Interesting interpretation of new speeding laws?

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by jlenko

I'm all for these new speeding laws... and I can't FREAKIN WAIT!! til some loser from RS, who was speeding in mommy's BMW, comes crying on this forum about how he lost his mom's car and licence...

Corrected

[jlenko]

Originally Posted by sebberry

In fact, I think you're trying to group me in with the hot headed, tailgating, weaving speeders that I too can't stand and think should be removed from the road.

I don't know you... so I can't automatically put you in the tailgating or weaving group... but you sure like to play Devil's Advocate on the forum

I miss photo radar.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by jlenko

I miss photo radar.

I'm sure you do, but IIRC some speed limits were increased as a direct recult of it. It failed so badly at keeping speeds slow and people safe that they increased some of the limits.

[Oleophobic]

Originally Posted by taylor192

Actually your account is a particular pet peeve of mine. A driver is traveling in the wrong lane and needs to change lanes to exit, turn, merge or otherwise and hasn't left enough room or planned far enough ahead. The driver feels entitled to still complete their intended action and ends up cutting someone off, holding someone up, speeding recklessly to find a hole in traffic, ... when really it comes down to poor driving and decision making in the first place.

Do myself and others a favour, if you're ever caught in the wrong lane and unable to complete whatever action you wish to take in time, just keep going and then turn around and backtrack. Don't punish us with some stupid driving move cause you were not paying attention and did not make a good decision.

lol you have got to be kidding me.

First of all, what part of sebbery's post has anything to do with cutting back in at the last second and "poor driving and decision making"?
It is about trying to switch back into the through lane from the lane that's about to end. This does not mean at the last second. This could mean 700m ahead of time when the sign is first posted that the lane is an exit lane or about to end.

Second of all, the problem stated was that trying to merge back in when you're travelling the speed limit while the lane you're switching to is moving 10-20 above is almost impossible if there is enough traffic. If you can switch, you will cut someone off, guaranteed. It is not just the speed difference, it is also the fact that drivers tend to follow at distances < 2 seconds as opposed to the recommended 3-4 on the highway.

I've experienced this myself, not just in the scenario of switching out of a lane that's about to end, but more simply, switching from the slow lane to the fast lane because I want to go faster. If the slow lane is travelling at 100 while the posted limit is 90 and I want to go faster. I even notice it is very hard to switch without cutting someone off when the fast lane is all going at 110 or faster with < 2 second following distances. I have no choice but to wait until the entire wave of cars in the fast lane pass and there's a big gap before I can switch.
This is hard enough while going with the flow at 100. Don't even think about doing this while travelling at the posted limit of 90.

So tell me why is it so hard to understand if you're trying to switch out of the lane that's about to end you can easily run out of room waiting for the wave of cars to pass since you are going at the speed limit when everyone else is going 10-20 km/h faster? In this situation I always speed up to match the flow. So does everyone else (including you).

[sebberry]

If I need to make a lane change from the right lane to the left lane where there are lots of cars in the left lane exceeding the speed limit:

My "go with the flow" method:
1) Increase the distance between myself and the car in front
2) Identify a spot that I want to move over into
3) Position myself in such a way that the driver of the car behind the spot that I want can see my turn signal. This usually requires matching my speed to theirs, sometimes faster than the travel speed of the right lane, hence why I started off by increasing the space in front of me.
4) I'll move closer to the line dividing our lanes to further catch the other driver's attention
5) The driver usually sees what I want to do and backs off to allow me to slip into the lane.

Simple, smooth and safe. All this made possible with going with the flow. There's no last second cutting in, nobody is caught off guard at the last second and nobody has to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting anyone else.

Now, under the "shoot me if I go 1km/hr over the limit" regime:
1) Set speed to the speed limit (or just under)
2) Signal
3) Move over, hoping that the traffic in the left lane will see you in time and slam on the brakes without hitting you.

Speed matching is the safest way to drive.

