If You Were Responsible for Traffic Safety

SoapboxIt's been a decade since I asked this question of visitors to this website. Back then it was in the context of asking if you had a better idea to change bad driving behaviours than our current traffic ticketing system. This time around, let's look at it from the perspective of our traffic laws.

The Motor Vehicle Act and Motor Vehicle Act Regulations have been around for a long time. Some additions have been made as well as some changes to either update the rulebook or remove rules that no longer apply properly to the circumstances today. However, there are still corrections and improvements that may be made.

For instance:

  1. Running a red light is 2 penalty points on conviction but running a stop sign is 3 points.
  2. Left turn on red might not be appropriate in all circumstances where the law permits
  3. Ditto for right turn on red.
  4. Perhaps the legislation should be written in plain English to be readily understandable without a legal background.
  5. Do we really need to sound the horn before entering sharp curves in canyons?

So, what would you do if you were responsible for traffic safety? If you have a user account, please enter your thoughts below. If not, send your thoughts to webmaster@drivesmartbc.ca and I will post them for you.

The current system works. Each time you get behind the wheel, you're making a committment to not just your safety but the safety of your passengers and those around you. You also depend upon the other drivers to be competent drivers also. That they know the rules of the road and the penalties for disregarding them. I would rather someone get a ticket or even removed from the road than to have them involved in a fatal accident.

In 37 years of driving I have had 3 accidents, none my fault, and only 2 warning tickets, none moving violations. I've had 7 cars and put over 300K on each. I love driving. Lately, however, it is becoming more of a chore. Just yesterday I had a guy in a Dodge Ram tailgate me so close that I couldn't see his headlights in my readview mirror. It wasn't fun.

No one would argue that overall the system of traffic enforcement is not beneficial. But you can't blame people for calling a 'cash grab' when law enforcement focuses on easy pickins instead of actual dangerous habits. The revenue created by traffic enforcement is required and hence a certain amount of revenue needs to be collected. How much revenue, for example, would the Burnaby RCMP lose if they put a sign at the bottom of Boundry hill north bound to remind people that even though this road has the look and feel of a highway, the speed limit is actually 50. I call cash grab. I won't deny that texting while driving is very dangerous but how many deaths were caused by people checking an email or directons on their phone at a red light? Ticketing drivers who check their phones at a red light (esp with law enforcement in disguise)... i call a cash grab. I'm sure we could come up with many more examples.

This is not coming from someone who gets a lot of tickets... I don't (2 in the last 20 years) but I'm making the point that in many cases we are justified in calling a cash grab.

No involvement from Insurance providers.

Police dictate how policing is done.

No Radar devices. 

Ride and write system. Fly the flag and enforce ROTR on all road users, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian. 

More Motorcycle police.

No more ICBC funded equipment and or enforcement programs. 

No more speed and or cell phone traps. Keep officers moving and a visible presence.


Of course one should look both ways and check the rearview mirror while backing out of a driveway or parking lot space. But one thing a driver should do is "HONK THE HORN"  a couple of times when starting to proceed backing up.  This also alerts pedestrians, especially parking lots.  Even new cars with rear cameras is not 100 percent fail safe in giving you a good picture of whats on the sides or behind you.

I have urged this a number of times before. Set up a team of experienced drivers with unblemished records (let's say), 20 years to report dangerous driving; providing license number, make and type of vehicle (where possible), and the time, location and nature of the offense observed. Over a certain time period, a record of these poor driving habits would be established and the individuals in question would be brought to task, warned and possibly fined. Sound like vigilantism? Maybe, but it's what's need now. There are just too many vehicles on the road for the police to handle properly.

@NWimby: reduce speed limit in residential areas to 30km/h; Re-write the Motor Vehucle Act to address cycling in the 21st century.

@MaryAnnM_NW: Trucks would drive in R lane.

Here's a proposal -- instead of the current "points" system where you build up points for each ticket, and it results in an escalating fine...  make people re-take (and PASS) their Driver's Test!!!!  There are WAY too many drivers on the road that shouldn't have passed their test in the first place.  That way people can't simply BUY themselves out of tickets.

THAT will keep the bad drivers off the road, and I think bad drivers will think harder about whether or not they drive dangerously.  Plus, it would mean less cars on the road, less congestion, and more use of transit (thus being much better for the environment!).

