Matthew SweetMatthew Sweet • 1stVerified • 1st Manager, Active Transportation at City of MississaugaManager, Active Transportation at City of Mississauga 1d • 1 day ago • Visible to anyone on or off LinkedIn "I have a right to drive." This belief pops up in response to a whole host of traffic safety and active transportation plans. People really do believe that they have an inviolable right to drive. Drive without any obstruction or inconvenience, irrespective of other types of road users or the need to renew road assets. Drive as fast as they deem safe to do so, irrespective of the posted speed limit. Face minimal consequences for dangerous driving, including when causing serious injury or death. Driving is, of course, a privilege, not a right, granted by the Province when it issues a license to the individual to operate a vehicle in Ontario. Because driving a vehicle is a serious responsibility that carries significant consequences to individuals and society if done irresponsibly. The question that is before us is whether "majority rules" dictates policy. The majority feel that driving is a right, and this overriding attitude is behind opposition to automated speed enforcement, opposition to bicycle lanes, opposition to creating serious consequences to dangerous driving. But is the majority view the right view, and should that dictate policy?
Recently, Robin Jones, President of Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), was quoted in a Global News interview: “Speed limits are legal requirements. Enforcement of the law is not a tax.” This was in response to the supposed dilemma of “unfairness” to drivers caught by automated...
1/