I always found it curious, these politicians making decisions for the greater good of drivers, not being drivers themselves... I know I know, they have studies and staff.. What was the name of the bike dragging lawyer behind s172? lol
|
|
|
Stunt Driving Charge in Brockville (near Kingston) HELP!
- Thread starter livefastdieyoung
- Start date
I always found it curious, these politicians making decisions for the greater good of drivers, not being drivers themselves... I know I know, they have studies and staff.. What was the name of the bike dragging lawyer behind s172? lol
yodude
Banned
i haven't looked into appropriate limits to even have an informed opinion,
i do see plenty of issues with folks messing up with given limits so don't see how that's supposed to get better increasing the limit
the main argument is usually, the higher the speeds, the more the probs = less safety
that argument was certainly invoked but misapplied by putting an arbitrary number on truckers alone, that in reality made things worse for all
Last edited:
Face
Well-known member
Okay, now I understand. You've done the most simplistic assessment of the situation to come up with your opinion.
But maybe there's hope as you recognize the problem with limiting the speed of big rigs. Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath.
conundrum
Well-known member
Must...fight...urge...to make...Harley joke....
conundrum
Well-known member
In all seriousness though, the BC study and viral YouTube clip hit on the big points imo...speed doesn't kill per say, but what makes roads become more dangerous is having a bunch of cars doing a wide range of speeds, all having to interact with one another.
If speed limits were raised to the 85th percentile which is where all studies say it SHOULD be, and enforced that limit more heavily (no 20km/h 'grey zone' as an unwritten limit), it should make the roads a safer place. The problem is all they ever seem to do is lower the limits, which doesn't change how fast drivers go (eg. if you lowered the 401 to 10km/h how many are really going to do that speed?), but it does allow anyone to be ticketed a MUCH higher amount (eg. if the limit is 100, and all cars are doing 120 but you got tagged at 130, you pay 30 over vs 10 over).
Given the cash incentive to government, and the fact lower limits keep at least half of the masses (who always think of the children) happy, they really have no reason to see the logic behind things, and instead just go with what 1. makes them the most money, and 2. gets them more votes for the next election.
If speed limits were raised to the 85th percentile which is where all studies say it SHOULD be, and enforced that limit more heavily (no 20km/h 'grey zone' as an unwritten limit), it should make the roads a safer place. The problem is all they ever seem to do is lower the limits, which doesn't change how fast drivers go (eg. if you lowered the 401 to 10km/h how many are really going to do that speed?), but it does allow anyone to be ticketed a MUCH higher amount (eg. if the limit is 100, and all cars are doing 120 but you got tagged at 130, you pay 30 over vs 10 over).
Given the cash incentive to government, and the fact lower limits keep at least half of the masses (who always think of the children) happy, they really have no reason to see the logic behind things, and instead just go with what 1. makes them the most money, and 2. gets them more votes for the next election.
Yessir, it's true. We don't need higher speeds, though that certainly strokes the fragile male ego. Proper defensive and attentive driving with a healthy dose of patience would dramatically improve congestion in the GTA. As it stands, the same people who take 10 seconds (I time them daily) to react to a green light will drive into oncoming traffic (the record is 2 blocks so far) if they have to wait 10 seconds to get into the left turn lane. I have a theory these are the same drivers who merge onto the highway at 60 kph (God, how I don't miss you Gardiner Expresscrawl) and cut across three lanes to exit at the last moment. Speed doesn't kill PER SE but the shorter planning and reaction times are a real danger here. Maybe Elon Musk will save us, maybe not. An aging population obsessed with cellphones is certainly in need of a saviour though.
Except you guys of course. Seriously. #inrebrules
Well I am sure at some point he drove himself he wasn't born a Minister in the Government..lol I get your point.
Actually speed DOES kill. Would you as a pedestrian rather be hit by a car traveling at 20 km/h or at 50 km/h, or 100km/h or 150 km/h? Highly probable you will survive the 20 km/h hit. chances are still better than 50% at 50 km/h but at 100 and 150 km/h your chances are SIGNIFICANTLY reduced, I would say at 150 they are below zero..lol
Just trying to interject some levity.. not supporting the actual PS campaign.
Just trying to interject some levity.. not supporting the actual PS campaign.
-D-
Banned
I am going to say this is a false equivalency or straw man tactic.
No one is arguing to increase residential speed limits.
We are talking about cars on the highways. Last time I checked pedestrians and bicyclists are not permitted on the 400 series highways.
Face
Well-known member
I wish it was only levity. Our elected Council is in the process of lowering speeds on local roads and collectors in former Toronto & East York to 30 kph after a study came out effectively saying that if a pedestrian gets hit at 30 kph, they will get hurt less than at 50 kph. By their logic, everyone will be perfectly safe if we reduce speeds to "0" or less than walking speed. Who cares about the impacts to congestion or if its even enforceable!
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2015.PW3.3
-D-
Banned
I guess it's too much work implementing a system to reduce the amount of interaction of cars/ppl.
Meaning, one way streets, pedestrian x-ing only, car x-ing only.
We have a free for all system.
