing that could affect safe driving. After you respond to questions about yourself, feedback is provided about what various concerns may mean for driving and what you can do to increase safety.



is this about getting old?

On the 27 pages, many would have to honestly answer they have some issues related to driving-and it's not just older folks . No doubt that some have lost the ability to drive safely. What are the stats for older drivers-are they the main problems on our roads for serious and fatal injuries? ICBC has not updated stats since 2013-is it seniors or increased speed that is the fatal issue on BC Roads?

One thing is certain-seniors vote.


Does older mean wiser?

You ask a couple of interesting questions, there.

What are the stats for older drivers-are they the main problems on our roads for serious and fatal injuries?

From what I've seen over the years, stats-wise, seniors as a group tend to have a higher collision rate than the median; similar in fact to new drivers, though obviously for different reasons. Middle aged guys seem to be the least likely to get into crashes, perhaps because they've reached their optimum combination of experience and knowledge, enhanced by the effect of having become family guys, as it were.

ICBC has not updated stats since 2013-is it seniors or increased speed that is the fatal issue on BC Roads?

That's an unanswerable 'either/or' type question, almost certainly contrived due to a personal bias rather than any genuine interest in determining the leading factors and causes behind collision fatalities. There is no single fatal issue on BC Roads, as experience should have made clear, surely?

One thing is certain-seniors vote.

Indeed they do.  And it's always best that voters are as informed and objective as possible.  I'm 61; how old are you, Phil?  

how old -does it matter

What is middle age? What is old? I have been driving for over 50 years with one speeding ticket and 2 minor parking lot accidents.I consider myself very lucky. Although I drive defensively and try to follow the laws of the road-I have lots of mistakes.My wife has has no accidents and no tickets in her 50 years of driving. We are far from perfect drivers,but do much better than the average BC driver. 

We are both concerned about some drivers today-is not the goal to get there accident free-not in the shortest possible time?

Middle age fatalty rates vs old age

I don't find ICBC statitics very usefull as they are so far out of date, but in the case of "middle age"  vs "older" drivers, the 5 year average on the ICBC site for fatal injuries by age group shows that middle age drivers actually have the highest number of deaths on BC Roads.

It's interesting that ICBC tracks many  statistics, but does little to prevent the big 3 causes of recurring fatal injuries-speed, impaired, distracted drivers Is there anybody leading accident prevention initiatives on the main causes of deaths on BC roads-regardless of age?

It's easy to confuse age with wisdom, sometimes.

What is middle age? What is old? I have been driving for over 50 years with one speeding ticket and 2 minor parking lot accidents.I consider myself very lucky. Although I drive defensively and try to follow the laws of the road-I have lots of mistakes.My wife has has no accidents and no tickets in her 50 years of driving.

That's admirable. It's worth keeping in mind though, that every senior who presents themselves for a Re-Examination will have a similar story they'll tell to the Driver Examiner; pointless, as the DE only cares about how they drive within the next hour, not the preceding 700,000 hours.

We are both concerned about some drivers today-is not the goal to get there accident free-not in the shortest possible time?

You sure like to present questions as an 'either/or' choice, don't you? People drive because it's efficient; otherwise, they would cycle, or walk.

Similarly, Traffic Engineers design roads - including traffic lanes, traffic lights, traffic signs to warn, traffic signs to inform, traffic signs to regulate, and so on - with TWO significant concerns; reducing collisions and maintaining traffic flow. They cannot be single-minded, or they would be replaced. It is wrong to suggest that these goals are contradictory.

I don't find ICBC statitics very usefull as they are so far out of date, but in the case of "middle age"  vs "older" drivers, the 5 year average on the ICBC site for fatal injuries by age group shows that middle age drivers actually have the highest number of deaths on BC Roads.

So far out of date? The most recent numbers we might expect when all systems are operating efficiently would be for last year - 2015. So what incredible, substantive, amazing, significant change do you think must have occurred between 2013 and 2015? Seriously, I want you to answer this - because personally, I don't think that - other than steadily increasing mobile phone use - there will be any.

As for middle age vs older drivers, the number of kilometers driven / hours behind the wheel has to be factored in or the numbers are meaningless. There are far more middle aged drivers than seniors covering hugely more distance in their considerably greater time behind the wheel. Many seniors don't cover more than a hundred kilometers in a good week.

