Revenue tools that kill, when used as directed.

The largest risk on any Ontario Highway is government mismanagement.

Here is an extension of the back to front process of protections against risks, while ignoring the greater dangers to real people who don't live in spreadsheet tables. A political weapon to eliminate rights, while profiting from non compliance. Shamelessly described as "revenue tools", emerging as large scale theft and extortion, with science now on your side.

http://multibriefs.com/briefs/omca/mto%20cvor%20effectiveness%20study%20-%20final%20report.pdf

People who have been watching, will see the more than obvious scientific frauds described in the analysis section of this report, while the entire report deliberately ignores the largest flaws in the report Data. That the smallest vehicles with the least risk imposed, representing more than half of the total fleet, are afforded the highest levels of punishment and lowest threshold of "acceptable behaviors", [page 23] Like looking at cigarettes as though it was one consistent product, ignoring the more obvious truth.

While the underlying evidence confirms risk is proportionally increased in the largest conformity, with miles traveled, [environment effects beyond laying blame] With conclusions draw in the inverse, of what should remain obvious and irrefutable, with logic and common sense applied. Instead declaring only more aggressive levels of enforcement, will lower the risks on the road. {page 44}

What the report indicates, is that the "distance traveled" in a stated time-frame, as a risk or as the theory flowing from a conclusion, does not mention or recognize; is that the distance traveled increases the risks of becoming involved in an accident, because the environment is consistent and any effects you might have by changing driving habits or the condition of a vehicle, will not change the far more expansive factors, that comprise that total environment. Further one could recognize that "chance" as it relates to Russian roulette, as the report indicates, is not really valid here, because the next bullet in the chamber becomes more predictable, the more times you pull the trigger. Whereas the chances of being in an accident, which might never occur, is equal to the chance that it may happen in 20 minutes and 10 minutes later and never again for ten years. As an individual's experience and the same pattern would never be replicated by any other person in the same grouping, so predictability is a political opinion rather than a state and static, event that anyone could ever predict,by statistical proofs. The environment remains, regardless of the way you treat drivers, who are essentially powerless to make any prolonged difference that will have any significant or lasting effect in a chance driven environment. Although weight class has been ignored and numeric divisions within a grouping, separated by miles traveled, do have more legitimate values revealed, in respect to the prediction of any accident likelihood. What is ignored serves the agenda and intent of the party purchasing the report, and that reality will reign, lest the author risk the loss of future employment.

As a real and observational danger, which is always far more than just a risk


Resisting where the evidence takes us? To serve what end?

Eliminating the vehicles that travel shorter distances in the lowest weight class [service and utility vehicles] would largely enhance; the quality of data and more clearly focus that data, on the higher risk trucks and operators in relation to highway safety. Eliminating real and legitimately "preventable" deaths and injuries significantly. CVOR permits are now renewable biannually. With a cost of 250.00 to obtain, in addition to a 350.00 training course, which is also a mandatory requirement, even while applied to vans and pickup trucks, just like the big rigs with log books and all the trappings. Affording a large cash grab for "protectionist" or paternalist wide brush policy making, following the plan, laid out in tobacco control "movements".

As it stands it remains an excellent example of legislation that kills. When used exactly as directed.

All about the money once again.



Related reading;



The Legislation that kills innocent people on our roads.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK46



Commercial motor vehicles???

Definitions, ss. 16-23.1

16.  (1)  In this section and in sections 17 to 23.1,

“commercial motor vehicle” does not include,

(a) a commercial motor vehicle, other than a bus, having a gross weight or registered gross weight of not more than 4,500 kilograms, an ambulance, a fire apparatus, a hearse, a casket wagon, a mobile crane, a motor home or a vehicle commonly known as a tow truck,

Auditor's Report 1997

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en97/313en97.pdf
20% of commercial trucks are tractor Trailers.


Deloitte Report 2013;

http://multibriefs.com/briefs/omca/mto%20cvor%20effectiveness%20study%20-%20final%20report.pdf

Mileage is the most significant indicator of risk. Those imposing the lowest risk see the highest levels of scrutiny If the formula 40-40-20 includes three times the norms, as the baseline of an enforcement threashold, only 1% of accidents and collisions involve the highest number of trucks by category. While the same grouping supplies the highest liability risk to owners and the most regressive and punishing  levels of enforcement, seen throughout the industry.


Rules;
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/guideline/cvor.shtml

Know your rights, or loose them

Tobacco Control is, in it's entirety, a forced medical treatment.

   As such a human rights abuse hosted by a United Nations Agency.

The cartel named "Tobacco Control", employs all of the dark abuses of social engineering, as it's primary plank. Making torture part and parcel of what they have been engaged in for more than a decade. It is an organization formulated in a jail in the 1920s by another anti smoker advocate, one of the most vicious pieces of human trash to ever have walked this planet.

They should all be aware time is on our side and eventually they will gain a reputation earned in the phrase "you are known by the company you keep".

The indictments of the tobacco industry, will be far less interesting to the viewing public and the twitter-sphere. Than dragging so call professionals into courts and watching them suffer, through all of the humiliations they so richly deserve. having done everything the Tobacco industry did and far more, because their advertising and promotions were negative ads, aimed to do harm to other people, with malicious intent. Without that harm their campaigns would have no value, and no chance of success, so it is not a harm by many tortures they can make any valid excuses for, to aid in their defense.

We have a right to be protected against harms imposed by others not risks or phobias which would not qualify, but harms. These harms have victims with names, while none of the statistical numbers, of imaginary harms by risks or risk management, can make that same claim.

Doctors have one obligation; to do no harm. They have failed as individuals and as an industry, or more correctly a criminal cartel.

No one believes the lies of second hand smoke. If you walk into a conference of Tobacco Control activists and light up a cigarette, you make a lot of people mad, but no one would be running for the door fearing for their lives. They know as we know, such a move would only stand to make them look foolish and for good reason. A reason they refuse to face up to, on their own. We heard for years of this brave soul Tornado Repace who voluntarily took measurements of smoke in the air any place he could find it, including any place he believed he had found it. Yet the promotions he made and the testaments he made; that there was "no safe level of tobacco smoke" conflicted absolutely with his own activities with no breathing apparatus employed in all of his years in the field.

Tobacco Control "the movement" are plying for an imaginary right, to be "protected against tobacco smoke". Imaginary because no such right exists. It is entitlement, by taking an emotional assessment "risk" and pretending it is a "danger".

Governments can interfere, if someone is doing harm to another. They can not "protect" someone from the fears that exist only in their minds. We have psychological councilors at the wait, to secure that objective. Politicians sign on to the danger, as their entitlement to interfere. If no danger has been demonstrated, only fear supports their otherwise illegal activities, when they impose these laws and encroach on otherwise still valid rights and freedoms.

All they claim that is necessary; is to pretend a danger exists and it entitles government activity that would not survive in the courts, had they not resorted to pretending to fear the smoke, in spite of it's relatively benign nature in the real world.

If you look at the research, only smokers are not harmed by tobacco smoke. The research has been consistent If it could be demonstrated that smokers were harmed by the smoke, said to be harming others, there would be some basis for these laws. Since nothing can be demonstrated it would appear that smoking is the only real protection against second hand tobacco smoke risks. If it sounds insane that is because it is drawn from the same logic pool, where you would find tobacco smoke as a health risk. No real danger just a lot of bad acting and far too many willing to sign on to corruption in their own field of expertise. Diluting the importance of their own scholastic achievements, training as Scientists or Doctors and immediately declaring themselves nothing more than prostitutes and double speak clowns. Having learned nothing of importance.

The jump from association to causation was a deliberate lie, upheld universally throughout the sciences, because if they did not make that jump, moving risk to danger, they would have nothing to present in their promotions, that is more than a scary story to frighten the children. Scary stories will not survive legal challenges and we have already seen that in the courts where any judge weighed the evidence, in place of imposing the common good of mote and beam. They need to prove that smoking killed anyone, just as they will need to prove the same could be shown with tobacco smoke, that is where their logic and legitimacy ends.

Full disclosure is central to law making and binding contracts. If emotional promotions, by incomplete or inaccurate information pools, was the basis for those laws, those laws should not stand and the perpetrators of lies of omission, should be made to account for their crimes and incompetence.

>>>You do not<<< have a right to be "protected" against tobacco smoke, any more than you have a right to be protected against the goblins under your bed. Anyone who tells you that anyone is being harmed by tobacco smoke exposures, is guilty of telling you lies.