How the hell does anyone even get up to 30 on that stretch of Hastings anyway? Never mind the junkies... I mean, pedestrians. Between the traffic, buses, construction, lane closures, and just the completely unsynchronized traffic lights, you're luck to get up to that speed at most times of the day in the first place.

So you would rather have your safety be put at risk by the incompetent drivers being allowed to drive beyond their capabilities?

I guess that the "Shawn of the Dead" pedestrians there don't seem to be concerned with the probability of getting hurt or killed by cars they stagger out in front of. Maybe electric fences along the roadsides? A real life GTA course? Just considering all possibilities.:devil:

I have been saying this the whole time, there are so many lights in the city that you aren't really going to be able to consistenly driver over 50 before hitting a red light anyways. I really don't know of many people complaining about speed limits.. This is actually the first time I have heard such debate against the current speed limits, and it is from someone who doesn't even drive/live in Vancouver.

And I'm not even really taling about in-town speed limits...

Which just goes to show you the stupidity behind setting speed limits.

Why is the SPD beating around the bush when it comes to naming the cause of the collision here? Congestion didn't cause the collision, following too closely did. The driver was unable to stop in time and had to swerve.

5 cars involved in two different collisions today on a road with regular speed enforcement.

I think what you have here is the TC reporter saying that the Saanich PD said congestion caused the crash....that's a lot different from the Saanich PD saying congestion caused the crash. As a former media relations officer for the RCMP, and a former media type, I know the difference. Because of any number of reasons, some reporters "interpret" the situations based on their agenda/bias/lack of knowledge/desire for sensational stories/or interpretation of the events.

Saying congestion caused the crash is like saying bad weather/ slippery roads/poor visibility caused the crash...when it was the driver who lost control when they drove too fast for conditions. None of my releases ever blamed the weather or road itself for causing a crash...it's the driver who was not up to handling the existing conditions who was the cause.

Sometimes the person who is doing the media release does not have all the facts or lacks traffic investigational training or experience and that also results in what is released. In this case there are only a couple of lines telling what happened. Unless you have direct knowledge you can't say that following too close caused the crash. What if the driver was "distracted' by her cell phone or other device (that would be driving without due care, not following too close), what if there was a mechanical failure in her vehicle, what if the brake lights were not functioning in the car ahead of her, what if somebody did a sudden lane change without signaling, what if there was a medical concern ? What if, what if what if............................... I agree that it is very likely that the description of the causal factors of this crash are not accurate. For what reason...we would have to see the complete crash report to answer that. Speculate all you want but it's just that, speculation.

An SPD officer was on TV saying "There was an unanticipated volume of traffic, vehicles slowed down and others were caught off guard, and that caused a chain reaction collision..."

So, while that doesn't specifically pinpoint congestion as the cause, it doesn't specifically state that drivers were following too closely, a message that the public needs to get through their thick skulls.

Sadly the focus seems to always be on "slow down", not "leave space".

Fair enough, there are other factors that could have caused the collision.

But have you noticed that any time there's a hint of a possibility of speed being a contirbuting factor in a collision, the police, media, etc.. are all over reporting it as a speed-caused collision before the investigation is complete?

others were caught off guard, and that caused a chain reaction collision..."
To me that says 'drive without due care"


I can't speak for the Police any more, but when I did, when the cause had been determined by the investigator, it was reasonable to release that, along with other information. The majority of the hundreds and hundreds of crashes I investigated were caused by drivers going faster than they should. That is speeding. There are many forms of speeding from drivers sliding out on a snowy corner, to those that go off road right at high speed on a Hwy as they swipe the barrier. I even investigated one who crashed at 160 plus on a straight stretch of 4 lane highway with a grass median, on a clear, dry day with no other traffic around. Several others involved things like hitting as rock face at 200kmh in a 70 zone or several others going at similar velocities on a winding Highway well known for crashes by people doing exactly what they did. I'm not saying that speeding drivers cause every crash, but I am saying that speed plays a major factor in many crashes. How it ends up being discussed in the public forum depends on the people and their motivation.


As far as the media goes, as I said in my previous post, they have agendas of various types and there is very strong competition to grab listeners/viewers/readers. The more they get, the more the outlet makes and the more the reporter's career advances. They want sensation and controversy because...."if it bleeds, it leads". Having been on the receiving end of attacks from reporters who tried to goad me into making statements that would give them heir story, instead of reporting what really happened, I know how things can go wrong. One major incident I covered involved national media, over several days. I made statements that stated the true situation, only to have them completely ignored because they would not continue the story line they had decided to follow. I still see my interview appear on 2 followup stories on the event and they ignore the truth and continue the outright lies they used to manipulate those involved so that their story was more sensational.

Seems to me I commonly hear phrases like "speed-RELATED crash" and "speed may have been A FACTOR"... can't even think of the last time I heard a media report of a crash that claime speed was the ONLY cause of a crash, let alone one that quoted an investigator as pinning in solely on speed. In fact, mention of alcohol (whether claiming it it is or isn't suspected of being a factor) sems to be used WAY more often than attributing crashes solely to speed.
Posted via RS Mobile

One of my former bosses ( I retired, not him) insists that any consumption of alcohol means that anything that happens after that is soley the result of the consumption and that he designed the computer programme designed to collect the crash data so that any mention of alcohol would make it automatically the major cause. The scenario I gave was that a driver reaches to open a can of beer and crashes because he wasn't paying attention to the driving...his system said alcohol caused the crash. Make it a can of pop and it was drive without due care.


In any crash investigation it is very unlikely that one single factor caused the crash, usually it is a combination of several factors. In the media world to simplify and grab headlines, it is easier to use the one that will attract the desired attention. With the exception of slow speed parking lot crashes, the huge majority of crashes I investigated showed that, among all the contributing factors, speed in all it's various incarnations, was the major cause, not the only one but the major one. When I see a crash scene picture in the media and see vehicle parts looking like a plane crash scene I don't have to have anybody tell me that this is the result of a high speed crash. What I don't know is what caused that speed and that is what the actual investigators decide.

Oops:
Three cars involved in crash on Malahat; traffic moving again Saturday evening

your point being? nothing mentioned about speed...

I am starting to believe you have some odd fetish in regards to traffic, speed, and or both

My point being and how it relates to the original topic of this thread? Traffic safety and collisions on the Malahat with a massive safety campaign going on, that's what ;)

Accidents will happen everywhere all the time. The reason why this is always publicized is because it is a headache for a lot of people when there is one.

Actually, the original topic was in regards to how dumb people are.....the massive speeding campaign....advertised by the large overhead LED signs, and signs posted every 2 km....and they are still getting caught! The original topic was NOT about the speed limit and why it should be higher. Someone ELSE (hint hint) turned it the way YOU just mentioned! :fullofwin:

And yet somehow, after people have started to slow down with all the police on the Malahat, they're still crashing!

Let's first see what the cause of the accident was! The accident was caused by a vehicle crossing the center line......whether it was someone falling asleep, drunk, speeding etc.....we will just have to wait.

Oh, not all have started to slow down.....hence the original post!!! :D

The radio was reporting a collision on the hat earlier this evening. Sounds like some putz was following too closely and wrecked both vehicles.

But hey, at least they weren't speeding.

I might also add that since the SPD has been doing less enforcement on HWY 1, and more on the Malahat, there hasn't been an increase in crashes on HWY 17.

Actually it is South Island IRSU who are doing the Malahat enforcement .They are RCMP, Vic PD, Central Saanich etc and ssome of the IRSU Members are from SPD and are posted there for a couple of years...so they did not take SPD from the Pat and stick them on the 'Hat.

Interesting.

Either way I've been seeing fewer traps on HWY17.

Shhhhhhhh. They are in urban cammo and are in stealth mode!