Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

I don't think many people are advocating just raising all the limits everywhere across the bar. It's more that there are many place where limits are set artificially low.

Just to mention a few spots around here, many areas of whitemud drive could handle 90kmh, the henday could easily be 110 and hwy 2 could be 130 most sections between Edmonton and Calgary.

   

[/quote]

Most of those standards aren't applicable because the likelyhood of a head-on collision or a t-bone at 110kph on an expressway like the #1 through Vancouver, the Coquahalla, or the 19 are incredibly low. I would like to see testing of vehicle rollovers at expressway speeds made a standard part of safety testing.

Now on to your statements, absolutely it is a crash. Let's play with your speed of 110kph, and my de-acceleration time of 2 seconds. The speed translates to 30.5556m/s. In order to go from 110kph to 0 in 2 seconds, you would have to lose 15.27778m/s per second. To calculate the G-forces, you put whatever the speed is over the acceleration you'd experience in free-fall at 1g, which is 9.83m/s^2

In our case 15.27778/9.83 is 1.5541994. Lets round up and call it 1.6g average. That's not a heck of a lot, certainly not

I want to Party with this guy and jabberwalker. the Sambuca is on me!

   

Speed limits will never be increased, there would be no work for the force of uniformed tax collectors.

   

Sorry. I have to keep remembering that a lot of my fellow posters are the "well-inside-the-box" kind of white bread people.

   

I would speculate, but I don't see how it would be relevant to this thread. Would belong in the space thread.

   

I think that was the original video's point. There are too many limits where the speeds are artificially low to increase fines. And I agree.

But the Whitemud can never be higher than 80km/h. Places like the Rainbow Valley bridge can't handle the downforce from large vehicles at higher speeds, and the Terwilligar corner and corner at 149th street would be mayhem. They can't handle the lateral forces needed to keep vehicles on the pavement when it rains or snows.

http://www.theloop.ca/news/ctvnews/loca ... -unchanged


And with frost heaving the roads, it's extremely dangerous to raise any speeds, especially on highway 2. Small bumps in the road can be really dangerous.

   

I was riffing about what happens Newtonian physics meets non-Einsteinian physics and the effect on the human body (note thread title). I will stick to the straight and narrow, after this because, well, this forum is an awfully important place.

   

The figure I found was 500N, or roughly tripping and hitting your head. Normally your neck muscles keep this from happeneing, but a neurology paper I read said it had happened from some people passing out and falling.



It's not you math that is wrong, it's your premise. If all the vehicles become an inelastic mass because most of them didn't have time to avoid the accident, how does that affect KE=1/2MV^2? There is more mass, and therefore more Energy. The collision is made worse because more energy is involved. Having a 2 or 3 second interval between cars gives everyone time to react and avoid the accident.

I know for a fact there are very few cars on the road that could out brake mine, despite it being a 2 ton beast. 110km/h - 0 in 4 seconds, and 130 feet. All day long. That gravel truck that likes to tailgate people doesn't stand a chance of those times, so it needs 4 - 6 seconds lag time.



Again, your math is fine, your premise is flawed.

Let's take a family car, 3200 pounds (1450kg), and crash it into a tree at city speed - 50km/h (where it's crash tested at). Say it causes a 15cm crumple in the car. Using the Kinetic energy formula, the force released is 48 tons, or 459599 N!

The same car at 110km/h releases 250 tons or 2224457N. Not double the force, but 4.8 times the force! At 140km/h, its 405 tons, and 3603253N, 7.8 times the force. Kinetic Energy increases as 1/2 times the mass, but with the square of the velocity!

The faster you go, the further you go fom the point at which the vehicle is designed to save your life. Roadways are designed with wide right-of-ways to prevent head on colissions, but the faster a vehicle travels the further across that center median it will go.

Those are the laws of physics you cannot change. The human body will only take so much kinetic shock before it comes apart.

That is why speed kills, and always will.

   

I don't know about where you live, but here in Alberta, those guys get a lot of their business when the speed changes on the road (when it drops to 50kmh from 70kmh or 110 kmh to 90kmh). Anyone coming to Edmonton from Calgary knows this, as there is ALWAYS a photo radar van parked just north of the oil derrick - where the speed limit drops from 110 kmh to 90kmh. Same with inside the city - when it drops to 50kmh from 60 or 70, you can expect there is a spot for either photo radar or a regular cop to nail you.

Personally, I don't have a problem per se with cops handing out tickets. People here drive far too fast, doing 80+ in 60 kmh zones, 130+ on the Henday (Edmonton's ring road), etc. If I was the police commissioner, there would be photo radar vans stationed PERMANENTLY on the Henday every few klicks, and cops would enforce the speed limits inside the city limits on residential roads.

   

Have a look on the overpasses that the Henday goes under, like the North leg as it passes under the Yellowhead collector, or 16A as it goes under the Henday.

You will see a photo van parked there, taking shots of all the speeders passing underneath. Sneaky buggers!

   

The ratepayers of Ontario killed photo radar almost as soon as they tried to implement it back in the 90's. The roads here are no more or less dangerous than they are anywhere else in Canada. Photo radar is all about generating revenue. It's a fair trade off, I guess, for not having to pay a provincial sales tax.

   

Yeah, but putting a single photo radar there (or anywhere else for that matter), just creates a temporary safety 'bubble', where most speeders slow down because they know to expect it. Then a klick or two later, they speed up to 130 again.

If they had four or five radar traps in a row (randomly too, not just at the overpasses where they can hide better), that either wouldn't happen or people would get multiple tickets until they learned to stop speeding. I'd do it on the Yellowhead and Whitemud too - basically anywhere there is a high speed environment where is isn't very safe for police officers to be handing out tickets.

If speed enforcement is REALLY the reason why we have photo radar, then let's use it so it does just that. The only way the city should have a problem with this solution is if they really do rely on the fines as a 'speeding tax'.

   

"A shameless tax grab", that my initial POV when photo radar was introduced. But after driving the 401 with photo radar in place, my mind was changed. It was the only period in my lifetime when driving that expressway actually felt safe. It slowed down the gearboxes who drive 130km/hr plus. It slowed down all the assholes switching from lane to lane in search of space to drive 130+. Photo radar absolutely worked when it was in place on the 401. Tax grab, sure, but I'd be all for reinstating it, at least on the 400-series highways.

   

The 401 IS dangerous but it is also the busiest highway in North America (by quite a margin, these days) and it was designed for a much smaller volume of traffic. What I saw happening on the 401 when the cameras were deployed is SUDDEN ... everyone standing on their brakes ... changes in traffic speed responding to the presence of the camera. I stay the hell off of the 401 when possible. I commute 150 kms every day, mostly on the 407 and I rarely see an accident in my two hours-a-day commute (except when the first snow falls and everyone re-learns all about Newtonian physics.

   

Bootlegga, Dr. Caleb,

The EPS and the CoE have floated the idea of permanent PR on every 5th or so light pole.

Last time is was put back in the 'maybe later' cabinet, as the malfunctioning red light/speed cameras had just become public.

It's coming, one way or another. Whether it is PR on every pole, or immediate issuing of ticket when your car's computer notifies the local authorities that you are speeding, which, of course, would only happen if you illegally disabled the real time speed limiter.

The question is, will that make us safer? I don't know. Well, I do know that faster = higher chance of fatality, but let's be realistic here, even at 80 kph, head to head, your going to hurt. Will reducing speed make us any safer with idiots weaving in and out of traffic? Or, with that nice old lady doing 50 kph...in the left lane...on the Henday...etc, etc.

I think speed is an issue, but is it the biggest issue?

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next