[Oleophobic]

^
4) Worst case, wait until the entire wave of cars in the left lane pass so there is a big enough gap to slip into. Be aware, that as soon as a large enough gap opens up, however long this may take, you must watch out for the cars behind you suddenly using the left lane to pass YOU.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

If I need to make a lane change from the right lane to the left lane where there are lots of cars in the left lane exceeding the speed limit:

You realize, we're talking about actual driving on the streets here, right? Not ICBC's driving simulators...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You realize, we're talking about actual driving on the streets here, right? Not ICBC's driving simulators...

Yes. You're saying that there are never lots of cars in the left lane exceeding the speed limit?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by T.T

^
4) Worst case, wait until the entire wave of cars in the left lane pass so there is a big enough gap to slip into. Be aware, that as soon as a large enough gap opens up, however long this may take, you must watch out for the cars behind you suddenly using the left lane to pass YOU.

Assuming you have enough space/time to make the lane change or you may never get to your destination.

If I know I am making a left turn in town somewhere, I usually move over a block or two in advance, however there have been times when the change can't be made until later down the road.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Now, under the "shoot me if I go 1km/hr over the limit" regime:
1) Set speed to the speed limit (or just under)
2) Signal
3) Move over, hoping that the traffic in the left lane will see you in time and slam on the brakes without hitting you.

Wrong. If you did this you deserve a ticket for either:
- cutting someone off (requiring them to slam on their brakes)
- impeding traffic (moving infront of traffic moving faster and slowing them down

As someone already pointed out, you can wait. As I pointed out, if you cannot wait long enough and end up going the wrong direction, too bad, backtrack.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by taylor192

impeding traffic (moving infront of traffic moving faster and slowing them down

So how do you make a safe left lane change without exceeding the speed limit (even by 1km/hr) OR causing anyone else to have to slow down to the speed limit?

And back-tracking is not a realistic solution. Imagine the congestion caused by half the cars adding an extra 1-2 km to their trip in town.

[Soundy]

Hey Seb, do you also follow the traffic laws when you're riding around on that high horse?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Hey Seb, do you also follow the traffic laws when you're riding around on that high horse?

Tell me how this is about me on a high horse.

I think I am bringing up some very valid points and concerns as they relate to every day driving conditions.

Would you rather me simply come on here asking how to get mommy's BMW back that I lost in a street race, while drinking?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I think I am bringing up some very valid points and concerns as they relate to every day driving conditions.

You're bringing up outrageous made-up examples you tout as your own "perfect" driving style in an attempt to ridicule laws and law enforcement. As you tend to do on a regular basis.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You're bringing up outrageous made-up examples you tout as your own "perfect" driving style in an attempt to ridicule laws and law enforcement. As you tend to do on a regular basis.

They're not made up, they're personal accounts of situations I encounter regularly. You can call it ridicule if you like, but why shouldn't I be frustrated with enforcement that targets the very same behaviors that have been keeping me out of crashes?

You don't have to agree with my opinions just like I don't have to agree with the opinions which lawmakers have passed into law. Yes, I said it. The laws are opinions, someone's personal set if ideals. Most I agree with, some I do not.

[Oleophobic]

lol I see there has been some confusion. I am on sebbery's side with regards to his post about how sticking to the speed limit can be dangerous when trying to switch lanes.

When I posted this:

Originally Posted by T.T

^
4) Worst case, wait until the entire wave of cars in the left lane pass so there is a big enough gap to slip into. Be aware, that as soon as a large enough gap opens up, however long this may take, you must watch out for the cars behind you suddenly using the left lane to pass YOU.

I was being sarcastic but obviously I suck at it

I'm surprised you guys thought I was being serious. How is waiting for the entire wave of cars (could take up to 30 seconds), and then having to now watch out for cars behind you using the lane to pass you, the best way to change lanes? Isn't it common sense that speeding up to match the flow in the left lane is the best way?