Do they hand out tickets when pedestrians start crossing with 10 seconds left.
I'm okay with lowering the limit...IF drivers then get to hit every jaywalking against the light pedestrian or idiot cyclist on the road where they shouldn't.
"You can't be hurt, the councillor said if I only hit you at 30km/h there'd be no permanent inury..."
Actually Last night on my drive home Newstalk 1010 had two stories from York Regional Police about two people charged over Thanksgiving weekend with stunt driving, (one had just got his licence back 6 days earlier from a previous stunt driving charge)..lol
One was doing 161 km/h on Major Mac, (80 km zone), Major Mac is NOT a 400 series highway but a 4 lane collector. the other was nabbed doing 116 in a 50 Km/h RESIDENTIAL road. So not a false equivalency but reality in the GTA..lol
Also who said anything about pedestrians? I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by a cager doing 150 km/h while on my bike or motorcycle for that matter)...lol Motorcyclists are on the 400 series. well ok maybe not 125's...lol
But as I said, it was meant as a post in jest.
One was doing 161 km/h on Major Mac, (80 km zone), Major Mac is NOT a 400 series highway but a 4 lane collector. the other was nabbed doing 116 in a 50 Km/h RESIDENTIAL road. So not a false equivalency but reality in the GTA..lol
Also who said anything about pedestrians? I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by a cager doing 150 km/h while on my bike or motorcycle for that matter)...lol Motorcyclists are on the 400 series. well ok maybe not 125's...lol
But as I said, it was meant as a post in jest.
Last edited:
I am in NO way in favor of lowering ANY limits. I was merely joking while still making the point speed, (of the vehicle upon impact, and NOT just with a pedestrian, but also motorcycles), can determine the final outcome for the rider or pedestrian
-D-
Banned
Dude, seriously...you are injecting asinine positions into the thread. You did say speed kills e.g. pedestrians getting hit at 30 vs. 50 vs. 150.
I believe the conversation was discussing the speeds on the 400 series. I have yet to see 1 right minded person argue that speeds on residential streets should be raised to 80+.
Great 2 ppl charged for extreme speeding and got their punishment...everyone is safe.
Please tell us how many ppl are getting hit/killed by speeders vs. ppl texting vs. intoxicated?
I will leave it there given you obviously misconstrued the initial post, (which I have posted 4 times was made in jest, I guess your incapable of the concept).
Yes the discussion WAS of a stunt driving charge on the 401 then it, (as often happens at GTAM), morphed into a discussion of upping speed limits. It was actually YOU who interjected the residential street component with this post.
"I am going to say this is a false equivalency or straw man tactic.
No one is arguing to increase residential speed limits.
We are talking about cars on the highways. Last time I checked pedestrians and bicyclists are not permitted on the 400 series highways."
Up to that point no one had even mentioned a residential street. Again STOP trying to "put words in my mouth" WHERE did I ever argue about "raising the limit on residential streets should be raised to 80+." Make your argument against what others ACTUALLY posted not what you imagine has been posted and it will be a sound logical debate.
I also didn't interject any discussion of distracted or impaired driving, (as your now attempting to do). The point is if a vehicle is traveling at 150 km/h, (which the OP's speed was reported as 153). it is MUCH more likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death to anyone, including those in another car, that it impacts, than a vehicle traveling at say 30 km/h that is a FACT of physics, (which despite your attempts, even you can't change). Are you now going to argue that is ridiculous, as no one ever drives at 150 km/h?
Yes the discussion WAS of a stunt driving charge on the 401 then it, (as often happens at GTAM), morphed into a discussion of upping speed limits. It was actually YOU who interjected the residential street component with this post.
"I am going to say this is a false equivalency or straw man tactic.
No one is arguing to increase residential speed limits.
We are talking about cars on the highways. Last time I checked pedestrians and bicyclists are not permitted on the 400 series highways."
Up to that point no one had even mentioned a residential street. Again STOP trying to "put words in my mouth" WHERE did I ever argue about "raising the limit on residential streets should be raised to 80+." Make your argument against what others ACTUALLY posted not what you imagine has been posted and it will be a sound logical debate.
I also didn't interject any discussion of distracted or impaired driving, (as your now attempting to do). The point is if a vehicle is traveling at 150 km/h, (which the OP's speed was reported as 153). it is MUCH more likely to cause grievous bodily harm or death to anyone, including those in another car, that it impacts, than a vehicle traveling at say 30 km/h that is a FACT of physics, (which despite your attempts, even you can't change). Are you now going to argue that is ridiculous, as no one ever drives at 150 km/h?
Speed Greatly Exacerbates, just doesn't flow as well as Speed Kills. It might be better illustrated if someone with mad math/physics skills, could show the distance taken to slow from 152 to 148 kph, and from 5 to 0 kph. Once someone wraps their head around how far you go at those speeds, they're usually more willing to slow down to a more standard speed.
Face
Well-known member
I understand that you were joking. The problem is that Nimby's and whimpy politicians aren't and they seem to be carrying the most influence here in Ontario. I hope the BC examples of speed increases prove successful, but I'm not holding my breath to see it carry over to us.
|
|
|
|
|