What is wrong with people??

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Funny thing... I was in Edmonton all last week, and was amazed how many people stuck to the speed limits. Granted, a lot of them seemed more reasonable - most of the two-lane back highways are 100km/h - but even when it dipped to 70 or 50 going into the towns, everyone slowed down... the construction zones (and there were many), everyone was doing 50 (compare this to Hwy. 1 out here, where the construction zone limit is 80 and regular flow of traffic is still a steady 110 through the day).

Even on the open freeways (#2 heading south of town), where the limit was 110, almost everyone was doing 110 or a hair over... very very rarely did I see anyone go blazing past at 130 or more. And these are long, flat, straight, two-and-three-lane stretches where, if the Malahat should be "safe" at 120, these roads should reasonably allow 160 maximums.

Oddly, it seems few Albertans find these limits "too low" or has a problem following them.

You can thank the photo radar for that.
And yet they still manage to be aggressive idiots.

And I wonder why such a speed-nazi province you can't find the word "speed" in their traffic collision statistics.

Oddly, it seems many Albertans probably find the limits too low but are confined by the oppressive enforcement tactics of the road safety sheriffs.

It's been a few years since I've been to Alberta but the travel speeds were much higher than 110km/hr on the freeway. Did I feel unsafe when the flow was 130+? Not at all. Did I feel unsafe constantly looking at my speedometer to check my speed in town? You bet.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

Pay careful attention to the example:
"Consider this example: a pedestrian walks out in front of a car. If the car is traveling at just 30 mph, and the driver brakes when the pedestrian is 45 feet away, there will be enough space in which to stop without hitting the pedestrian. Increase the vehicle speed by just 5 mph and the situation changes dramatically. At 35 mph, with the pedestrian 45 feet away and the driver braking at the same point, the car will be traveling at 18 mph when it hits the pedestrian. An impact at 18 mph can seriously injure or even kill the pedestrian."

That is why speed limits are what they are............

You can't change where the pedestrian might step out. Move the pedestrian closer to the car by 15 feet and he's getting hit. 30mph or not.


Crack down on tailgaters and aggressive drivers on the Malahat and you'll cut your injury rate in half. I don't know why you safety guys don't get it.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

Forget the fact that the Darwinian Pedestrian stepped in front of the car. That is not the point of the "story". The "moral" of the story is adding speed adds stopping distance....exponentially. So, perhaps slowing down may save lives???? Again...you missed it by "thaaaaat" much!

Perhaps the "moral" of the story should be "Don't tailgate, it takes longer to stop the faster you go"? But no, the idiots churning out this speed kills propaganda feel that drivers are complete morons and won't actually think about what is being written. All they want is the reader to think "oh yeh, good point, that poor person running in front of the car. I better slow down".


I wonder.. in the 14 days that the 630 speeding tickets were issued on the Malahat, why was there no mention of any tickets being issued for following too closely? Aggressive driving? Unsafe lane changes? Why pick solely on the speeders? Because it is easy, that's why!!!

I keep asking this but never get an answer - Do the police use the feature on the laser guns that calculates following distances to issue tickets for following too closely?

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You can't change where the pedestrian might step out. Move the pedestrian closer to the car by 15 feet and he's getting hit. 30mph or not.

You missed the point too sir!

[sebberry]

Between 2004 and 2008:

Alberta Speed Report

12.9% of all collisions involved drivers travelling at an "unsafe speed".

Improper actions of drivers travelling at unsafe speed
27.9% were following too closely

Alcohol was involved in over half of all fatal collisions where speed was a factor.

Alcohol was involved in over 20% of injury collisions where speed was a factor


Conclusion: Deal with the tailgating, deal with the drinking and you'll prevent a significant number of speed related collisions. Why nobody seems interested in doing that makes no sense to me.

[Spidey]

I am sure there are people who study speed trends and collison rates, from city to city, province to province, country to country who take all these into account. If our "low" speed limits were a significant reason why people "speed" or get into accidents, I am sure something would have been done. Everyone is a critic and not everyone will always be satisfied. In this case though, it is simple. As stated before, you speed, you get a ticket. suck it up.

[sebberry]

Aaand the news is reporting that there's been a crash, on the TCH, not far from the Malahat.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

You missed the point too sir!

The point that the "speeding" driver will have already passed the point where the kid decided to run into the road and missed him altogether?

[Spidey]

speed limits aren't to necessarily prevent the actual driver from driving straight into a wall or another car and not stopping in time from his own faults... accidents happen because of just that, they are accidents... if the a person is going 100k and another going 130k, if a random bird flies into the windshield of both cars, and both drivers get freaked out and swerve or jam on the breaks, the chances of the car which was going faster has a higher chance of creating a more serious accident.

WIth that said, if there were a drunk driver on a road and he caused an accident by running into cars, there would be less total damage and seriousness of injuries to everyone if cars were generally going slower. so you can be the most competent driver in the world, but it is about lessening the extent of injuries from an accident that probably isn't even your fault.

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Between 2004 and 2008:

Alberta Speed Report

12.9% of all collisions involved drivers travelling at an "unsafe speed".

Improper actions of drivers travelling at unsafe speed
27.9% were following too closely

Alcohol was involved in over half of all fatal collisions where speed was a factor.

Alcohol was involved in over 20% of injury collisions where speed was a factor


Conclusion: Deal with the tailgating, deal with the drinking and you'll prevent a significant number of speed related collisions. Why nobody seems interested in doing that makes no sense to me.

I'm a little confused.... Speed is mentioned in everyone of the factors you mentioned in this post. I would say tail gating is caused by someone that wants to go faster than the driver in front of them. So, catching speeders should prevent this..right? You are going after the 72% of wrong doers instead of 28%....seems like a better use of resources!

Alcohol was only involved in 20% of the accidents where "speed was a factor". So that means that 80% of the accidents were caused only as "speed as a factor". So, catching speeders is going after the majority cause of accidents....seems like a better use of resources!

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You can thank the photo radar for that.

Oddly, it seems many Albertans probably find the limits too low but are confined by the oppressive enforcement tactics of the road safety sheriffs.

So, the system works!

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I keep asking this but never get an answer - Do the police use the feature on the laser guns that calculates following distances to issue tickets for following too closely?

Do the police agencies in BC have this technology? Seems like this is a technology that is just starting to be developed and become available in North America.

New radar gun spots tailgaters | Homeland Security News Wire
Posted in June of this year.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

I'm a little confused.... Speed is mentioned in everyone of the factors you mentioned in this post. I would say tail gating is caused by someone that wants to go faster than the driver in front of them. So, catching speeders should prevent this..right? You are going after the 72% of wrong doers instead of 28%....seems like a better use of resources!

No, because you can tailgate at legal speeds. In fact that's likely when most of the tailgating happens. You have to consider what actions made the speed dangerous. Following too closely was the cause of 28% of collisions where unsafe speed was a contributor to the collision.

Running stop signs, improper passing, improper left turns, being drunk, etc.. were all contributing actions that lead to the speeder crashing.

If you focus on those aggressive actions that cause "speeders" to crash, you'll naturally remove the tendancy to speed. If I know I'm going to get caught for tailgating then I am more lilely to back off and slow down. If I know I'll get caught for rushing to make an unsafe left turn, I'll slow down for the intersection and wait for my turn.

Originally Posted by Simnut

Alcohol was only involved in 20% of the accidents where "speed was a factor". So that means that 80% of the accidents were caused only as "speed as a factor". So, catching speeders is going after the majority cause of accidents....seems like a better use of resources!

You're forgetting about all the other factors that contribute to a speeding driver crashing.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

So, the system works!

So would setting a provincial maximum 20km/hr speed limit. Nobody would die at those speeds.

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

So would setting a provincial maximum 20km/hr speed limit. Nobody would die at those speeds.

Perfect!!! I like the line...."nobody would die...."

Not saying I would like the speed limit....but I like the "nobody would die" thing!

[jlenko]

I'm pretty sure running over a kid at any speed would kill them.

sebberry, you should know better than to try and reason with Simnut. He's got "nut" in his username for a reason!

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by jlenko

I'm pretty sure running over a kid at any speed would kill them.

sebberry, you should know better than to try and reason with Simnut. He's got "nut" in his username for a reason!

Actually.....that was pretty good...I'll give ya that!

Simnut....I'm heavily into aviation...and have used Microsoft Flightsim for years......and I'm sure you'll use that against me!