It's interesting that ICBC tracks many  statistics, but does little to prevent the big 3 causes of recurring fatal injuries-speed, impaired, distracted drivers

Do you know what ICBC is? I ask this, because they do not have the power to enact legislation, nor to police drivers - though they might well wish that they could!

ICBC is, on the one hand, an auto insurer - the biggest in north america, I do believe. They are also the licensing authority for this province. That's it.

Which is not to say that they haven't made some significant changes, where it's within their purview. They've overhauled Road Test procedures, includng the introduction of the Class 7 Graduated License, and demanding greater ability for the Class 5 driver - such as being able to use a freeway effectively, while also being able to reverse safely and accurately into a parking spot. These are just a 'for instance' - it's fair to say that they've raised the standards in driver licensing across the board, no doubt motivated by their concern (as an auto insurer) about the high cost of accidents.

As for 'doing little to prevent the 3 big causes .. etc' just what do you mean, how do you reach this conclusion? The fact is, speeding offences are the absolute leader when it comes to issuance of tickets! 158,000 tickets handed out in 2014, what more do you want? And it's working, so far as fatality reduction is concerned - as the significant factor a reduction between 2007 and 2014 from 39% to 27% of fatalities which is remarkable.

As for impaired driving, penalties and massive amounts of enforcement have substantively reduced the frequency; in my lifetime, the social acceptability for this has shifted from a certain amount of tolerance to harsh condemnation. I don't suppose they'll ever be able to stamp it out completely, but as the significant fatality factor a reduction between 2007 to 2014 from 35% to 21%; also remarkable.

Distracted driving, unfortunately, has not been reduced as much over the same time period, despite the fact that it triggered another 49,000 tickets in 2014 alone. That said, despite the proliferation of cell phone use in recent years, new rules enacted at the beginning of this month significantly amplified the penalties so we may yet hope that the powers that be are doing all that's reasonably achievable. What more do you want? A cop on every corner? It won't put a stop to fatalities, you know.

Instead of moaning about ICBC and what they're not doing - in your opinion - why don't you tell us what more they should be doing - in your opinion. Or have you actually thought about this, objectively?

Meanwhile, I'll keep hoping (even after 45 years of driving) that some day, I'll actually see a cop pulling somebody over for following too close. Or failing to signal a turn, or lane change. Or driving too slowly. Or blocking the fast lane. Or jaywalking. Or any one of these dangerous, anti-social behaviours which provide clear evidence that they have no place on the roads with the rest of us who are trying to drive safely, with a proper regard for everyone else.

ICBC -how can they help reduce fatals

In 4 words- bring back speed cameras.

Driving test and age

So 700,000 miles  of safe driving   does not matter.  Decades of ICBC  driver    discounts recognizing this fact  - not counting in that  one hour?   If this is the case  it confirms that ICBC is on the wrong track as is the Minister of Highways who   raised speed  limit with no additional enforcement.

Seniors  vote and   most are concerned   about their safety,   health ,   family ,friends and the environment.

So we will see in  2017, if we vote for increased speed.


ICBC STATS _why not updated?

Interesting that ICBC is not updating their statistics. Could it be that the focus on increasing speed and targetting slower, older,(driving the limit)  drivers with new legislation, has not resulting in reduction in fatal and serious injuries? Still waiting for an update.

Why update statistics- to deteremine if changes have made an diffrence in accident prevention, or if a change in direction is required.

The BC Government has the responsibility to not only move traffic efficiently-but with minimal damage and injuries.The Ontario Governent is much more effective at fatal accident prevention-why should we not expect the same effort from the BC Government? 

This and that.

I'll try to answer some of these points, based on what I know.

So 700,000 miles of safe driving does not matter.

Of course it matters, and that's why you're probably paying at least 40% less for your insurance than a new driver would, all else being equal. Insurance rates are based on perceived risk; you've proven that - so far - you're a low risk. The new driver hasn't been able to do this yet (and may never do so, but that's another issue) while also being in a category with a higher than 'normal' crash rate.

Decades of ICBC driver discounts recognizing this fact not counting in that one hour? If this is the case it confirms that ICBC is on the wrong track as is the Minister of Highways who raised speed limit with no additional enforcement.

Forgive me, but what kind of convoluted logic is that? Are you seriously suggesting that a Driver Examiner should take into account the story they're told by the Applicant before a Road Test, and factor this against mistakes made by that Applicant when they're observed behind the wheel?

What you need to realize, in the case of a Re-Examination such as I'm referring to, there will already have been something that triggered this Re-Ex. It may be a Physician's report to ICBC (perhaps occasioned by the driver's 80th birthday) or it could be from a concern about somebody's ability to drive safely, made to the Superintendent. So far as 'credit for time served' - or that 700,000 miles of safe driving you refer to - is concerned, then you should be happy to know that the most recent innovation that ICBC have put into effect is to use a much more 'forgiving' Road Test (lower demerits, more errors allowed) for Class 5 Re-Examinations.

This has nothing to do with the decision by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, to raise certain highway speed limits.

British Columbia

In British Columbia, a review of speed limits conducted in 2002 and 2003 for the Ministry of Transportation found that posted limits on investigated roads were unrealistically low for 1309 km and unrealistically high for 208 km. The report recommended increasing speed limits on multi-lane limited-access highways constructed to high design standards from 110 km/h to 120 km/h.[31] As described in that report, the Ministry is currently using "...Technical Circular T-10/00 [...] to assess speed limits. The practice considers the 85th percentile speed, road geometry, roadside development, and crash history." In July 2014, speed limits were adjusted on many of the province's highways, including some which were increased to 120 km/h (75 mph), currently the highest speed limit in Canada.[32]

You're confused if you think there's a relationship between Driver Examination standards and speed limits on our finest highways.

As to expecting additional enforcement on those highways, what reason would there be to do this? Typically, enforcement is increased when speeds are decreased, not the other way around!

Interesting that ICBC is not updating their statistics. Could it be that the focus on increasing speed and targeting slower, older,(driving the limit) drivers with new legislation, has not resulting in reduction in fatal and serious injuries? Still waiting for an update.

I'm told by folks at ICBC that they haven't been able to provide updated statistics due to a mega-overhaul of their computer systems that has been going on for some time now. They have no reason - do you get that - they have NO REASON to withhold information about the consequences of decisions made by the Ministry of Transportation; on the other hand, if there was an indication that this had resulted in higher crash rates, or fatality rates, then obviously ICBC would have great incentive to make this known in order to encourage the repeal of the legislation. They don't profit from fatalities!

Whether drivers are older or younger or whatever, they are expected to drive to conditions. Nothing forces anybody to drive 120 km/h in a 120 km/h zone! Naturally, the speed selected should be in keeping with the traffic, weather, and visibility conditions in effect; and the days are over for those who like to camp out in the left lane and jam traffic into tight frustrated clusters. Thank god for that, it's been a long time coming.

I would also question how relevant any statistics might be; the increased limits were only introduced in July 2014, so the most you could hope for would be a one year sampling, to compare to previous years. Would be interesting information though, and I also look forward to seeing what changes may - or may not - have occurred as a consequence.

The BC Government has the responsibility to not only move traffic efficiently-but with minimal damage and injuries.

That's pretty much what I told you earlier in this thread. Glad you got my point.

ICBC stats and speed

In the private sector , if the computer system was down for 2.5 years-heads would have  rolled -years ago. Businesses would fail. Imagine BC Hyrdo running with no computer system.

It's not 120 KPH that is the problem -it's the folks that drive 160kph and crash when road condition are less than optimal.

I completely understand that a segment of the population believe it is their right to decide what speed is right for them or to drink and drive or text. It is the wild West in BC, with de-regulation.Speed camera's- an infringment on speeder rights!

Unlike some,I am pleased to see a police car on the road and a few pulled over for their own good and mine, and my familly and friends. Possibly old fashioned in my thinking.One ticket and 2 minor accidents in  a century of driving in our family. Forgive me for being old fashioned and driving defensively and lucky, so far. Too many on BC roads push their luck..

I would like to see the BC Government be a leader in Road Safety

Transport Canada Statistics-old drivers

I did receive an email from Transport Canada, reguarding updating vehicle accident statistics.. The Minister stated that each Province or Territory is required to submit their statistics within 8 months of year end. 

BC Drivers did not fare so well in 2014.

BC had the 9th highest fatality rate per billion miles driven and the 6th highest rate per 100,000 drivers.

PEI had the lowest fatal rate in both stats. They have been focusing on Impaired, seat belts, distracted and speed.

Ontario had the second lowest fatal rate-demontrating consistent better accident prevention efforts than BC.and many Provinces/Territories.

Canada wide, the stats do not support the assertion that middle age drivers are better drivers., than older drivers.

It would be nice if BC put as much effort into accident prevention our roads as is being done in PEI and Ontaraio. I note that raising speed limits is not part of  accident prevention strategy in  other Provinces.

Your comments show wisdom

You actually seem to understand the bigger picture better than many Instructors & class 1 professional license holders, and much of that besides your experience is your attitude, which in fact is one of the most important aspects of safe driving. Just knowing and spewing facts far from makes a good driver, actually the opposite is true, many think they know it all and give up questioning what they think they know, that can be a very dangerous attitude.

Raising the speed limit was insane with the epidemic of social media addiction on the rise, and in fact the first 3 months after raising the speed limit ambulance calls increased 46% just on the Coquihalla Hwy, so I also am interested in see the stats from June 2014 on to see how that trend has done. And without any stats Todd Stone lied through his teeth in a news article claiming safer roads after the speed increase, not surprising coming from a known speed demon and dangerous driver, even with his wife and 3 children in the vehicle with him, not to mention everyone else's safety. Then using the ancient 85th%tile to measure speed from a single point has no place in todays world, speed over distance cameras should be used, and over an extended time period like a month or 2, not a set few hours and only a certain number of vehicles like the over 50 year old 85th%tile, new technology could far exceed what actually is happening on our Hwy's. and give us a true picture with actual facts.

I totally agree automated enforcement needs to be brought back, and not just photo radar, but speed over distance cameras, that way drivers have to obey the law for the entire drive, not just past one single point, I would also like to see points added to the fines to make them even more effective to remove repeat dangerous drivers, it could target many dangerous driving actions including tailgating and coupled with ALPR could also target non insured and other wanted vehicles. Our roads would soon become much safer for all users.

Don't worry!

Just knowing and spewing facts far from makes a good driver, actually the opposite is true

I'm pretty sure that none of us here who have read your various posts are concerned that you'll allow facts to get in the way of personal opinion.

I expect nothing less from you

As you are an Instructor that teaches contrary to the Law, where as I as a class 1 Instructor make sure everyone I teach actually understands the law and follows it, I also teach attitude while driving is of the most importance, part of which includes always to keep learning, what you think you know could very well be wrong and why I actually like to double & triple check facts, so I would like to see what facts you assume I have wrong so I can triple check them.

I teach in accordance with the regulations. You know this.

 I as a class 1 Instructor make sure everyone I teach actually understands the law and follows it

Now hold it a moment! You've always claimed to be a Class 1 Driver - and frankly, I'm ready to believe that from the information you've provided, although I note that you choose to remain anonymous for some reason.

But since when did you become a Class 1 Instructor? It seems odd - to say the least - that you would only make this claim now. Which DTS do you work for?

Having taught Driving Instructor courses for many years in this province, and in view of what you have stated in earlier posts here, I must confess I find it hard to believe that you hold a Class 1 Instructor license in BC, or have ever done so.


You teach contrary to the law

And you have argued adamantly for years you do, you teach a  dangerous driving practice of swinging across all the lanes of multi lane intersections on right & left turns. You even claimed you teach your own son for a class 4 he can do the same.

MVA165 states on a right turn you must finish in the right inside lane or curb lane, and on a left turn you must finish as close as practicable to the left of center of the intersection. In other words you must finish in the correct left lane, yes that means all motor vehicles, semi's, buses, double steering cement trucks, all of which you have  argued for years makes no sense, You say why should they finish in the correct lane if they have to swing across lanes to allow for off-track any ways. 

You quoted ICBC rules that you follow and teach rather than the correct MVA, which does take presidence over ICBC, and why the commercial drivers guide from ICBC has to be revised to correctly follow the MVA, no longer after they rewrite it will it say you can swing across all lanes to even finish across all lanes.

As for me, why would I lie to ICBC or the government? I went right over ICBC to Suzanne Anton with my name and license and far from anonymous, why would I claim a perfect record over multi millions of kms to the very people that can check me out, including Todd Stone that I offered to give driving lessons too, he wasn't pleased but that's not my problem, I was just being honest. I also on this site publicly said for Tim to check me out as he could very well still have connections in the police force, and he is aware of my name, your just bringing up old news. Maybe read back through my posts, you will find you are incorrect on your claims about me, and I have always stated I don't lie and why would I on a retired police officers site, that doesn't even make sense realistically does it.



Actually.... might argue that section 165 doesn't speak to where you must end up, just that you must make the turn as closely as practicable. For a small vehicle turning right, that would mean staying at the curb because you are able to do so. A very long vehicle, such as a "B" train for example, may not be able to, depending on the radius of the turn.

Totally disagree

That's was what I drove the most was Super-B and I drove from NWT, Yukon, and the western half of Canada & the USA and in almost every major city in those areas. Never once anywhere could I not finish a turn in the correct lane, left or right turns, in fact knowing where your rear tires are and where they will end up is crucial  for safe driving a semi.

I also drove 53 foot trailers which actually don't track as well as a Super-B does and require an even greater radius to complete turns, but again I never found even one intersection I or any driver I taught that could not complete any turn right or left in the correct lane.

And other than BC (So Far) because of ICBC, in order to pass a road exam to obtain a class 1 license, you must finish your turns in the correct lane, on right & left turns, each time you fail to complete a turn in the correct proper lane results in demerits, too many demerits results in a failure to pass the road exam.

Of course you have to allow for off-track, and some intersections you may have to swing as far as occupying the on coming traffic lane, which is perfectly legal done safely, but always you must finish in the correct lane, And in doing so with any semi or bus you can keep your rear tires fairly close to the curb on a right turn as so no one tries to squeeze past you, and on a left turn completed correctly, the rear tires of your trailer will end up straight in the correct left lane on completion of the turn, there is no need for the rear tires to even swing into the next lane to the right. 

Maybe give Saferway Victoria BC a call, Randy is the President, I'm almost positive he will tell you exactly what I just wrote, they don't teach by what ICBC standards are in order to pass a road exam, like me they teach far above ICBC's standards so a driver can safely drive outside of BC where you must finish turns in the correct lane, well you must in BC as well as per the MVA, but ICBC allows otherwise so far on road exams, even though they have to change their commercial drivers manual to match the MVA 165, as per Suzanne Anton's office. I'm still waiting to hear back for the road exam though.

Here is the best commercial drivers guide

Check section 3 , pages 60 to 68 of the Manitoba Professional Driver's manual. It shows the correct legal way of turning larger vehicles up to semi's with trailers, it even shows the correct 3 ways to make turns at intersections actually. it agrees with the post I just wrote and shows it's possible to finish in the correct lane, left or right turns.


So my question then

"As close as practicable" In the BC MVA 165, that dose mean if "Possible" correct?

And as everywhere except BC (so far) on commercial road exams for all buses & semi's it is not only possible to finish right & left turns in the correct lanes the same as any smaller vehicle, it is Mandatory in order PASS the road exam in order to obtain the higher class license.

So if one would as you say "Argue" would not that argument be proven incorrect as it's not just "Possible" to finish in the correct lane, it's "Mandatory" to follow the law same as any other motor vehicle.

Or am I missing something?

A dictionary might help.

"As close as practicable" In the BC MVA 165, that dose mean if "Possible" correct?

No, it means practicable.

So you're required to take the front end of the vehicle as deep into the intersection as necessary, so that when you start cranking the steering the back end of the vehicle (rear tires) make it around the corner without hitting the curb, or grazing the noses of pedestrians standing on the corner, while also doing your best not to leave a wide gap that another driver or cyclist might be tempted to enter; offtrack could crush them.

By no means does this require the driver to return the front end of the vehicle to the same lane; the practicable part got taken care of so long as the back end was appropriately placed at the apex of the turn. The terminology is used in Section 165(1) [Right Turns] in regard to making the turn - not completing it.

It is not used in Section 165(2)(c) [Left Turns] in regard to finishing a turn; the only requirement is to conclude with your vehicle on the right half of the roadway.

And the only part of Section 165 to specify lane use is (3) which refers to left turns into a 1-Way Street; though even there, the 'practicable' caveat applies; if you had to go deep with the front end of your unit (highly probable) in order to get the back end around the turn without clipping the curb, you're still not required to return the front end to the left-most lane.

You didn't read my previous post I see

In order to obtain a commercial license EVERYWHERE except BC ( so far) all Buses and Semi's are REQUIRED by law and on their road exam to obtain a license,  to FINISH their turn in the Correct lane, left & right turns, same as ALL motor vehicles.

I even posted a PROPER commercial drivers guide with pictures & explanations which explain off-track and how to FINISH in the CORRECT LANE. It also states you MUST FINISH in the CORRECT LANE.


Dictionary also agrees with me

adjective: practicable
  1. able to be done or put into practice successfully.
    "the measures will be put into effect as soon as is reasonably practicable"
    synonyms: realisticfeasiblepossible, within the bounds/realms of possibility, viablereasonable,sensibleworkable, achievable; 
    "what we need is a practicable solution"

As it is "ABLE" to be done "SUCCESSFULLY" on every intersection to finish in the correct lane on left or right turns the same as smaller vehicles, how is practicable somehow not relevant then?

If it could not be done, or you weren't able to, then I could possibly understand, but as it is very easy to do, why wouldn't you be required to do so as the MVA applies to ALL motor vehicles....... CORRECT?

Just because you can doesn't mean you have to.

I've certainly never argued against finishing a turn in what you would term 'the correct lane' (while choosing to ignore the fact that this is only specified under Section 165(3) which deals with left turns into one-way streets).

But the law doesn't require that a turn be completed in any specific lane. Only how it should be made. And I firmly believe that the lawmakers have a thorough grasp of language. It's what they do. There's a reason they chose 'practicable' over 'possible' even though they might be synonyms.

And once the driver has gotten to the point where the vehicle has been placed on the street he's turning into, the turn has been made - all that remains is to recover the wheel as he straightens up; in whatever lane he placed the front end, if that's the choice he's elected to make.

Which explains why ICBC Commercial Road Test criteria (which cannot contradict the law) allow this. And why basically every* transit bus driver in the province that you see will deliberately (and in accordance with their training) completes their left turns in the right hand lane, where there's a choice of lanes available. (*The sole exception that I can think of would be if another left turn was immediately anticipated with no bus stops beforehand.)

But, you don't have to listen to me. And you've aleady told us that you contacted ICBC and they (unsurprisingly) showed little interest in your issue, so hopefully Suzanne Anton will be able to convince you. If not, I guess you'll have to take it up with the Premier ... 


Like I said, you don't read my posts.

Yet you ramble on even though I have covered all of these issues, first off you argue law on where your supposed to finish a turn when that has already been proven in court where a JUDGE rules exactly what the MVA shows at multi lane intersections, where as you must complete a left turn in the left lane as per MVA 165 (2)(d), as swinging across the intersection is in fact what caused the crash.

Then I provide a commercial drivers guide that also shows where a semi or bus MUST FINISH a right or left turn in the correct lane, totally against your wrong understanding of the law & safety. I have also showed everywhere except BC, (so far) in order to pass a commercial license, failure to make right & left turns into the correct lane results in a FAIL, because breaking the LAW is not acceptable.

Lastly, yes ICBC ignored me and won't even respond, they act like spoiled little teenagers pouting in a corner when proven wrong. That is why I previously posted that Suzanne Anton's office did get back to me and agree ICBC's commercial drivers guide has to be revised to match the MVA, swinging across all lanes is illegal and dangerous and the MVA not ICBC takes presidence. They told me to contact ICBC to discuss the road exam that also allows drivers to break the law, but yet pass. But as ICBC's childish mentality won't talk to me anymore, I had to contact Suzanne Anton's office back as they haven't seen or reviewed the ICBC road exam manual yet, but as that shows what the commercial drivers guide shows, allowing commercial vehicles to break the law, I'm sure they will correct this as well, (this time I sent a copy of the road exam manual and pointed out where ICBC  contradicts the law and allows it to be broken)  as Suzanne Anton's office contacted ICBC to correct the guide and sent copies of my e-mail and their correspondence to Todd Stone as well. I didn't realize that BC Transit (TRAINS) against the law, this I will look into as well, totally unacceptable if in fact that is true.