Also, more emphasis should be put on ticketing things OTHER than speeding! Speeding by itself isn't dangerous -- it's inconsiderate behaviours in conjunction with speeding that cause problems.  Things like not using turn signals, agressive driving, tailgating, running red lights, etc. should be the focus of enforcement.  

The only reason police focus on speeding is it's the easiest thing to catch -- not because it's the most dangerous.

Yes, great idea.  If you screw up on the job, you're sent for re-training.  Why don't we make people pass even a short knowledge test at each renewal?  If they have too many at-fault accidents or tickets, make them re-do the whole driver test.

With today's technology and the cost of a cheap computer this could be easily done. While you're standing in line waiting to renew your licence one could easily do a quick test and its immediately saved against your DL#. If you past you get your new licence, if not sent for some training.

If you want safer roads, driving culture needs to be changed.  Imagine if you were shunned by everyone you know if you were caught going 5km/h over the speed limit.  Or if your parents would disown you if they knew you forgot to signal on a left hand turn.  Ban movies like Fast 'n Furious that glamourize using public roads as race tracks.  More ads shaming people who text or talk on their cellphones and drive and other unsafe driving practices. 

Compare different countries, some countries have extremely impatient drives, some treat road lanes as mere suggestions, others are extremely orderly and safe.  I doubt that the amount of policing varies much between these countries, it's mostly influenced by the values of the drivers and the behaviour of others drive around them.

What is Vancouver's driving culture?  10 to 20km/h is ok.  Tailgating starts at 1/2 a car length away from the car in front of you.  Stop signs are mere suggestions. 

The present top down approach to traffic safety leaves most of us unhappy with the results.  In my view, the bureaucracies that presently drive the "cash collection" approach to road safety are in a serious conflict of interest situation that is driving us all to distraction! At the end of the day I suggest it all boils down to more money for them as the increased revenues justify increased employees which means they manage a larger group... In my opinion an audit should be done to see just how much public money is being wasted in this way. Check out ICBC upper echelons, police service executives & the office of the superintendant of motor vehicles to follow the money.

Granted that these folks, no doubt at least in part well-meaning, would seem to be sincere in their own beliefs as to traffic solutions. They appear to be convinced of the correctness of their approaches to various aspects of motor vehicle operation & roadway design even as many drivers & pedestrians & cyclists are not! Sadly for most of us travelling BC's roads, they have influenced gullible politicians to accept & implement their concepts. By failing to consult the operators of motor vehicles they risk increasing the already widespread disregard for traffic laws.

Our society simply can't afford to place the number of traffic services constables on the road to enforce laws & regulations that are obviously not respected by the majority of drivers. Without such an increased police presence, I think the ineffectual method of road safety improvement by traffic ticket lottery will continue no matter if financial penalties are vastly increased. Getting rid of the top levels of public servants who are responsible for the present debacle in road safety is probably necessary housecleaning. Starting a process of grass roots consultation on road safety is the path I believe we should  follow. How about a democratic approach to solving this problem rather than elitist one? With the BC provincial election looming let's vote for real change in this crucial aspect of our lives. 

I must be getting old and mean as i don't think they go far enough and honestly believe that the police are giving tickets because that is their job and it one of the few tools they have to make the roads safer.

Tickets are evidently not as large a deterrent as they could be due to the fact that people continue to break the speed limits and traffic regulations even though there is the risk of being financially penalized. If ticket prices were exponential, then i believe the penalty would get to the point that it would force people to obey or not afford to drive.

If there are people that say then only the rich could afford traffic violations then perhaps if the rich drivers broke the law fragrantly it would lead to decent revenue. For everyone else, exponential would be prohibitive enough.

The first traffic violation would be $100. The second would double or $200 the third $400 the fourth $800 the fifth $1600 etc. Similar to the grains of rice on a checker board theory of doubling. The bad driver either drives within the laws or becomes unable to drive due to finances. The fact remains, good drivers that obey the law pay nothing. Repeat offenders pay hefty fines.

We Canadians like to beleive that we uphold the rule of law, but I see little of that when people are behind the wheel. Enforcement only works when the majority of citizens submit themselves to obeying the law. We've gotten away from thinking that 'I am responsible for upholding the law' to 'what can I get away with'. Instead of 'I will travel at or below the speed limit because it is the law' the mentality is now 'I can probably get away with 10 kph above the posted limit and I won't be stopped'.

While we don't have total anarchy on the road, there are enough drivers that just don't care as long as they can get from point A to point B in as little time as possible and everyone else on the road be damned. I'm sorry, but all the attempts at enforcement are going to be a drop in the bucket until drivers choose to obey the rules of the road without enforcement. I've passed vehicles stopped by an RCMP officer and literally been passed by that same vehicle (obviously speeding) ten minutes later, on a double yellow line after tailgating me.

Perhaps the streets and highways would be a little safer if we went back to thinking the driving is a privilege, not a right.

I guess that I'm getting to be old too.

The current system does NOT work well at all.  It’s an embarrassment actually.

Not a day passes in this province where I don’t observe some of the worst driving behaviour in Canada, and I’ve lived from coast to coast.  North America in general produces very poor quality drivers, the proof is in our fatality rate that is 3 times higher than the rates in Germany and Japan. Why is this?  Because among other countries with far lower fatality and accident rates,  both Germany and Japan have MANDATORY drivers education programs. 

A driver’s licence in those countries is expensive, costing several thousand dollars to obtain, and their driver’s education programs are intensive, 40 hours in car (again, the courses are mandatory) and up to 80 hours for a motorcycle licence.  This is the course that Canada should be taking. It saves lives, and billions of dollars in insurance claims.  A driver’s licence there is truly a privilege.

Should you opt to take driver’s ed in Canada, even with the renowned Young Drivers of Canada, you receive a paltry 8 hours “in-car” instruction by comparison, and then must follow a very restrictive “graduated” licensing program that actually restricts young people from driving and learning! 

Having driven extensively in both overseas countries, there is very little road rage too.  Drivers signal their intentions properly, do not hang out in the passing lanes on highways, respect bicycles, other slow moving vehicles and pedestrians far more than what I see happen here on a daily basis.

I have no problem with police enforcing road rules and handing out tickets, although compared to Germany and Japan, the fines are relatively low and should be raised here.  I do however have a problem with the selective road rule enforcement we have now.  Not once have I seen or heard of police ticketing a driver for holding up traffic in the passing lane of a highway.  Again, this leads to road rage and weaving, which in turn leads to more road rage and accidents, but the police in BC “don’t want to promote speeding” by ticketing this behaviour, despite a blitz happening right now across the US and most other Canadian provinces. 

On another note, the tolerance for drinking and driving in Japan and Germany is zero.  Zero alcohol in your blood stream. No grey areas, no wondering if you can have one more drink.  0%.  It takes all the guess work out of the equation.  Simple and easy.  If you drink, you just don’t drive.

This was a couple of decades ago but I remember reading an article that one of the Scandinavian countries bases your traffic fine on your income.  People with a lower income pay a moderate fine and people with a higher income pay a higher fine. Not a bad idea, especially for those people with the high end sports cars who think they are entitled to break the speed limit or that the speed limit is only a suggestion. Hit them where it hurts, the wallet.

They should give bonus points based on miles driven &/ or hours on the road for professional drivers.

As a witness to many youtube videos of the driving antics of the Russian public; it’s clear to me that dash cams are a great way to give power to motorists who find themselves victims of other people’s bad driving.

If a country like Russia (which admittedly still has a tenuous justice system) has found success with something as simple as dashboard mounted cameras, imagine how effective they could be in BC. Too many claims get dragged out by “He said, she said” scenarios, but if more people had substantial video evidence to back up their complaints a  lot of the stress following a collision could be eased.

We know that cell phones don’t cut it for providing video evidence. They’re ill equipped for capturing documented footage as they are designed for entertainment purposes. Official dash cams that run as long as the vehicle is in motion would provide much needed assurance while behind the wheel.

Even in a town the size of Kelowna, I routinely find myself witnessing abysmal driving practices on my commute. I personally would very much like to have a third eye watching the road as people cut me off, neglect to signal, run red lights, etc. Rear facing cameras would be welcome as well, as above all else I find other drivers maintain dangerously close following distance in this town. Tailgating is one of the easiest habits to get into, and one of the fastest ways to get into a fender bender.

On a final note we could also gain  perspective on how it’s not just young people driving poorly. I’m a 22 year old guy with my class 5 and I seem to be the only person who knows the correct signaling procedure while approaching roundabouts. I think with continuous, and widespread video recording tech we could gather invaluable research on what needs improvement out on the roads.

It's interesting to read comments here - as in other postings.

I think two things need to be done to help deal with driving. 