Hey...and what about reasoning with sebberry????

[jlenko]

Most of us gave up on the battle of wits with sebberry a long time ago. But I'll admit, he's got some wicked comebacks up his sleeve... I have a good chuckle reading some of his posts.

[Soundy]

It's hard to have a real battle of the wits when your opponent is half-armed...

[sebberry]

I agree -

I keep providing various scenarios and examples of how speed alone doesn't cause collisions, and examples of how going with the flow even if that means speeding can reduce collisions.

Yet the pro speed enforcement side keeps repeating "yeh, but speed kills" over and over much like the retarded hamster keeps licking the electrified water bottle.

lick, zap! yeh,but speed kills! moments later.. lick, zap! yeh, but speed kills!

[jlenko]

Soundy is another guy I laugh with half the time.

I was resisting the "he thought he was a wit, but he was only half right" bit..

[underscore]

If they crack down on speeding enough, and people stop speeding as much (like someone posted about Alberta) then wouldn't it be easier for the police to pick out the people committing offences that are less glaringly obvious, like tailgating and drunk driving? It would interesting to see those stats in Albertans do in fact speed less.

In the pedestrian scenario, it's not just about the pedestrian stepping out 45 feet in front of the driver. But I guess that's too complicated for some of you to figure out...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by underscore

If they crack down on speeding enough, and people stop speeding as much (like someone posted about Alberta) then wouldn't it be easier for the police to pick out the people committing offences that are less glaringly obvious, like tailgating and drunk driving? It would interesting to see those stats in Albertans do in fact speed less.

I don't know about you, but I can spot a tailgater no matter what speed the cars are travelling.

As for making it easier to catch drunks - er.. no. Roadblocks work well for that.


The idea is to crack down on the dangerous acts that make speed dangerous. You can't simply remove the speed and expect everything else to go away automatically.

We all hear stories like "He was speeding to beat the light", "He was speeding to make that left turn before the oncoming cars got there", "He was speeding in and out of traffic and hit the back of a bus".

The common theme here is that another action a) encouraged the driver to speed and 2) caused the collision

If you crack down on the weaving, tailgating, unsafe turns, etc... you remove the tendancy for people to speed into those situations, and they naturally will refrain from "speeding up to make the turn, beat the light, etc..."

Crack down on the actions that make speed dangerous and you're left with drivers who will make much better decisions on when it is safe to speed.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by underscore

In the pedestrian scenario, it's not just about the pedestrian stepping out 45 feet in front of the driver. But I guess that's too complicated for some of you to figure out...

I completely understand that it is about stopping distance being multiplied when you "speed", but that arguement completely ignores other equally important factors such as where the pedestrian might actually slip off the curb, what the speed limit is, etc...

It also ignores the fact that the "speeding" driver is better able to pop into the adjacent lane if he's speeding to maintain pace with a gap between vehicles in that lane.


It's pure drivel spewed out by the "speed kills" side designed to evoke an emotional response from the driver.

Notice how in these things it's always something cute like a kid or a pony that runs into the road, never a garbage truck backing out of an alley where upon impact only the driver of the speeding car would likely be injured.

Why do you think they do this? Because most drivers believe themselves to be invincible and don't think they'll ever run into the side of a garbage truck. Hence the introduction of emotion. Now it goes from "I'll never hit the side of a garbage truck" to "I could kill someone's kid, I better slow down!".

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I completely understand that it is about stopping distance being multiplied when you "speed", but that arguement completely ignores other equally important factors such as where the pedestrian might actually slip off the curb, what the speed limit is, etc...

It also ignores the fact that the "speeding" driver is better able to pop into the adjacent lane if he's speeding to maintain pace with a gap between vehicles in that lane.


It's pure drivel spewed out by the "speed kills" side designed to evoke an emotional response from the driver.

Notice how in these things it's always something cute like a kid or a pony that runs into the road, never a garbage truck backing out of an alley where upon impact only the driver of the speeding car would likely be injured.

Why do you think they do this? Because most drivers believe themselves to be invincible and don't think they'll ever run into the side of a garbage truck. Hence the introduction of emotion. Now it goes from "I'll never hit the side of a garbage truck" to "I could kill someone's kid, I better slow down!".

Speed........

No.......just had to slap myself upside the head......ain't gonna .... lol