If you always waited like this while you're in the lane that's about to end, you will run out of room. That's why you need to speed up to match the flow...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by T.T

If you always waited like this while you're in the lane that's about to end, you will run out of room. That's why you need to speed up to match the flow...

It's like getting two gears that are rotating at two different speeds to mesh. Something's gotta change speed for it to happen.

[Bainne]

Originally Posted by Soundy

You're bringing up outrageous made-up examples you tout as your own "perfect" driving style in an attempt to ridicule laws and law enforcement. As you tend to do on a regular basis.

roflcopter omg wtf bqq - HA. I burst a funny there.

Seriously? seberry seems to be one of the more well thought out people in this section of the forum, who is able to be objective and critical of laws, approaching them from an angle where you can "inspect" them for rationale and practicality.


As opposed to plethora of armchair officers and law makers here who in fact seem to be the ones on the "high horse" as you put it. Believing that the laws are biblical and based on inarguable concrete research. Never critical and seemingly having never done anything contrary to any law in their lives.

It makes me sad how blindly people follow things, maybe it is a Canadian thing to roll over onto your backs and provide no opposition, or even less than that, don't bother to simply ask "Why".

[gars]

Some laws do need to be concrete, while other laws don't - and will base themselves more on case law.

There are some laws, that are purposely vague - and rely on a judge to start a precedent on a certain case - human rights for example. Other laws need to be more concrete. You can't leave speeding laws up to precedent - as in - you can't just put in the law, "Driver cannot drive at a speed that is unsafe for conditions" and not actually put a speed into place, because every case would go to court.

There obviously is some sort of wiggle room that police officers show - because if the law was 50km/h, then EVERY single person that drives 1 km/h would get a ticket. I think it would be retarded for police officers to actually ticket that - and I'm sure a lot of people would agree with me. This is the system that has been in place for a long time, and that is why traffic sometimes goes 10 - 15 km/h over the limit, and police officers won't ticket you. That is why we can't just move to a "faster" limit, and have every person ticketed that drive 1 km/h over - It's ingrained in our driving habits and is never going to happen.

That said, Sebberry is just trying to prove a point, that yes, Laws aren't always so cut and dry, but at the same time, he is not being the smartest driver by driving exactly the limit. He is right of course, and if he follows the law to the letter, and he gets in an accident - he won't be at fault. That said, a good driver also needs to be defensive, AND smart. I would prefer to possibly break the law a little bit, and actually go with the flow of traffic, than trying to be the idiot that tries to prove a point and then get in an accident and cry about it.

[sebberry]

Sorry, but I don't agree. We could easily have "reasonable and prudent" speed laws and speed laws where the onus is on the enforcers and the crown to show that people were being or were about to be placed in imminent danger by another's action.

While many drivers are not ticketed for going 10km/hr over the posted limit, every time a driver does it in one of the scenarios I have outlined above they are gambling with their driving record, risk fines or even loss of driving privileges and potentially their job.

If someone was ticketed for driving 15km/hr over the posted limit because they were in the process of making a safe lane change on a freeway, the judge or JP isn't going to rule in their favor for demonstrating defensive, courteous driving behavior. The judge will simply say that the driver was exceeding the posted limit and needs to pay up.

And I also disagree that increasing the speed limit will see every driver continuing to speed by 10km/hr over the limit. If you take a 50km/hr zone where the majority of drivers (85th percentile) are regularly driving 60km/hr and increase it to a 60km/hr limit, you won't see 85% of those people now driving at 70km/hr.

The majority of reasonable, responsible people don't drive like hooligans and they don't want to be involved in a collision. People tend to set their speed based on road geometry, roadside features such as intersections and parking lot driveways, speed of other road users, weather and other factors.

At the end of the day it comes down to this - while I generally drive with the utmost respect for traffic laws, there are times that the characteristics of the surrounding traffic plays a bigger role in my safety than a posted speed limit.

And Soundy, while I am sitting up here on my high horse, I take pride in my driving unlike many of the others here who want to know how to get out of a drunk driving charge.

