Thursday, May 29, 2014

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.

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.

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
20% of commercial trucks are tractor Trailers.

Deloitte Report 2013;

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.


No comments: