Excessive speed and vehicle impoundments

[sebberry]

I drove the Malahat 4 times this long weekend. I didn't encounter any speed traps.. er.. safety enforcement, but I did see many vehicles travelling safely at speeds close to the 40km/hr excessive speed cutoff.

Which got me thinking - maybe drivers ARE getting the message. Because the excessive speed penalty is so harsh, perhaps they're keeping their speeds just shy of the 40km/hr cutoff.

If you think about it, the combination of grossly underposted limits and extreme enforcement measures add up to people thinking it is "OK" to drive at 110km/hr on those long straight stretches near the Malahat.

I didn't see one car fly off the road, spontaneously combust or lose its wheels because it was travelling too fast. In fact, I was almost run off the road for doing 68km/hr up the Malahat. It was at that point that I decided to risk a speeding ticket to avoid risking my life.


Come to think of it, there was a man with a stopwatch hanging out the side of an Apache attack chopper above the "aircraft patrolled" zone.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I drove the Malahat 4 times this long weekend. I didn't encounter any speed traps.. er.. safety enforcement, but I did see many vehicles travelling safely at speeds close to the 40km/hr excessive speed cutoff.

How do you KNOW they were "travelling safely"??

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

How do you KNOW they were "travelling safely"??

Not being aggressive to other drivers
Not tailgating
Not weaving
No erratic moves
Slowing down in advance of intersections, etc...


That and their wheels didn't come off.

Look, when I'm the only one doing the speed limit driving UP the Malahat and being passed by three cylinder cars with 70hp, you know there's something wrong.

[zulutango]

Just wondering where there is a 68k speed limit on the "Hat? You weren't driving in the passing lane holding all those super fast Smart Cars back were you?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Just wondering where there is a 68k speed limit on the "Hat? You weren't driving in the passing lane holding all those super fast Smart Cars back were you?

Well, it's 70km/hr up the S-curves after Goldstream, but I thought I'd play it safe. Always like to give myself a bit of a buffer

And I was in the right lane holding up the minivans. I can post up the video tomorrow of the 20 year old 3-banger Subaru Justy flying past me

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Not being aggressive to other drivers
Not tailgating
Not weaving
No erratic moves
Slowing down in advance of intersections, etc...

Were any of them drunk?
Sleepy?
Distracted?
Unskilled?
Did any of the other cars have bad tires?
Bad brakes?
Mechanical problems?
Lighting problems? (Non-functioning brake lights could be disastrous at those speeds with blind corners).

Fact is, you don't KNOW the answers to any of that, so you don't KNOW that all the other drivers were actually "travelling safely at speeds close to the 40km/hr excessive speed cutoff".

[Supafly]

honestly....Everyone one in this thread speeds. End of story. Suck it up, or don't drive. Pay to play.

[TheNewGirl]

HAHA.

I had to drive the sea to sky twice this long weekend and have never seen so many cars pulled over for speeding (or maybe alcohol, but I would guess mostly speeding given both trips were early in the day) in my life.

So maybe they're getting it in some places but they're definitely not getting it there.

At least everyone on there seems to be finally getting the "Slow traffic stay to the right" rule though. They should have as many signs reminding people of that on the Highways in the lower mainland.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Were any of them drunk?
Sleepy?
Distracted?
Unskilled?
Did any of the other cars have bad tires?
Bad brakes?
Mechanical problems?
Lighting problems? (Non-functioning brake lights could be disastrous at those speeds with blind corners).

Fact is, you don't KNOW the answers to any of that, so you don't KNOW that all the other drivers were actually "travelling safely at speeds close to the 40km/hr excessive speed cutoff".

How do you KNOW that drivers and cars who are travelling at legal speeds don't possess any of the above factors?

Fact is, you don't KNOW that any of the cars travelling at legal speeds are travelling safely either.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

How do you KNOW that drivers and cars who are travelling at legal speeds don't possess any of the above factors?

Fact is, you don't KNOW that any of the cars travelling at legal speeds are travelling safely either.

I'm not the one making claims either way.

You're the one making giant assumptions just so you can spout off another of your anti-establishment rants.

[sebberry]

Only because I love your pro-establishment rants

[Soundy]

I don't give a crap about the establishment either way, I'm just anti-stupidity. And you're a real easy target.

[zulutango]

" bummer of a birthmark Hal"....Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson..

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Z9_Dp3QcBZ.../birthmark.jpg

[Rich Sandor]

If you're not happy with the posted speed limits you can start the process to have them raised.

Just remember that maybe the vast majority of 'hat drivers may be experienced and comfortable at higher speeds along that route - but if you have 1 or 2 rookies who loose control at a higher speed limit, someone is going to be liable for setting it that high. No one wants that responsibility.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Rich Sandor

If you're not happy with the posted speed limits you can start the process to have them raised.

Just remember that maybe the vast majority of 'hat drivers may be experienced and comfortable at higher speeds along that route - but if you have 1 or 2 rookies who loose control at a higher speed limit, someone is going to be liable for setting it that high. No one wants that responsibility.

The vast majority of Malahat drivers are experienced drivers. Sure there are a few N's and L's up there, but most people have probably driven the Malahat many times.

With appropriate speed limits, you'll have fewer cars travelling at different speeds from each other. Right now you have a quarter of the drivers going under the speed limit and the remaining 3/4 are either speeding 10-20 over or are flying through at 30-40 over.

Appropriate speed limits will do the following:

• Increase the speed of those who are adamant about driving at the posted limit to a speed more consistent with the majority of drivers and thus reducing speed differentials.

• Cease turning the majority of drivers who are speeding 10-20km/hr over into criminals

• Remove the temptation for the remaining few drivers to speed excessively, since overall speeds are now higher.

Now back to the rookies - I don't see a problem with them driving at a speed below the posted limit providing Smokey in the Apache attack chopper with the stopwatch starts picking off the idiots tailgating the rookies.

Even with a few rookies on the road, you'll still have fewer people driving at slower than average speeds, which means less opportunity for conflict.

Let's also not forget that in 2003 there WAS a speed limit review conducted that suggested many speed limits be raised and AFAIK that hasn't been done. It also claimed that in certain test zones where the limit was raised the incident rate decreased, putting to bed the notion that some government official will end up with blood on his hands if the limits were to be raised.

[skidmark]

And then you have to give some thought to those who have to drive 20 over, regardless of what the posted limit is.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The vast majority of Malahat drivers are experienced drivers. Sure there are a few N's and L's up there, but most people have probably driven the Malahat many times.

You know this because you took a survey, right? Commissioned a study? Stood on the side of the road with your clipboard and yellow safety vest and stopped everyone to ask them?

Or just because you're psychic (which would also explain how you knew everyone else was "travelling safely at speeds close to the 40km/hr excessive speed cutoff")?

[zulutango]

Very few of the speeding/aggressive cars I stopped who were N's actually had the N displayed so not seeing an N doesn't mean there are none of them on the road.

Let me echo Skidmarks words. As someone who worked the 'Hat for crashes for 3 years I can say that the majority of the crashes there were due to speed and often speed too fast for conditions. Fog, rain, snow, ice, heavy traffic..whatever, they stll drove like July and often crashed, closing the road and pi****g off all those caught in the parking lot that resulted.

[Soundy]

Sebberry obviously knows the Malahat better than you two, though, because he drives it now and then and does so UNDER the speed limit!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9GHoR-RJLy...ookie_fark.jpg

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Very few of the speeding/aggressive cars I stopped who were N's actually had the N displayed so not seeing an N doesn't mean there are none of them on the road.

Let me echo Skidmarks words. As someone who worked the 'Hat for crashes for 3 years I can say that the majority of the crashes there were due to speed and often speed too fast for conditions. Fog, rain, snow, ice, heavy traffic..whatever, they stll drove like July and often crashed, closing the road and pi****g off all those caught in the parking lot that resulted.

Thank you for pointing out the important part - drive too fast for conditions. Nobody is advocating anyone do 80 on the S-curves in the snow.

How many were caused 100% exclusively by speed alone and no other factor?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by skidmark

And then you have to give some thought to those who have to drive 20 over, regardless of what the posted limit is.

But let's look at why they're driving 20km/hr over the posted limit.

I suspect the speed at which people travel is influenced first and foremost by the road conditions such as road design, how many lanes, how many entrances/exits there are; by the density and flow of traffic and by the weather conditions.

Drivers instinctively place a higher importance on driving according to these factors than on an arbritary number scribbled on a piece of tin at the side of the road.

The fear is that when you raise the speed limit you will get the same percentage of drivers continuing to speed by 10-20km/hr over the limit. That's not usually the case.

In good weather, most speeders in the 10-20 over range are doing so because it is supported by the conditions. If you raise the limit, most drivers will continue to travel at a speed that is safe for and supported by the design characteristics of the road.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Thank you for pointing out the important part - drive too fast for conditions. Nobody is advocating anyone do 80 on the S-curves in the snow.

How many were caused 100% exclusively by speed alone and no other factor?

I can remember a couple caused by drivers falling asleep, one guy on a bike running into the back of a truck turning off onto Shawnigan Lake Rd at the top of the hill...and there was the guy in the stolen car who killed 2 on bikes when he cut them off as he turned into the rest area. With the exception of the occasional drunk truck driver, all the rest were speed related crashes. Hitting rock faces was a common result...bikes and cars and going too fast when they passed and lost control trying to correct their mistakes. The rest were the result of speed too fast for conditions...that includes exceeding the limit in bad weather where the sensible drivers either did the limit or slowed down. So you can say that speed alone in all it's forms, was responsible...or should I correct myself and say drivers/riders who chose to speed, because the vehicle didn't do it by itself. I'm sure some posters here have seen the crashes and maybe even saw them crash or the actual crash sites where it was pretty obvious what happened.

[zulutango]

The fear is that when you raise the speed limit you will get the same percentage of drivers continuing to speed by 10-20km/hr over the limit. That's not usually the case.

Actually the reverse is true....you DO see a corresponding in crease in the speeds above the newly raised posted limit. Saw it happen on Hwy 19 and Hay 19A on the Island in the actual areas where they were increased.


In good weather, most speeders in the 10-20 over range are doing so because it is supported by the conditions. If you raise the limit, most drivers will continue to travel at a speed that is safe for and supported by the design characteristics of the road.[/QUOTE]


No, my experience is that most drivers will automatically do that speed above the posted limit, whatever is is...and the reasoning they use is NOT because they think the road design characteristics will allow them to do that in safety. They do it because they choose to do so and think they are good enough a driver that this will not cause them problems. I have never met anyone I ever stopped for speeding that told me they were speeding because they believed that the design characteristics of the road made it safe. I would have probably dropped from shock if anyone had said that and really meant it.

[sebberry]

The 80 mph section of I-15 seems to demonstrate that all roads have a natural speed limit — one that drivers will find on their own regardless of the law. A study of that strip in 2009 showed that drivers maintained the same average speed there that they held in the 75 mph zones — a speed, by the way, that was between 81 mph and 85 mph. They didn't speed up just because the posted limit went higher.

Rest of the article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...n-the-run.html

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

Despite raising speed limits by 15km/hr, the average vehicle speeds increased between 4 and 6km/hr, suggesting that drivers are more influenced by the road than the posted limit.

Based on a review of the literature, it has been reported that when speed limits are raised from 90 km/h to 105 km/h, that vehicle speed increase from 0.3 km/h to as much as 8 km/h. The average increase appears to be between 4 km/h and 6 km/h. (Page 23)

Again, the fear that raising the speed limits will cause the collision rate to increase isn't always based on fact, but rather emotion and fear:

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8 for the Phase I sites and in Table 9 for the Phase II sites. Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised. The Phase II sites experienced an 8.6 percent reduction in total crashes. Both reductions are statistically significant. (Page 23)

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The fear is that when you raise the speed limit you will get the same percentage of drivers continuing to speed by 10-20km/hr over the limit. That's not usually the case.

Actually the reverse is true....you DO see a corresponding in crease in the speeds above the newly raised posted limit. Saw it happen on Hwy 19 and Hay 19A on the Island in the actual areas where they were increased.

It occurred to me, I noticed the same thing where I grew up, in the 100 Mile House area. Speed limits used to be 80 on the back highways, 90 on most of the Cariboo Hwy (the main north-south corridor)... drivers would generally be going 90-100 on the smaller highways and 100-110 on the main drag. Years later when I went back, I noticed the speed limits on the Cariboo had been raised to 100, and fancy that, most of the cars were doing 110-120. Speeds on the side roads were still 80, and most cars were still doing 90-100.