I shouldn't have to worry about risking prosecution for trying to keep myself safe from those who don't subscribe to the public safety minister's ideologies. To say that I should react first to the letter of the law then to the cars around me is just asking for a collision.

[gars]

I disagree. Police shouldn't have to go to court to prove that you were endangering other people's lives every time you speed. If that were the case, then only when Police can catch you and stop you right before you were about to hit little johnny running out onto the street.

I know many people who go around 60km/h not because they feel it's the safest speed to go, it is because it is the speed they can usually go without getting a ticket. There are many people on the street who drive as quick as they can without getting a ticket, and I disagree that you think people won't continue to go 10km/h. If you raise the speed limits to 60km/h, people who are late for work and will go 70-75km/h, thinking they will not get a ticket, and that, IMO is too fast for city streets.

I'm not trying to be negative here, but there are many people who don't think about road conditions, weather, hidden driveways. The gov't can try to educate them as much as they can, but all they care about is how not to get caught. Are we suffering because of them, possibly, is there anything we can do about it, not really. That is like saying, that pedestrians should be able to cross the street when they want, if they feel it is safe, rather than just using crosswalks. Would that make us safer, because we rely on people to make decisions for themselves? I disagree, because even when we have a law that tells people to use crosswalks and cross only when they're allowed to - people still get hit while they are jaywalking. The same goes with speeding; there are people who make poor decisions and drive too fast, causing accidents, injuries, and fatalities, how can rely on people to make decisions for themselves when there are examples to show that not everyone is capable of that...?

The issue behind people getting tickets for 15km/h - is that most of the time, it is still safer to actually go slower, rather than speeding up. For example, if you were driving down a one lane road with no legal way to pass, and there is someone tailgating you, the law tells you that you cannot speed up - which is still the safer thing to do. I don't want old granny to be going 30km/h over the limit, because she's been told that there are exceptions in the law that say you should go faster than the limit if YOU think that it is the safer thing to do, while it would actually be safer for her to slow down if someone actually is tailgating her, and then pull over and let them pass when it is safe to do so.

and lastly,

To say that I should react first to the letter of the law then to the cars around me is just asking for a collision.

By driving the speed limit on the highway, as opposed to driving with the flow of traffic, you are asking for a collision.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by gars

I disagree. Police shouldn't have to go to court to prove that you were endangering other people's lives every time you speed. If that were the case, then only when Police can catch you and stop you right before you were about to hit little johnny running out onto the street.

Then perhaps they shouldn't be writing tickets to people who aren't even close to endangering lives? The majority of drivers speed in excess of 1km/hr over the posted limit (most 5-10 over), yet the vast majority of them don't get into collisions as a result of that.

Originally Posted by gars

I know many people who go around 60km/h not because they feel it's the safest speed to go, it is because it is the speed they can usually go without getting a ticket. There are many people on the street who drive as quick as they can without getting a ticket, and I disagree that you think people won't continue to go 10km/h. If you raise the speed limits to 60km/h, people who are late for work and will go 70-75km/h, thinking they will not get a ticket, and that, IMO is too fast for city streets.

Actually, by setting reasonable speed limits based on the 85th percentile principle, you get more compliance from drivers, not less.

There will always be people who speed no matter what the posted limit is.

Originally Posted by gars

I'm not trying to be negative here, but there are many people who don't think about road conditions, weather, hidden driveways.

I agree that some people don't care about those factors, but I think you'll find that those factors are play a larger, albeit somewhat subconscious role than you think. This is why people tend to drive above the speed limit on the freeway and below the speed limit on crowded streets.

Originally Posted by gars

That is like saying, that pedestrians should be able to cross the street when they want, if they feel it is safe, rather than just using crosswalks. Would that make us safer, because we rely on people to make decisions for themselves? I disagree, because even when we have a law that tells people to use crosswalks and cross only when they're allowed to - people still get hit while they are jaywalking.

Victoria city council has recently allowed mid-block jaywalking on downtown streets, providing that the road is free of cars and it is safe for the pedestrian to proceed. People get hit in marked crosswalks too. In fact, I'd be inclined to say that a jaywalker is more likely to use greater caution when crossing mid-block without a crosswalk.

Originally Posted by gars

The same goes with speeding; there are people who make poor decisions and drive too fast, causing accidents, injuries, and fatalities, how can rely on people to make decisions for themselves when there are examples to show that not everyone is capable of that...?

There will always be people who use poor judgement regardless of the posted speed limit, but the laws shouldn't punish people who are using good judgement when maneuvering about traffic.

Originally Posted by gars

and lastly,



By driving the speed limit on the highway, as opposed to driving with the flow of traffic, you are asking for a collision.

I'm glad we agree on something.

[gars]

I think what this argument really comes down to is difference in opinion, very much influencing political views. Sebberry has a very left-wing view, which is quite utopian - based on a society that has lesser policing, and based more on free thinking. My view is more right wing (which some people use as a negative connotation) which believes in more policing, and people following stricter rules. While I lean left on certain issues, in terms of social views, etc, I believe that this society cannot function if left to think for themselves - because there are too many poor drivers on the road to allow for everybody to do what they think is right, to drive at whatever speed they think is safe.

One of the best examples I can think of, is the new'ish Class 7 licensing program. This is very much a more right-wing, stricter way of policing drivers - which has been very successful. I was born in the first generation of drivers who had to get the Class 7, but before the 1 passenger rule. There have been many statistics that pushed this program was put into place, because traffic accidents have been the number one killer for youth. And since the program has been put into place, the number of accidents (involving youth/new drivers) has dropped significantly.

Because there are so many young/inexperienced drivers on the road, I don't believe there is a way to lessen the laws and allow for more freedom of decisions. I'm not bashing young drivers; I was a new driver years ago, and I was one of those speeding down the road. I was just lucky to not have been in accidents - due to the fear of losing my car because of my parents...

Many people look to Germany, and talk about their Autobahns and their lack of speed limits on parts of the freeways, but what they don't know is that Germany has a driving age of 18. They don't have as many immature (for lack of a better word) drivers on the road, as well as a very strict speed limit within the cities - which makes it VERY hard to compare statistics in terms of collisions and accidents.

I don't know what I'm trying to accomplish with this post, because I just don't think this discussion is really going anywhere. But I stand by what I've written in this thread.

[sebberry]

It's sounds like you'd be most comfortable with US style traffic enforcement where if you don't have the cash available at the roadside to pay your fine, you go to jail.

I am very much in favor of the GLP because the result is generally a better educated driver who is better able to make decisions on his own based on what is going on around him. Unfortunately the cost of such education is out of reach for many, but we've already covered where ICBC would rather spend their next $20 million. (Just doing the quick math here, you could educate 20,000 new drivers for that in a full YD or DW course at a bulk rate..)

The true irony here is that I am simply arguing in favor of legalizing what the majority of drivers do on a daily basis with very few problems. I don't think there is any evidence to back up your assertations that doing so will result in mass carnage on the roads. In fact, all you need to do is look at the removal of street signs and lights in the Dutch town of Drachten (PDF) to see that when drivers get to think for themselves, collisions can decrease. I'm sure there were opponents to that experiment who held the same position as you - that there would be countless collisions resulting from people making their own decisions.


On another note, one of the reasons that I despise these new laws is the disregard for due process. One just has to look at the 16 RCMP officers who are receiving pay while on suspension for misconduct to see how hypocritical these immediate impoundment laws really are.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by sebberry

The true irony here is that I am simply arguing in favor of legalizing what the majority of drivers do on a daily basis with very few problems.

The majority of drivers do not excessive speed.
The majority of drivers do 10-20 over.
The majority of officers will not write a ticket for 10-20 over.