I read all of the posts, here.

That doesn't mean I agree with them, though!

Surprised I am that after a million trillion miles behind the wheel, you've apparently never noticed how buses turn left ... perhaps you're not really paying attention?


Too funny

You claim I never noticed how some buses turn, of course I notice but unfortunately I can't pull them over and ticket them, I'm not a police officer or I would, most days I can't drive more than a block or 2 without seeing bad and illegal driving, the list is far to long to put on here, 

 I find it hard to believe BC Transit would actually teach dangerous driving though and risk being sued should a crash occur and it end up in court in front of a judge.

Facts on driving in BC

The facts are clear-the trend is upwards in increased injuries on BC roads.Those that drive the limit are not the problem- It's excessive speed, impaired ,distracted- these are the facts.

Which facts are those? Did you just make them up?

Phil, with all due respect, I'm getting sick and tired of this. You continually make statements which you cannot support and refuse to substantiate, while dashing around this website - designed to provide news and information about driving, rather than a drum for individuals on a crusade to bang on (sorry, that was a pretty mixed metaphor, there) - making the same statements and assertions, and voicing the same beliefs, over and over, whether they relate to the subject under discussion or not.

Meanwhile, let's take a look at what you've just said there, shall we?

The facts are clear-the trend is upwards in increased injuries on BC roads.

According to Transport Canada, who insist on dealing with facts, rather than opinions, the BC Fatality & Injury Rate (per 100,000 population) has dropped; in 2010, there were 8.0 fatalities and 461.5 injuries per 100,000 of population.  In 2014, ((the latest year for which the numbers are currently available), it was 6.3 fatalities and 455.5 injuries per 100,000 of population.

Sorry if this doesn't support your argument, but the general trend in BC is a reduction in both fatalities and injuries.

Those that drive the limit are not the problem.

Really? I'm more than ready to accept that speeding, drinking, and phoning are the predominant causes behind fatalities and injuries, but far from ready to believe that if a driver 'drives the limit' then they're not a problem. What if they fail to yield? Or follow too close? Drive too slow? Fail to signal their intentions? Run red lights?

ICBC always have some useful information on their site, and - unsurpisingly for an insurance company with great access to stats - they even have a section on their website about High Risk Driving. Worth reading, I reckon; it seems clear to me that the cops should be spending far more time dealing with right-of-way issues than sitting over the ridge waiting for the radar to beep. Yet less than 3% of tickets are issued for Fail to Yield on left turn, less than 2% for Fail to Yield to Vehicle, and just over 1% for Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian. Pathetic! Unacceptable! And yes, I'll say it, money-grabbing!

I have a family, and I care about them and their safety. And I've spent most of my professional career working and contributing toward driver and road safety issues. This is why I try to contribute to this site.

So frankly, when someone such as yourself rants and raves and demands that more and more and more effort be directed toward speed enforcement, while purporting to have evidence to show that they aren't doing enough already (despite the fact that speed enforcement is the absolute #1 priority already amongst the various police forces in this province, and has been for decades) I get pretty angry, to be honest.

Facts. You can do lots with facts. Here's a couple (and mine are always verifiable). BC has the highest seat-belt use in Canada, at 96.9%. Most encouraging, something for us all to be proud of. Unfortunately, BC police forces have vastly reduced the number of tickets issued for failure to wear one from 33,000 to 26,000 - a reduction of 21% in the last two years.

Notwithstanding the fact that I can't believe any rational human being these days is still in the habit of driving without wearing their seat-belt (good grief!) I also don't believe that this will have a positive impact on the fatality/injury rates. Do you? Or will you just blame the consequent increase in these to what you consider to be insufficient effort to ticket speeders?

My questions are not rhetorical.

Facts on BC roads statistics

Well Tim , you a have created quite a stir with this topic. Fact or Fiction should possibly be the question, but road safety is very serious issue. My views are similar to yours on following the laws of the road, accident prevention and with the First Class Drivers' views.Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but evidence is required to support opinion to be fact.In BC, injuries are increasing on BC roads.When ICBC updates stats, I believe that there will be evidence to support the opinions that increasing speed increases injuries It will be fact. Lets see the stats from ICBC.

Google Ads