Four motorcyclists charged for doing 192km/hr on the 404 | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Four motorcyclists charged for doing 192km/hr on the 404

Forum Sponsor
Speeding at 190 is dangerous? Yes. But if they were paying attention, the risk is very low (evidence: there was no accident). You want to know what is more dangerous that speeding on the highway? Texting. And apparently, police do not enforce that as much.
 
Apollo95 said:
there was a speed trap and because i drive an orange car even though i was in the middle of 7 or 8 cars, with 3 cars in front of mine as i had cruise control turned and just going with the flow.
i got pulled over by OPP and given a speech for being a danger driving at such high speeds, doing 138kmh when limit is 100kmh.
Click to expand...

Mazda Speed by chance?
 
Oh, and also... just want to remind you that section 172 of the Act is unconstitutional because it violates the presumption of innocence under the Charter. Please remind your federal candidates now.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Speeding at 190 is dangerous? Yes. But if they were paying attention, the risk is very low (evidence: there was no accident).
Click to expand...

So many impaired drivers manage to get home without getting into accidents or even being noticed as driving impaired. Ditto with many texters. I guess that makes both impaired driving and texting safe using your rationale?

These guys were doing 190 according to reports. Do you know what that will do to another vehicle if they do make a mistake?

Two motorcycle-car collision in the last month resulting in rider deaths and slow-moving cars flipped right over. How fast were they going to have that much force of impact? How much did their respective speeds contribute to the crash by either being totally unanticipated by other traffic, or by making it impossible for the rider to avoid or even just reduce the effects of the crash? How much did their respective speeds work to overcome any protection offered by their personal protective gear?
 
Last edited:
griff2 said:
Basic rule of the road is travel with the flow, not bully your way through it. Another basic rule of the road is to position yourself in the appropriate lane for your intended turn well in advance of your turn rather than disrupt traffic in your lane and the one you want into by trying to force your way over immediately before your turn. This also applies to left turns.

That's pretty basic rules of the road stuff. I can't believe you would even question it.
Click to expand...

A totally agree with Face with his statements. For the left lane turners, people stick to the left lane for multiple blocks well before they intend to turn.

btw - found this :

Driving in the passing lane: The Canadian disease


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ng-lane-the-canadian-disease/article10712661/

Ontario’s rules of the road are clear: Any vehicle travelling at less than the normal speed of travel should drive in the right-hand lane. Similar laws apply in British Columbia, Alberta and other provinces.
So why do people drive slowly in the passing lane? Why do they crawl along in the middle lane of a three-lane artery?
Click to expand...

Since no one believes that they drive slowly, a “slow traffic keep right” rule inevitably leads to left-lane blockers and clogged middle lanes.
Click to expand...

And at Least in BC they are starting to take note:
B.C. to give police power to penalize ‘left lane hogs’

http://www.vancouversun.com/give+police+power+penalize+left+lane+hogs/10855536/story.html
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/are-you-fed-up-with-drivers-lagging-in-the-left-lane-1.2264569
 
Last edited:
kiwi said:
A totally agree with Face with his statements. For the left lane turners, people stick to the left lane for multiple blocks well before they intend to turn.

btw - found this :

Driving in the passing lane: The Canadian disease


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...ng-lane-the-canadian-disease/article10712661/





And at Least in BC they are starting to take note:
B.C. to give police power to penalize ‘left lane hogs’

http://www.vancouversun.com/give+police+power+penalize+left+lane+hogs/10855536/story.html
http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/are-you-fed-up-with-drivers-lagging-in-the-left-lane-1.2264569
Click to expand...

From the calgary ctvnews link, my point:

He ( Staff Sargeant Paul Stacey from the CPS Traffic Section) says a law limiting use of the lane wouldn’t work in the city because of congestion but it could have value if applied to highways outside of urban centres.
Click to expand...
 
griff2 said:
So many impaired drivers manage to get home without getting into accidents or even being noticed as driving impaired. Ditto with many texters. I guess that makes both impaired driving and texting safe using your rationale?
Click to expand...


First of all, I am talking about risk, not about "safe / unsafe". Risk has a million shades of gray, and "safe / unsafe" is only black or white. I am trying to qualify / quantify the risk of speeding at 190 kph, with the facts that we know.

I would never say that impaired driving is safe, but in your example, those drivers were safe... safe precisely because they got home safely, and nobody even noticed they were impaired. It is not as simple as black/white situation!!
 
Safe. Risk.

You keep using these words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Risk is a measure of input over probability of success. The faster you go, the less likely you are to make it unscathed. It is not the speed alone which creates the low probability of success, however. That can be attributed to many other things, most notably other drivers, bad roads, obstacles and debris. That's why it's safer to ride at the track (less to kill you), but potentially more risky (hauling ***).

These clowns ripping down the highway at 190kph was both unsafe, and very risky.


MarcosSantiago said:
First of all, I am talking about risk, not about "safe / unsafe". Risk has a million shades of gray, and "safe / unsafe" is only black or white. I am trying to qualify / quantify the risk of speeding at 190 kph, with the facts that we know.

I would never say that impaired driving is safe, but in your example, those drivers were safe... safe precisely because they got home safely, and nobody even noticed they were impaired. It is not as simple as black/white situation!!
Click to expand...
 
Bermuda said:
Risk is a measure of input over probability of success.
Click to expand...
Risk is actually the product of probability and impact. Risk increases as the speed differential between the rider and the slower cars increase, resulting in a more destructive result should a collision occur (i.e. the outcome has greater impact and I'm not making a pun here).

So, the riders were "riskier" because they had a greater speed differential than other drivers in that vicinity, which could have resulted in a more destructive collision had one occurred. The probability of a collision would have been greater because the drivers would have been unaware of the approaching riders and may make decisions that put the riders in imminent danger. The impact to the riders in the eventuality of a collision would have been greater -- severe injury or death.

Same statement applies in any case. "These clowns ripping down the highway at 190kph was both unsafe, and very risky."

BTW, "safety" is a measure or a metric. It is a key risk indicator (KRI) that measures driver actions, indicating greater or lesser risk. A threshold is usually set, below which one is considered a "safe" driver and above which one is considered an "unsafe" driver.
 
Last edited:
twinswin said:
Really? You needed to drive 100 km/h in the centre lane to figure out that is one of the most dangerous things drivers do? Didn't you already know that?
Click to expand...

I think it could be argued that 100 in the right lane is dangerous :eek:
 
RedDogDarren said:
WHY!!!!

Why don't these fools ever go top speed! Why just the halfway garbage?
In my day it was embarrassing to go less than 240 and that was just the on ramp.

I just don't get this new generation..............
Click to expand...

Maybe they were on SV650s, Ninja 650s, or whatever equivalent, in which case, they were topping out (or just about).
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Oh, and also... just want to remind you that section 172 of the Act is unconstitutional because it violates the presumption of innocence under the Charter. Please remind your federal candidates now.
Click to expand...
Two issues, courts have ruled on it and they disagree with you on the constitutionallity of it. Secondly the federal election has NOTHING to do with it. It is a PROVINCIAL law. So why would I remind my federal condidate? That would be like telling John Tory, I don't want the proposed Ont Pension Plan.
 
El Cockblock said:
My thoughts exactly. Not that I condone the activity but no one goes balls deep nowadays.
Click to expand...
Those who go balls deep, don't get catch & make the news
 
I think I saw these guys last Sunday. I was driving my truck and had just got on the 404 from Major Mac. My wife had just texted me and suddenly 'bam', 'bam', 'bam', 'bam', four sport bike pass in between me and the car in the middle lane. Didn't even give me a chance to speed up and move out of the left lane! Texted my wife back that I wish I had a dash cam.
 
hedo2002 said:
Two issues, courts have ruled on it and they disagree with you on the constitutionallity of it. Secondly the federal election has NOTHING to do with it. It is a PROVINCIAL law. So why would I remind my federal condidate? That would be like telling John Tory, I don't want the proposed Ont Pension Plan.
Click to expand...


I thought you got banned?

but anyway....its pretty simple....they broke the law....they got caught.....they pay the piper. I've been there, the ice cream is okay, but not worth losing my bike and licence
 
FLSTC said:
I think I saw these guys last Sunday. I was driving my truck and had just got on the 404 from Major Mac. My wife had just texted me and suddenly 'bam', 'bam', 'bam', 'bam', four sport bike pass in between me and the car in the middle lane. Didn't even give me a chance to speed up and move out of the left lane! Texted my wife back that I wish I had a dash cam.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear here you were texting while driving and took some time out to comment on others poor driving habits?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom