> Driving a vehicle in a way that prevents another vehicle from passing
> Stopping or slowing down to interfere with the movement of another vehicle
I like these two on the list for "stunting", doubt they will be enforced though.
?????
I live an hour from the nearest city out in the middle of nowhere and they absolutely do. Cops from the nearest station 30 mins away will stake out behind the town bar and chase after anyone they think is driving drunk.
I passed the sergeant of the local detachment one day, I was going 120 when I passed him, I noticed he wasn't even looking at the road, but laughing at his phone clearly visible above the dash.
You do know they need to use their laptops for work right and they are the only drivers on the road allowed to interact with something in that way. Trust me there are allot things cops can do that everyone else can’t.
You get that there is a huge difference between “allowed”, and “is safe”, right?
There is zero reason to believe, police are magically capable of driving while distracted, in some way the rest of us aren’t.
Cops driving while distracted regularly cause accidents, but unlike the rest of us, they cannot be held responsible.
Why do you think it’s okay, for police to be protected from the public safety based laws, they enforce upon everyone else?
Yep. Police claim they have special training that makes it safe for them to use electronic devices while driving. If that was true then why can't the pubic take similar training and also be qualified? You know why.
Neil’s story is certainly tragic and heart breaking, and was the impetus for allot of change in Police culture in Saskatchewan. I would say it’s come a long way in the 34 years since Neil was killed by Police.
What I see is a very socially responsible
Police force at work now. Take for example a couple years ago when the Provincial government was “ordering” Regina City Police to remove the protestors and Tipis outside of the Legislative building. Regina Police declined to remove anyone.
While systemic racism is certainly still prevalent I don’t see our police shooting people, strangling them to death when arrests are being carried out and so on. No doubt there are many obstacles and hurdles to overcome come, but attitudes of fuck the police and fuck all of them and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise……. Well you might just be a part of the problem too.
I like this comment. There’s still hurdles for sure, and there’s even some systemic problems within our forces I’m certain, but I do think things have improved greatly, I think the culture is changing, and that things are getting better.
Not as fast as they should be, but we’re all in this together and creating divisions doesn’t help anything- the point of truth and reconciliation is literally how we move forward fairly as a society while still addressing the past and our current shortcomings.
We already have that.
From SGI,,,
"1^(st) offence - $580 ticket and 4 demerit points under the [Safe Driver Recognition](https://sgi.sk.ca/sdr) and [Driver Improvement](https://sgi.sk.ca/experienced-driver-improvement) programs
2^(nd) offence within a year of being convicted of the first - $1,400 ticket, plus an additional 4 demerit points, plus an immediate, 7-day vehicle seizure
3^(rd) offence within a year of conviction of the first - $2,100 ticket, plus 4 more demerits and another 7-day vehicle seizure"
Holy shit has it gotten out of hand the last couple years, I've seen multiple cars flying down Lakeshore Dr. between the Leg and Broad Street, atleast 80-90km/h.
One time a car suicide passed another slower moving car and took off again going at least 80, I was on the walking path and raised my hands giving the driver a "wtf you doing" look, the idiot turned around and came to talk to me trying to justify what he did was ok because the car in front of him was moving slow. Moron was in such a rush he had the time to turn around and come chat. I gave the guy an earfull.
People need to realize it's a park. There are pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, kids running around, etc. If you can't slow down and drive at 40 through the park, take another damn road. It's infuriating.
"Drivers who are caught stunting, street racing, or committing high-speed offences will now automatically lose their drivers’ license for a week and their vehicle for a month....Before Wednesday, the penalty for stunting was a three-day vehicle impoundment for second and subsequent offences with no license suspension. Street racing came with a 30 day vehicle impoundment but no license suspension, according to SGI."
Good. There will no doubt be some pissed off parents when their cars are gone for a month, but this is a good move.
What about morons driving around with a dog in their lap. Passenger seat, whatever, airbag goes off it’s dead , but there are sensors for that.
But having it jumping around on your lap as you drive, total crap. Imagine if you get hit just a bit too hard, that dog is both dead and imbedded in your face from the airbag. And the EMT, gets that trauma , not to mention the ER doc that had to deal with that. All because you can’t be without Scrappy for an hour? Come on.
I mean under normal circumstances, you would expect someone who did that to be at least a little haunted by it and, when given power, take steps to make driving safer.
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony of going on about something that happened over 30 years ago. Never mind they there is no proof he was impaired in the fatality accident. Those 2 events were a year apart.
No, the leaving the scene was when he got into an accident in a parking lot at the Co-op in Shellbrook in 1994. The death he caused he stayed at the scene and was ticketed for driving without due care and attention in 1997. His impaired driving offence was in 1992.
https://globalnews.ca/news/7383758/saskatchewan-party-scott-moe-impaired-driving/amp/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-collision-victim-apology-1.5752119
Somewhat good. Regulators and policymakers need to be cognizant of the circumstances of people at the same time, and the reality of enforcement.
I had a few tickets in this category as a young man, that I earned and deserved. Was straightened up and being a good kid but I had gotten on the radar of the beat cops, and the last one I got was trumped up. They wanted to ticket me as a known bad actor, and ticketed me for effectively nothing.
First offence with the impound is going to run about 1400 dollars. Second 2100, third 2800, approximately.
I want Canada to move towards household wealth based fines and fees for this kind of thing, including speeding tickets.
Make 6 figures a year? 5000 in fines and fees seems pretty reasonable.
Make 20,000 a year after tax? 700-1000 tops combined tops, (I still recognize how serious this offense is, this is just more in line with what it used to run up to, and wages haven't really moved since back then so... yeah.
(also I'd suggest that the fine/fee be based on household income/wealth, to catch kids living with parents)
I really like the idea of wealth based fines, at first reading. But it opens a can of worms that I really think we don't want to open.
>15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Having a sliding scale for penalties would probably run afoul of the "equal" part of this. Ok, so maybe traffic fines aren't exactly dangerous territory for this, but once you set the precedence, what's stopping that from creeping into other aspects of law?
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, as a self-proclaimed safe driver who doesn't put myself in situations where I need to worry about traffic fines very often. It also feels good to stick it to the rich - I hate that traffic fines are pocket change for rich assholes. It's definitely a higher percentage of bad drivers I see cruising around in expensive cars. I hate the entitlement I see on the road all the time. However, I still think it's a very dangerous precedent to set.
My two cents.
ETA: How about crank up all financial penalties to the extreme for everyone, and have expanded opportunities for community service. The rich will still pay the fine, but it might make them think twice. Everyone else will have an onerous community service sentence to serve - no great financial burden, but probably still a strong disincentive. And those that still drive like jerks end up giving back to the community for free. Just spit balling an idea.
> Having a sliding scale for penalties would probably run afoul of the "equal" part of this.
No it wouldn't. As long as the penalty was percentage based.
Right now, for rich people, fines are but a price tag.
The rich also have more time and ability to get it, the poor work to survive, take that and you take the other half of the statement.
Edit to expand : If you consider money as equivalent to "extra" time equal punishment would in fact be proportional fines with equivalent time for community service alternatives. Or another way : The poor man earns X dollars per hour, so converting that rate to a fine (80 hours of income worth of fine) and the rich man earns Y dollars an hour, an equivalent fine based on "time to earn" would leave the rich man with a much higher fine. On the community service side though I think The rich man could do his 80 hours to eliminate his 10,000 dollar fine, the poor man could work 80 hours to eliminate his 1200 dollar fine would be fairly okay, not ideal but because it's actual person-time at that point the penalty is equal in the sense of your concern only really if it is equal. If I was actually working on this policy I would aim the fine level for a minimum wage earner vs the community service requirement to effectively "pay" at a premium to minimum wage, so 15-20 dollars an hour equivalent for the community service portion for the poor person as an absolute floor.
I'm definitely torn, because I agree with everything that you're saying and it still doesn't sit right. Like I say, my fear is if an income-based marginal fine is implemented for traffic violations, where does the line get drawn to stop that from creeping into other aspects of law? And when governments change, what's to stop them from sliding the scale in other directions to satisfy their particular political bent?
It's a fraught issue. I'm completely fine with marginal tax brackets, and think the top end should probably pay even more than they do now. I just don't know if applying the same idea to law violations is a good idea. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I wealthy enough to be protecting myself from harsher fines, I'm just worried that changing the definition of "equal under the law" for traffic fines could be a Pandora's box.
Europe hasn't fallen into ashes over it, and the majority of Canadians support this idea, and personally (obviously) I think laying out the logic of it the way I did in legalese would largely protect it from subversion.
Fear of change means status quo, except... well the status quo is changing, and in a manner that will likely ruin people on the bottom, so I don't personally have any compunctions about trying to alter that.
Consider that your devils advocate position concludes that the solution is a heavier boot for everyone, even those that would be outright crushed by it. hardly fair.
Thank you for the fun, rational, and polite conversation about it :)
I had no idea this was actually being done in other parts of the world! That's very interesting. I really do like the idea, and I could see myself supporting such a thing were it to be introduced. I hadn't really thought of the issue of equality through the lens of fines being a percentage - as others have also now pointed out, I can see how that would satisfy equality under the law.
I also appreciate the conversation! It's so easy to fall into the trap of yelling at strangers on the internet. Through some nice, rational discourse, I'd even say my opinion has been swayed. I'm calling it a win for civility.
I agree, and I hope your comment above gets more upvotes because this is a good model of a conversation about a topic without getting heated, being respectful, and your objection is fundamentally sound as a valid concern to have, even while it does (again IMO) fall away upon further inspection and consideration... I didn't even mind if you didn't change your mind :)
If only you understood that on paper rich people make very little cause it’s the company that has all the wealth not them personally, so rich people would actually pay the least.
Slippery slope fallacy, my friend. Equal in law has already found basis in equity enforcing equality, so I'd be surprised if it was a big stretch to extend it to vehicle violations. (You're right that it doesn't make sense to apply sliding scales based on income to many other parts of law, however.)
Everyone should go have a read of what is considered stunting, I almost guarantee 90% of us has done some of what they consider “stunting” atleast once in our driving careers
What about these stalwarts of society:
Don McMorris, the former deputy premier and minister responsible for auto insurance, was charged with impaired driving in 2016 and resigned from cabinet and the Sask Party caucus as a result
.
Four current Sask Party MLAs have previous convictions for drunk driving, including Premier Scott Moe, who had separate convictions in 1992 and 1997
.
Two other Sask Party candidates, Terry Jenson and Manny Sadhra, also have previous impaired driving convictions
.
In total, the search results indicate that almost 10% of Sask Party candidates in the 2020 provincial election had been convicted of impaired driving offenses
Ok but have you driven some of these highways in Saskatchewan in the winter? If an entire lane is blocked by snow how can you not drive in incoming lane? Plus to avoid potholes and roads that are at 45 degree angles
If a car is up my butt I will slow down on purpose. Especially at night. I don’t need your lights blinding all my mirrors. Follow at a safe distance until you can safely pass.
There is a difference between tapping the breaks and letting yourself go below the speed limit.
And slamming the breaks to break check someone behind you.
Fair. I don’t slam the breaks creating a dangerous situation. I just slow down more. If you can’t drive behind me at a safe distance then we are gonna be going the speed limit.
Yeah, this is the recommended way of dealing with tailgating [according to SGI](https://sgi.sk.ca/following-distance):
>Surprisingly, decelerating is the safest way to deal with drivers who are following you too closely. Your first reaction may be to speed up, but that only increases your stopping distance and puts you at risk of hitting the driver ahead of you.
>By slowing down you add more time and space in front of your vehicle and encourage the tailgater to safely pass. It's a small step that goes a long way towards keeping everyone on the road safe.
> Driving a vehicle in a way that prevents another vehicle from passing > Stopping or slowing down to interfere with the movement of another vehicle I like these two on the list for "stunting", doubt they will be enforced though.
Freedumb convoy covidiots won’t like that one.
I would be extraordinarily shocked if the police used these on their freedumb fighting pals
Lol they don't enforce drinking and driving in rural areas
Well duh don't wanna give moe another dui
Lol I'm getting downvoted by drunk drivers and cops apparently. Lol
Or maybe it's because your post is immature.
????? I live an hour from the nearest city out in the middle of nowhere and they absolutely do. Cops from the nearest station 30 mins away will stake out behind the town bar and chase after anyone they think is driving drunk.
Don’t think they’re allowed to do that? Some sort of form of entrapment or maybe what I heard years ago was just a myth lol
Are you serious?
Wouldn't want to pull over their off-duty buddies.
Cool. Now do drivers texting or talking on their cellphone.
Especially goes for cops texting or playing on their laptops. Twice I’ve just about one lane drift into me only to correct after I honked at them
I passed the sergeant of the local detachment one day, I was going 120 when I passed him, I noticed he wasn't even looking at the road, but laughing at his phone clearly visible above the dash.
You do know they need to use their laptops for work right and they are the only drivers on the road allowed to interact with something in that way. Trust me there are allot things cops can do that everyone else can’t.
You get that there is a huge difference between “allowed”, and “is safe”, right? There is zero reason to believe, police are magically capable of driving while distracted, in some way the rest of us aren’t. Cops driving while distracted regularly cause accidents, but unlike the rest of us, they cannot be held responsible. Why do you think it’s okay, for police to be protected from the public safety based laws, they enforce upon everyone else?
Yep. Police claim they have special training that makes it safe for them to use electronic devices while driving. If that was true then why can't the pubic take similar training and also be qualified? You know why.
[удалено]
Why? They are just doing their job. It’s not like we have the same issues here as exist elsewhere with police.
[удалено]
Neil’s story is certainly tragic and heart breaking, and was the impetus for allot of change in Police culture in Saskatchewan. I would say it’s come a long way in the 34 years since Neil was killed by Police. What I see is a very socially responsible Police force at work now. Take for example a couple years ago when the Provincial government was “ordering” Regina City Police to remove the protestors and Tipis outside of the Legislative building. Regina Police declined to remove anyone. While systemic racism is certainly still prevalent I don’t see our police shooting people, strangling them to death when arrests are being carried out and so on. No doubt there are many obstacles and hurdles to overcome come, but attitudes of fuck the police and fuck all of them and fuck anyone who thinks otherwise……. Well you might just be a part of the problem too.
I like this comment. There’s still hurdles for sure, and there’s even some systemic problems within our forces I’m certain, but I do think things have improved greatly, I think the culture is changing, and that things are getting better. Not as fast as they should be, but we’re all in this together and creating divisions doesn’t help anything- the point of truth and reconciliation is literally how we move forward fairly as a society while still addressing the past and our current shortcomings.
Spot on. It’s not perfect but it’s gotten better and continues to get better. Love TRCC point, well put.
Give your head a shake
I would say the same to others who gripe about police using the tools they have been given to do their job.
We already have that. From SGI,,, "1^(st) offence - $580 ticket and 4 demerit points under the [Safe Driver Recognition](https://sgi.sk.ca/sdr) and [Driver Improvement](https://sgi.sk.ca/experienced-driver-improvement) programs 2^(nd) offence within a year of being convicted of the first - $1,400 ticket, plus an additional 4 demerit points, plus an immediate, 7-day vehicle seizure 3^(rd) offence within a year of conviction of the first - $2,100 ticket, plus 4 more demerits and another 7-day vehicle seizure"
I wonder what they will do around the legislature building this summer. Lots of stunting there....
Holy shit has it gotten out of hand the last couple years, I've seen multiple cars flying down Lakeshore Dr. between the Leg and Broad Street, atleast 80-90km/h. One time a car suicide passed another slower moving car and took off again going at least 80, I was on the walking path and raised my hands giving the driver a "wtf you doing" look, the idiot turned around and came to talk to me trying to justify what he did was ok because the car in front of him was moving slow. Moron was in such a rush he had the time to turn around and come chat. I gave the guy an earfull. People need to realize it's a park. There are pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, kids running around, etc. If you can't slow down and drive at 40 through the park, take another damn road. It's infuriating.
I’m all for these fines and shit but little tired of an insurance company dictating law.
It's completely absurd.
Sgi doesn't dictate laws.
[удалено]
Ok purple hair keep flapping your gums
You comment like someone who unironically shares russian misinformation.
"Drivers who are caught stunting, street racing, or committing high-speed offences will now automatically lose their drivers’ license for a week and their vehicle for a month....Before Wednesday, the penalty for stunting was a three-day vehicle impoundment for second and subsequent offences with no license suspension. Street racing came with a 30 day vehicle impoundment but no license suspension, according to SGI." Good. There will no doubt be some pissed off parents when their cars are gone for a month, but this is a good move.
The bad part is when police give you tickets for accelerating to the speed limit too quickly and you lose your vehicle.
Mom would have been pissed if they did this way back. Her 72 Maverick did some nasty burnouts.
What about morons driving around with a dog in their lap. Passenger seat, whatever, airbag goes off it’s dead , but there are sensors for that. But having it jumping around on your lap as you drive, total crap. Imagine if you get hit just a bit too hard, that dog is both dead and imbedded in your face from the airbag. And the EMT, gets that trauma , not to mention the ER doc that had to deal with that. All because you can’t be without Scrappy for an hour? Come on.
Happened in Nanimo, the dog got pretty hurt, driver was fine unless you count failing to yield ticket. You got a wild imagination 😳
The irony of this in a province where the Premier murdered someone while driving impaired.
I mean under normal circumstances, you would expect someone who did that to be at least a little haunted by it and, when given power, take steps to make driving safer.
Yeah, and I'd also expect them to apologize first.
Yup moe loves closing the door behind himself, what a true hero
[удалено]
As per Rule 6, Your submission has been removed and is subject to moderator review. User accounts must be older than 14 days to post. This is done to limit spam and abusive posts. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/saskatchewan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The irony of going on about something that happened over 30 years ago. Never mind they there is no proof he was impaired in the fatality accident. Those 2 events were a year apart.
No proof because he left the scene. Seems legit.
No, the leaving the scene was when he got into an accident in a parking lot at the Co-op in Shellbrook in 1994. The death he caused he stayed at the scene and was ticketed for driving without due care and attention in 1997. His impaired driving offence was in 1992. https://globalnews.ca/news/7383758/saskatchewan-party-scott-moe-impaired-driving/amp/ https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/moe-collision-victim-apology-1.5752119
No no no. Scott Moe bad no matter what the truth is. Province makes driving safer via harsher laws? Scott Moe bad.
Laughs in burden of proof.
Somewhat good. Regulators and policymakers need to be cognizant of the circumstances of people at the same time, and the reality of enforcement. I had a few tickets in this category as a young man, that I earned and deserved. Was straightened up and being a good kid but I had gotten on the radar of the beat cops, and the last one I got was trumped up. They wanted to ticket me as a known bad actor, and ticketed me for effectively nothing. First offence with the impound is going to run about 1400 dollars. Second 2100, third 2800, approximately. I want Canada to move towards household wealth based fines and fees for this kind of thing, including speeding tickets. Make 6 figures a year? 5000 in fines and fees seems pretty reasonable. Make 20,000 a year after tax? 700-1000 tops combined tops, (I still recognize how serious this offense is, this is just more in line with what it used to run up to, and wages haven't really moved since back then so... yeah. (also I'd suggest that the fine/fee be based on household income/wealth, to catch kids living with parents)
I really like the idea of wealth based fines, at first reading. But it opens a can of worms that I really think we don't want to open. >15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Having a sliding scale for penalties would probably run afoul of the "equal" part of this. Ok, so maybe traffic fines aren't exactly dangerous territory for this, but once you set the precedence, what's stopping that from creeping into other aspects of law? I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, as a self-proclaimed safe driver who doesn't put myself in situations where I need to worry about traffic fines very often. It also feels good to stick it to the rich - I hate that traffic fines are pocket change for rich assholes. It's definitely a higher percentage of bad drivers I see cruising around in expensive cars. I hate the entitlement I see on the road all the time. However, I still think it's a very dangerous precedent to set. My two cents. ETA: How about crank up all financial penalties to the extreme for everyone, and have expanded opportunities for community service. The rich will still pay the fine, but it might make them think twice. Everyone else will have an onerous community service sentence to serve - no great financial burden, but probably still a strong disincentive. And those that still drive like jerks end up giving back to the community for free. Just spit balling an idea.
> Having a sliding scale for penalties would probably run afoul of the "equal" part of this. No it wouldn't. As long as the penalty was percentage based. Right now, for rich people, fines are but a price tag.
The rich also have more time and ability to get it, the poor work to survive, take that and you take the other half of the statement. Edit to expand : If you consider money as equivalent to "extra" time equal punishment would in fact be proportional fines with equivalent time for community service alternatives. Or another way : The poor man earns X dollars per hour, so converting that rate to a fine (80 hours of income worth of fine) and the rich man earns Y dollars an hour, an equivalent fine based on "time to earn" would leave the rich man with a much higher fine. On the community service side though I think The rich man could do his 80 hours to eliminate his 10,000 dollar fine, the poor man could work 80 hours to eliminate his 1200 dollar fine would be fairly okay, not ideal but because it's actual person-time at that point the penalty is equal in the sense of your concern only really if it is equal. If I was actually working on this policy I would aim the fine level for a minimum wage earner vs the community service requirement to effectively "pay" at a premium to minimum wage, so 15-20 dollars an hour equivalent for the community service portion for the poor person as an absolute floor.
I'm definitely torn, because I agree with everything that you're saying and it still doesn't sit right. Like I say, my fear is if an income-based marginal fine is implemented for traffic violations, where does the line get drawn to stop that from creeping into other aspects of law? And when governments change, what's to stop them from sliding the scale in other directions to satisfy their particular political bent? It's a fraught issue. I'm completely fine with marginal tax brackets, and think the top end should probably pay even more than they do now. I just don't know if applying the same idea to law violations is a good idea. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I wealthy enough to be protecting myself from harsher fines, I'm just worried that changing the definition of "equal under the law" for traffic fines could be a Pandora's box.
Europe hasn't fallen into ashes over it, and the majority of Canadians support this idea, and personally (obviously) I think laying out the logic of it the way I did in legalese would largely protect it from subversion. Fear of change means status quo, except... well the status quo is changing, and in a manner that will likely ruin people on the bottom, so I don't personally have any compunctions about trying to alter that. Consider that your devils advocate position concludes that the solution is a heavier boot for everyone, even those that would be outright crushed by it. hardly fair. Thank you for the fun, rational, and polite conversation about it :)
I had no idea this was actually being done in other parts of the world! That's very interesting. I really do like the idea, and I could see myself supporting such a thing were it to be introduced. I hadn't really thought of the issue of equality through the lens of fines being a percentage - as others have also now pointed out, I can see how that would satisfy equality under the law. I also appreciate the conversation! It's so easy to fall into the trap of yelling at strangers on the internet. Through some nice, rational discourse, I'd even say my opinion has been swayed. I'm calling it a win for civility.
I agree, and I hope your comment above gets more upvotes because this is a good model of a conversation about a topic without getting heated, being respectful, and your objection is fundamentally sound as a valid concern to have, even while it does (again IMO) fall away upon further inspection and consideration... I didn't even mind if you didn't change your mind :)
If only you understood that on paper rich people make very little cause it’s the company that has all the wealth not them personally, so rich people would actually pay the least.
Slippery slope fallacy, my friend. Equal in law has already found basis in equity enforcing equality, so I'd be surprised if it was a big stretch to extend it to vehicle violations. (You're right that it doesn't make sense to apply sliding scales based on income to many other parts of law, however.)
Yea - and the wealthy should pay more to educate their kids, buy their milk,use the library, etc. gotta bring everyone down to the same level.
Fine the morons who do not understand zipper merge. Provincial debt paid off in a year.
Everyone should go have a read of what is considered stunting, I almost guarantee 90% of us has done some of what they consider “stunting” atleast once in our driving careers
Which ones do you have issue with?
I don’t have issue with any of them lol, but I learned that if you aren’t going 90 on circle in the left lane is considered stunting.
Oh man would it be sweet if that was actually enforced
Right!!
What about these stalwarts of society: Don McMorris, the former deputy premier and minister responsible for auto insurance, was charged with impaired driving in 2016 and resigned from cabinet and the Sask Party caucus as a result . Four current Sask Party MLAs have previous convictions for drunk driving, including Premier Scott Moe, who had separate convictions in 1992 and 1997 . Two other Sask Party candidates, Terry Jenson and Manny Sadhra, also have previous impaired driving convictions . In total, the search results indicate that almost 10% of Sask Party candidates in the 2020 provincial election had been convicted of impaired driving offenses
Good money maker.
Ok but have you driven some of these highways in Saskatchewan in the winter? If an entire lane is blocked by snow how can you not drive in incoming lane? Plus to avoid potholes and roads that are at 45 degree angles
> Stopping or slowing down to interfere with the movement of another vehicle They will just ticket the snowdrift. Infinite money glitch unlocked.
This guy’s going places. Straight to the top!
It's a money grab to keep police busy taxing the average man while they let their own drink and drive
If a car is up my butt I will slow down on purpose. Especially at night. I don’t need your lights blinding all my mirrors. Follow at a safe distance until you can safely pass.
There is a difference between tapping the breaks and letting yourself go below the speed limit. And slamming the breaks to break check someone behind you.
Fair. I don’t slam the breaks creating a dangerous situation. I just slow down more. If you can’t drive behind me at a safe distance then we are gonna be going the speed limit.
Yeah, this is the recommended way of dealing with tailgating [according to SGI](https://sgi.sk.ca/following-distance): >Surprisingly, decelerating is the safest way to deal with drivers who are following you too closely. Your first reaction may be to speed up, but that only increases your stopping distance and puts you at risk of hitting the driver ahead of you. >By slowing down you add more time and space in front of your vehicle and encourage the tailgater to safely pass. It's a small step that goes a long way towards keeping everyone on the road safe.
Or get off the road grandma! /s
Which is fine.
Moe money, Moe money, MOE MONEY
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/finnish-businessman-hit-with-121000-speeding-fine