Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I got a ticket for going 112 on the highway here (max 90)... It was empty, except for me and the cop, who I saw too late... Didn't even get a warning

   

And your proof for this? As opposed to the studies already presented that show the exact opposite of what you said.

   

Going faster is safer? Prove it.

   

   

People already drive way to close to the car in front of them when the limit is 100. IF you bump it up to 130 I highly doubt they will increase the distance they tailgate. Cars at both speeds (lets assume driving one car length as I often get this on my way to work)who have the driver in front of them hit the brakes will both either hit the ditch trying to avoid the car or hit the leading car. The one going faster will hit the leading car harder and in theory (Physics) cause more damage and injury. If he hits the ditch the result is they same, but just for him. Plus the driver at the higher speed will have less reaction time and will be more likely to hit the driver in front of them and cause this more sever damage.

As for the German comparison, as already pointed out, their driver training and testing program is light years ahead of ours and the few (it is no many) Autobahns you can do no limit on are light years better maintained than our roads such as the trans Canada. In Germany the 401 would not be a no-limit road either.

   

Speed does kill. I'm not an advocate for mindless enforcement but vehicles that go faster present a greater safety hazard to the driver and everybody else. It’s simple physics.

Trying to argue that going faster is anyway safer is futile.

The faster an object goes, the greater the impact when it collides with another object. The theory presented is all very jolly but utter bollocks.

   

Good find Dog.

Couple points though.

The main reason governments won't increase speed limits, and lower the amount of tickets, is the same as why they won't outlaw tobacco or booze.

They need the money, now more than ever.

In my village in Italy, 10km to next town. There used to be one camera at an intersection with a fairly steep curve in the middle of it. Now there are FOUR cameras for 10km of road. Tax grab, nothing else.

He did gloss over a bit the difference in quality of vehicles between NA and Europe.
European cars are much better made, no question. Additionally, vehicles are inspected every 2 years, including a brake test on a rolling road that measures brake effectiveness, not just if you have them.

That F-150 I had last year was an absolute POS; I wouldn't use that in Europe under any circumstances.





Everyone in Europe has to pass a course before going for the driving test, but I think it's more a question of just what you are used to.
Roads in Europe are smaller, tighter, less straight and boring. You get used to it.
Takes balls on a secondary road when there is maybe 6 inches between mirrors.

To be fair, I have seen a lot idiots in Europe, people using their cellphones should be shot on sight.




Life isn't fun until you have tried being in the middle of 6 cars nose to tail at 180 km/hr.

6 lanes, straight roads only though.




Yes, when there is an accident on the autobahn, it's usually a big one.

But by far the most dangerous assholes are the ones sitting in the left lane, 10 km/hr under the posted limit, thinking they own the damn road, refusing to move, and forcing people to pass round them on the right.

When will the police mount a major campaign against these people ?

   

When all the people speeding stop.

~

Speed limits are set at reasonable limits for two factors:

Energy of crashes assuming they are not head on.
The curve of energy use due to drag.

Unless you have a tail wind helping out their is a very sharp energy use raise at the 90km/h range. Most people are unwilling to drive cars shaped like bullets so keeping the speeds below the first big jump in energy requirement is good.

The amount of energy in a crash has a very sharp curve starting at 70km/h. At total speeds below 70km/h deaths are rare unless one vehicle is just crushed or suffers something that would otherwise kill the passengers. (flipped into a ditch, a smaller object entering the passenger compartment)

At speeds of 140km/h death is very likely. It's rare for a crash at those speeds not to kill at least one person.

You might say well yes double the speed double the energy. But for KE, it's 1/2mv^2.

I would say we can raise our speed limits when and only when people give each other more following room, no one every needs to pass into an on coming lanes, and only for divided roads.

I doubt a month doesn't go by when some jackass driving up to, or coming back from Fort Mac doesn't get into a lethal head on crash. Undoubtedly they think that because they are driving super fast they are paying more attention to the road and are safer drivers.

   

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

Doesn't so much say that faster is safer, more that people tend to actually be pretty decent at judging what a safe speed is and doing that speed.GOvernments tend to set the legal limit well below that speed. Increasse in accidents comes from people doing different speeds because there are always those who do exactly what the sign says and those who do what feels right. If the limit is increased there are more people doing the same speed, hence a reduction in accidents.

I don't believe north American drivers, cars, or roads are suitable for unlimited speeds, but something like hwy 2 between Edmonton and Calgary could easily have a limit of 130, which is pretty close to what most people do anyways.

   

This business of speeding law complaints began hitting the news in Vancouver again, because the policy of confiscating cars for impound, and evicting the driver led to nuttiness like families standing alongside the road in the middle of nowhere. Such an incident was on the news. That's what led to making the video in the OP, I think.

Are incidents of confiscation and eviction for speeding universal throughout Canada now, or just in Vancouver?

   

I think it's mainly BC. That incident you mentioned happened in Manning Park. The impounding law is part of new law that's supposed to give cops more power to hate on street racers.

   

The video author wasn't advocating unlimited highway speeds.

For those, I personally don't know whether it would be a good idea or a bad idea. I was recently on the Coquahalla doing a decent amount of speed above the limit, comfortably, in my pickup (I recall someone saying the highway was designed for 130kph, I believe that to be true). I was passed by 5 cars I can comfortably say were doing at least 180+kph. So while I'm on the fence, I'd say that the real idiots will continue to endanger themselves and others regardless of the posted limit, or whether there is even a posted limit.

As for this guys point, he has several good ones. Notably that when the majority of motorists are travelling in the same direction at approximately the same speed, the roadway is safer for everyone.



Think beyond grade 10 physics, and start thinking about relative physics. If all vehicles are travelling within 10-20 kph of each other at the moment of collision, the application of force only equates to the energy differential between those two vehicles. Even after the point of collision, the friction caused by the tires on the road surface will slow all vehicles involved down at approximately the same rate. When people speak of increased vehicle safety, part of what applies is resistance to rolling over; and, if a roll over does occur on the roadway or in a ditch, protecting the occupants.

The point is, unless someone builds a wall across the highway made out of those concrete blocks they use for retaining walls, most high-speed collisions & accidents the energy is bled off relatively slowly. There would be the occasional freak accident, there always will be and always has been. But thats a risk we all take, and a risk we all should take into account when we choose the speed we drive at.



If the speed limit is put into practice, I'd argue much stricter enforcement of traffic laws. Including impeding traffic and speeding. If the 85th percentile is driving 130 on the Coquahalla, you probably shouldn't be going any faster than that, much less 180.

   

A very nice fairy story.




What are you going on about? Where do you get this stuff from? I've never seen a collision like this, EVER.





Really? Are you just using anecdotal evidence or is this a a youtube poll?


'Bled off relatively slowly'. Utter bollocks.

   

Loved the link very well done

IMO the cops should he going after the idiots people who weave in and out of traffic going across 4 lanes of traffic and passing on the right. The ones doing 110 in the left lane and will not get right. Everyone who passes on the right. Even unsafe lane changes and signals. Oh and my favorite the ones who scream thats my exit and race across 3 lanes to get into it... there is an other exit in a few kilks

Going 10 20 or even 30 over is not as big a problem as idiots. Who cause accidents in their wake.

   

How long have you been a cop for? How many accidents on open stretches of divided roadway have you had to investigate? If you don't agree with what I have to say, cite an example.




Oxford:
"Relatively"
adverb
[sentence adverb]
in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else

In this case, "relatively slowly" means having 2 seconds or more to slow down from highway speeds to 0kph, in comparison to the nightmare scenario; hitting an unmovable object with only 1/10th of a second to slow down to 0kph.

For an englishman I had hoped you wouldn't play ignorant to the specific wording I chose.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next