First, a holistic approach..  Much like the harm reduction approach to drugs, or the approaches to drunk driving.  We need appropriate enforcment; education and communication; laws and regulations, etc.  Multiple tactics to deal with the multiple driving issues. Not just (say) tickets for speeding (for example).

Secondly, we need it to be based on proper data.  Why are people driving worse than other places/times, etc?  What are safe practices and rules?
Why is that person I think is driving like an idiot doing so?  Are they ignorant, frustrated at the other drivers (and if so why), don't care about other people...... 
How much of the problem is just perception?
As has been mentioned - and I perceive is true - driving elsewhere in the world seems to be better - why?
There seems to be a dearth of useful research on driving issues..... And if we don't know what the real issues are, it will be harder to fix them.

I could go on and on...

All you have to do is drive 3 hours a day, 5 days a week as a Volunteer driver (and I'm a retired professional driver) to observe the attitude of those who don't care what the rules are. The ones that make all the noise about 'Cash Grab' are the ones that have no respect for said rules, yet they whine and complain when they get caught! Too bad! If you don't want to be fined, obey the rules and have some respect for others that drive by the rules.
People talk about re-testing 'Senior Drivers', but a lot of other drivers need re-testing first, with some re-enforcement of proper defensive driving practices.
Note: I'm a retired professional driver who has held various classes of license for almost 60 years (I currently hold classes 5 and 6, having relinquished my class 3 15 years ago, as I could no longer justify personally paying for medical exams to hold a license I didn't require).

Nothing like flashing red/ blue lights to get your attention. The presence of a police car is the best deterrent but they are spread thin and have many other duties.

I would employ many more speed and traffic camera's and  clearly post signage with the penalties, so that drivers know there will be a definite penalty for speeding, red lighting, texting, phoning.etc, I would have the citation delivered as immediately as possible by electronic media or hand delivered to the home address-so that the infraction and penalty are linked _"soon , certain consequences are more likely to change behaviors"

After a certain number of citations, a mandatory defensive driving course should be required and retest. Car insurance rates could be related to the driving infractions.

Sorry, no positive re-enforcement for safe drivers-just lower insurance rates.

I would enforce the "KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS" rule which is internationally a law or a rule.

This rule/law is only a line in the Driver's Manual and a small paragraph in the Class 1 manual - but 98% of the truckers I've ever seen heed this rule and you seldom find a truck in the left-hand lane. But regular motorists will hog the left lane or worse, parallel a vehicle in the right lane - all without any inking they are holding up a stream of traffic. 

As almost no drivers preform a right turn-on red correctly/legally, right-turn on red should be made illegal.

A legal right turn on red is:

1. Come to a complete stop at the stop-line or at before the line of a sidewalk (i.e., the crosswalk).

2. Look both left and right for pedestrians and yeild to them if present.

3. Then move forward to make the right-turn, yielding to traffic (including bicycles) coming from the left or, depending on the number of lanes, to vehicles making a left-turn on a left-turn arrow coming from the opposite direction.

The overwhelming majority of drivers instead do the following:

1. Roll through the stop-line and/or crosswalk looking only to the left (most do stop if the see pedestrians, but they are unlikely to see pedestrians coming from the right because they never look to the right).

2. Stop if there is cross-traffic or proceed with the turn if there is not.

The danger for pedestians is not just being hit, it is what to do if the cross-walk/intersection (note, they are the same thing) is blocked by a vehicle. Do you try to pass in front of the stopped vehicle (with a driver looking to the left) or do you pass behind the vehicle, making you invisible to any left-turning vehicle going in the same direction as you until you come out from behind the vehicle and they are in the process of making an often hurried left turn. Of course they could wait for the next green-light when the exact same situation is likely to arise.

As a Driving Instructor, I've been asked many times about this. Many applicants, during their actual examination, will simply try to avoid the issue, by waiting for a green light before turning, rather than take the risk of making an error.

Heck, I know of one DTS whose unwritten policy when training a commercial driver who appeared to be considering it was to direct them just to wait for a green. Which is pathetic, as part of the Driving Instructor's job is to teach driver how to make decisions, not to avoid making a legal maneuver whether it be during the practical test of in the future thereafter!

Because, as an instructor, I have learned to be brief and concise when directing drivers on how they should behave, it's been my long time habit to advise each one to make this judgment.

Check the walk/don't walk signals on the cross-street first, and decide whether there are any pedestrians approaching who could be in conflict that have a 'walk' signal, then figure out which pedestrians on your street will next get a 'walk' signal, and when. Also, figure out which vehicles (apart from the ones on the cross street with a green light) will next get a green light (could be a green arrow) and when. Then, in a forceful but polite manner, I instruct that If you don't have this figured out, then you don't have the information in your head necessary to make a decision so you had better wait!

I've been driving for so many years I can remember when traffic lights all ran on timers even in the graveyard hours, and that's why right turns - or left turns into a one-way - were permitted both in BC and many other jurisdictions (though not all).

These days, in places such as the City of NV, we're increasingly seeing traffic lights have signage that disallows turning on red any time, to protect pedestrians from the ignorance of those drivers and cyclists who don't know or care how to drive intelligently and legally. Frankly, I think this is progress, (after all, there's a sensor in the roadway that will make the light change real soon if you're in that position) and it's probably time for BC and other jurisdctions to change the traffic light law really; but inasmuch as drivers from around Canada and the US are all around us and expect to be able to make that turn, signage disallowing it remains the best option.

It's terrifying that people can still get a full license without a single driving lesson.  There should be a required minimum number of hours of lessons, a required classroom companent, defensive driver training, etc.

And the tests should be MUCH harder than they are now, and include a lot more knowledge exams -- not just practical.

There should be mandatory re-training every 5 or 10 years, including a "knowledge update" -- laws change regularly. These could even just be an online course & exam before each renewal.

Also, for violations, instead of just paying a fine, give mandatory re-training and possible even a re-test.  Even an online course is better than nothing!

Caused an accident? You have to go for re-training/testing. Again, make it self-paced online at minimum.

Yes, lots of people would not pass the new, harder, exams.  THAT'S THE POINT. They should not be on the road!  They can either take courses and practice and study more, or they can walk/bike/take transit.

Licenses should not be transferable, either -- if you want a BC license, you should have to pass the BC test.

It's terrifying that people can still get a full license without a single driving lesson.  There should be a required minimum number of hours of lessons, a required classroom companent, defensive driver training, etc.

The purpose of training is what, exactly? To ensure that the applicant has the knowledge and ability to acquire their Learner's License and subsequently to demonstrate in practical terms that they can drive a vehicle without requiring direction or assistance from anyone else, right?

So if a person is able to pass both a Knowledge test and a Practical test just from their own self-education and guidance from their co-pilot(s), then they will have met the required minimum standards - and realistically, that's the purpose for having a licensing authority (ICBC) with the means to test whether these standards have been met.

And the tests should be MUCH harder than they are now, and include a lot more knowledge exams -- not just practical.

Addressing the last item first, why do you want more than one knowledge exam for the same category of license? The fact is, the number of questions asked has increased considerably over the last fifty years, both for road signs/lines and general knowledge about driving. Meanwhile, the pass/fail rate is considered acceptable with approximately an 80% pass rate required. Or to put it another way, the tests are 'tough enough' that one in five applicants will fail, on average.

As for the practical (road test) pass rate, it's already more stringent. I don't know the exact numbers, but around 50% ~ 60%. So at least two in five applicants will fail, on average.

This strongly suggests that ICBC is doing it's job as a licensing authority. In fact, probably better than most jurisdictions around the world.

Something you probably don't want to hear is that as of July 3rd, both the Class 5 & 7 practical tests will be reduced in length from 45 minutes to 35 minutes. ICBC has a massive backlog due to ever increasing demand, and they're revising the test duration.

"By shortening these road tests, we will be able to increase the number of tests conducted each day. We have redesigned the on-road portion to reduce the number of duplicated maneuvers, and standardized the pre- and post-test processes.

The shortened road test also aligns our test times with other Canadian jurisdictions.

Road safety continues to be our priority and we have completed a robust review of the road test and marking criteria. We are confident in the quality of the shorter test and we do not expect this reduction to have impacts on road safety."

Let's consider the value and purpose of training and testing. 

There should be mandatory re-training every 5 or 10 years, including a "knowledge update" -- laws change regularly. These could even just be an online course & exam before each renewal

It's time to realize that a driver is 'task loaded' when driving a vehicle, with many things to consider. Particularly when it comes to 'Defensive Driving'. And a relatively new driver is typically not ready for a proper course in this until after a year or so of experience behind the wheel. So this would be the ideal time to expand on their skills to properly learn how to drive in a defensive manner. (No argument that changes to traffic laws should be made clear at the time of renewal.)

There should be mandatory re-training every 5 or 10 years, including a "knowledge update" -- laws change regularly. These could even just be an online course & exam before each renewal

What is the purpose of driver education? Is it to make them better drivers, or to punish drivers? Think about this, you can't have it both ways.

Licenses should not be transferable, either -- if you want a BC license, you should have to pass the BC test.

Sounds xenophobic to me. There are more than fifty countries/jurisdictions around the world that issue driver licenses, but only around a dozen that have a reciprocal license agreement with BC.


In reply to by CompetentDrivingBC

The purpose of training should NOT be to demonstrate that they can drive a vehicle without requiring direction or assistance from anyone else.  My 9-year old can do that, and that's too low a bar. It should be that they understand all the rules and courtesies of the road, and emergency procedures, and can competently and safely comply with them without requiring direction or assistance from anyone else.

You argue is that once they can meet the minimum standards, they should get a license.  I agree -- but I think the minimum standards should be MUCH higher.  Ok -- don't require training.... but make the minimum standards so high that it's extremely difficult to attain them without training.

Regardless of the number of questions, and whether or not they have increased over time -- for the knowledge portion, I think the test should be comprehensive and take 2 hours -- not 5 minutes.  You're probably only going to have to take this exam once in your life, so why NOT make it hard?  I actually don't think that would change the fail rate -- people would know going in what they're in for.  So it would just increase the training rate.

The practical test should also be 2 hours.  Maybe that would cost a lot of money for examiners, but it would save a lot of money in accidents and injuries.  Again, this is likely something you're only going to have to do once in your life, why not make it tough? 

Why can't we require someone to do an online knowledge-update test every 5 years?  Like you pointed out, it's hard to learn everything at first -- so check in a few years later to make sure they've learned everything. If they aready know the answers, it would be quick.  If they don't already know the answers, then they SHOULD!

The purpose of driver education is to make better drivers -- I'm not suggesting it as a "punishment", but rather to re-train them to be better drivers so they don't make the same mistakes again in future.  Every single professional association requires re-training when mistakes are made -- it's not a punishment, that's just how you keep standards high.

My purpose in making licenses non-transferable to BC isn't xenophobic.  It's because BC would have substantially higher standards than anywhere else, so people should have to re-qualify when they move here. If standards were universally high, then of course they could be transferable.

Safety will not improve on B.C. roads until the police adopt a different strategy. To put it more simply they are using the same procedures that were implemented in 1920 today.

Unfortunately most see speeding as the number 1 problem. Lets put it simply. You are working in a factory and your safety inspector says action "A" is the main cause of accidents. A century later with accidents increasing the same safety inspectors claim action "A" is the main cause. I'm pretty sure you would show them the door and hire a different set of inspectors with a new outlook.

I'm going to pick on the cops as that is where I see the problem. There is a law against running in the left lane. How often do you see the cop sitting in that lane doing exactly what they should not be doing? DRL's are considered a safety factor, how often do you see the cops driving down the highway with these turned off? Then you have the cops that have a car pulled over with alternatively flashing low/high beam on all on-coming traffic. Nothing better than to continually blind on-coming traffic and consider it a safety factor.

Speeding? The only person I know that had his personal car impounded for excessive speeding was our local officer in charge! Most of the time they look the other way against a fellow officer, so what speed was he doing?

If B.C. wants to reduce accidents a different approach must be taken to what is currently done.

First off they closed the highway for hours when a accident happens. With modern technology they should use drones to take aerial video and get the highway open as soon as possible. Then publish the report. What use is a detailed report if it is not made available to everyone? It's the only industry I know where reports are not made easily available to anyone that want to read them.

Rather than go after the people that are trying to get past a slow moving vehicle that speeds up when they hit a passing lane. Ticket the lead car in that lineup for impeding traffic.

Take the cameras that are available and instead of going for the speeders look for the cars impeding other traffic and charge them. If the car behind is truly tailgating charge them.

Basically change the entire enforcement of traffic regulations. Forget what you have done previously and go for the people that don't signal, drive in the left lane, disconnected DRL's and people that don't turn lights on in adverse conditions. Those signs that say turn lights on in tunnels mean to turn your lights on. Most vehicles don't have taillights turned on. Then one will observe a lowering of the accidents.

Many European countries have higher speed limits and lower accidents. The reason is they drive their cars rather than the North American attitude of pointing the vehicle down the road.

There are hundreds of rules besides speeding, cell phone use and not wearing a seat belt. Enforce all.

-All fines would be increased, likely double or more. I dont know when the last increase was, but it should at least reflect inflation.

-Automated enforcement would be heavily invested in, with communities receiving discrete mobile units and training. The tickets would not be contestable. If the video shows you speeding, or any other traffic violation, and you are the registered owner, then you are fined. Units would also be made available for road construction activities and in larger communities one would be dedicated for use during towing and recovery operations. Fine for this would be closer to those seen in Ontario. $500 first offence, $1000 second offence, $2000 third offence. If you are stopped by a peace officer and positively identified as the driver, demerit points would be included in the fine.

-Expand the ability to enforce the MVA to Bylaw officers and non-police officers who obtain special training to do so. Currently RCMP have no time for traffic enforcement and drivers dont realize how risky, and illegal, their behaviors have become.

-Devices that install in a vehicle's electronics port and measure speed, acceleration, deceleration (hard braking) and other measurable driving behaviors would be mandatory, and entitle driver to get 15% off insurance, however bad behavior would increase their premiums and continued dangerous driving readings would result in loss of license.

=Speeding in school zones, construction zones, exceeding 35 kph in residential areas, passing dangerously, failure to yield to pedestrians, fail to stop at stop sign or red light would all come with a $500 fine and 3 points for first occurance, double fine and double points for second and third offence, make them walk for a year if they ever get a third offence and anything after that would include addition year license revocation.

-Slow down move over would be expanded to include any vehicle on the shoulder of the highway with its four way flashers / hazard lights activated.

-semi trucks would be limited to 10 kph under posted speed limits. If it takes you 2 city blocks to come to a stop, why are you getting away with driving 20 kph over the speed limit?

-volunteer, paid-on-call firefighters and SAR will be granted permission to use up to green flashing lamps in their personal vehicles - if installed so that they are visible from 360 degrees around the vehicle and only used when using an electronic air horn - for use while responding to the hall for emergencies. Anyone who fails to move over and allow passage is issued a fine. They would be given emergency vehicle status pending completion of a driver training program and annual vehicle inspection. Dash cameras will be required and footage saved by the chief for a minimum 3 months. Fire chief/SAR chief can revoke a member's ability to use the light if there is a complaint and evidence. 

-Fire/Rescue/SAR chiefs/deputy chiefs and captains will be able to have red and while flashing lamps in their personal vehicles, with similar requirements as above

-Vehicles that provide roadside assistance to motorists will be allowed to have blue and amber flashing lamps displayed when parked on the roadside or on the road, provided assistance. This includes tire services, fuel delivery, tow trucks, traffic control etc.

-using an electronic device while driving fines will be increased to $500 and 3 points - first offence, $1000 and 6 points - second offence, third offence will be like a DUI - walk for a year. Enforcement will be carried out by discrete vans that have cameras pointed at drivers. Footage will be reviewed and sent with the ticket to the driver. No disputing it in court.

-drivers will be required to activate four way flashers when they enter a construction zone or approach an accident scene. This will alert other drivers and show that they understand they are to be on their best behavior.

-driving with something obscuring your license plate (bike rack etc) will result in a vehicle compliance inspection and a stern warning. Anything after that is a big fine.

-improperly aimed headlights that blind drivers will be dealt with roadside and fines issues. vehicle towed, inspection in 1 week and again 6 weeks and 12 weeks after.

Not only would it be cost effective (yeah right) we would become a police state.

Have you read any good books lately, (I recommend George Orwell or Aldous Huxley)?

Couple of good ideas the most I consider just a cash grab which will have little effect on highway safety. There was another post of equating the cost of the fine to a persons income. Your suggestions would only hit the low income.

With the modern safety devices in vehicles today I personally feel that cell phone usage is not a big problem and will reduce each year. Increasing the number of people with special lights to drive differently is contrary to what should be done.

I'm going to ask our moderator to post a picture I took of a vehicle with its amber lights flashing to illustrate my point. There is too many of them out there now and even the ones with the red/blue lights don't know when to properly use them. Going for a coffee break is no reason to be granted special privileges.

vehicle in driver through showing flashing yellow light

Better training is what is needed and possibly a reduction in regulations. I would strongly urge a higher standard for driving instructors.