Driving Phone Law

[zulutango]

Traffic crash stats show that drivers/riders are more likely to let their guard down and crash the closer they get to home. Same also would apply to someone who took the same route every day. My experience in particular involved a 4 way stop installed at an intersection behind where I lived. People ran it in all directions, in huge numbers and lots of crashed resulted. Enforcement was stepped up and lots of tickets written and finally drivers figured it out. City had tried traffic change signs and flashing lights at first but to little effect. Almost all the crashers and those that got tickets were local residents and those who also drove the same route every day. Common response was...."what stop signs?" FYI, they were clearly visible for almost 100 m in either direction, in a 50 k zone.

[sebberry]

I've seen that too when a new school zone sign went up around here. People are still blasting through at 50kph, even BC Transit drivers.

And while I don't disagree that collision risks increase closer to home, I don't necessarily agree that it's entirely due to complacency. We're more likely to be driving near our home than anywhere else. More than work, more than the grocery store, etc. The simple fact that most vehicle trips start and end at home means a driver spends more time driving near his home than anywhere else.


On the topic of observation...

When several cars are travelling together in a well spaced pack at the same speed, not only is it easier to monitor the various vehicles around you but hazards also have a way of standing out and are more easily identifiable as such.

[10-9]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Or perhaps they're oblivious to their own travel speed and are instead simply caving to their natural tendency to go with the flow of the surrounding traffic, unaware of what they've been doing safely for years is blatantly illegal.

I bet if you ask most drivers if they "speed" the answer will usually be no. Ask them if they occasionallg go 5-10kph over the limit when surrounding traffic does the same and you'll probably get a "yes".



What are your opinions of the ITE's recommendations to set posted limits according to the 85th percentile? If the posted limit truly is the absolute maximum safe travel speed, why does study after study (including the ITE's own literature) state that it isn't purely speed that causes collisions - it's the deviation fron the mean travel speed that puts drivers at risk?

no one ever said speed is the sole reason for collisions. Speed is the reason why collisions can end up being fatal. You take 2 idiots driving 40km/h and cause an accident in a hypothetical 40km/h zone, you will get a less serious collision than an 80km/h collision. Speed can be the reason why collisions happen, if the driver cannot control their vehicle due to reaction time, skill, or environmental factors, but there are so many variables to consider that I personally believe, you have to pick and choose which things you want to enforce to minimize fatal collisions

[10-9]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I've seen that too when a new school zone sign went up around here. People are still blasting through at 50kph, even BC Transit drivers.

And while I don't disagree that collision risks increase closer to home, I don't necessarily agree that it's entirely due to complacency. We're more likely to be driving near our home than anywhere else. More than work, more than the grocery store, etc. The simple fact that most vehicle trips start and end at home means a driver spends more time driving near his home than anywhere else.


On the topic of observation...

When several cars are travelling together in a well spaced pack at the same speed, not only is it easier to monitor the various vehicles around you but hazards also have a way of standing out and are more easily identifiable as such.

again, in rush hour, when most cars are on the road, there is NO way you are going to have cars "spaced out" and going at speeds above 60km before hitting a red light every other block, as I have stated in an earlier post. As for highways, have you been on any of the major highways in the LMD during rush hour?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by 10-9

again, in rush hour, when most cars are on the road, there is NO way you are going to have cars "spaced out" and going at speeds above 60km before hitting a red light every other block, as I have stated in an earlier post.

That's fine, traffic flow will be limited by density. That's why speed limits should be set at the upper end of safe travel speeds and drivers will find a safe travel speed for the immediate traffic and road conditions. Don't let the sluggish speed of rush hour traffic dictate the speed limit.

Originally Posted by 10-9

As for highways, have you been on any of the major highways in the LMD during rush hour?

Rarely, I don't make it to the mainland too often. Where are you going with that?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by 10-9

no one ever said speed is the sole reason for collisions. Speed is the reason why collisions can end up being fatal.

You're dodging my question. Why am I at risk of being ticketed when travelling at a speed that is least likely to see me involved in a collision?

Quite often if I want to travel at a legal speed, my deviation from the average travel speed of the traffic immediately around me puts me at increased risk of being involved in a collision.

[10-9]

Originally Posted by sebberry

That's fine, traffic flow will be limited by density. That's why speed limits should be set at the upper end of safe travel speeds and drivers will find a safe travel speed for the immediate traffic and road conditions. Don't let the sluggish speed of rush hour traffic dictate the speed limit.




Rarely, I don't make it to the mainland too often. Where are you going with that?

Do you think speed limits should increase everywhere in BC? Not having spent much time in the LMD you can't generalize that every city should and would benefit from increasing speed limits. Personally, I think the speeds are fine the way they are in the LMD.

Originally Posted by sebberry

You're dodging my question. Why am I at risk of being ticketed when travelling at a speed that is least likely to see me involved in a collision?

Quite often if I want to travel at a legal speed, my deviation from the average travel speed of the traffic immediately around me puts me at increased risk of being involved in a collision.

You are at risk because you are speeding. If you honestly think/stress about getting into a collision because you are abiding by the speed limits, I really don't have an answer for you. Let's agree to disagree, but this is not going to get anywhere. At the end of the day, speed limits are enforced, and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

[catalin]

You guys remember the saying "guns don't kill, people do"... Same goes for speed, peoples inability to drive at a higher rate of speed or the vehicles mechanical condition can kill.

But there is no excuse for posting a limit of 60km/h coming off the Golden Ears bridge. Don't be surprised if hwy #1 is going to be set at 80km/h.

So yeah, limits should be increased in some areas.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by 10-9

Do you think speed limits should increase everywhere in BC? Not having spent much time in the LMD you can't generalize that every city should and would benefit from increasing speed limits. Personally, I think the speeds are fine the way they are in the LMD.

Limits should be evaluated and adjusted on a regular basis where and when needed. I never said there should be a blanket increase in speed limits across BC. But in general, speed limits in BC are set too low. I've already referenced a BC Government commissioned study that supports that.

Originally Posted by 10-9

You are at risk because you are speeding. If you honestly think/stress about getting into a collision because you are abiding by the speed limits, I really don't have an answer for you. Let's agree to disagree, but this is not going to get anywhere. At the end of the day, speed limits are enforced, and I am not going to lose sleep over it.

The ignorance here is astounding. One more time: The driver's risk of being involved in a collision increases when the driver deviates from the average travel speed of traffic at that time and place.

If you sincerely believe that a driver travelling 15kph below the average traffic speed in his immediate vicinity is safer simply "because he's doing no more than the posted limit" then your opinion contradicts virtually every study done on this.

If you want to engage in further discussion on this topic, please read through the many available reports and engineering studies done on this first.

[Brianrietta]

Have you seriously factored in however that while you may be at a greater risk of being involved in a collision while driving slower than surrounding traffic, the severity of a collision and the corresponding fatality rate will be greater if you were travelling at the higher rate of speed along with the rest of the traffic?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Brianrietta

Have you seriously factored in however that while you may be at a greater risk of being involved in a collision while driving slower than surrounding traffic, the severity of a collision and the corresponding fatality rate will be greater if you were travelling at the higher rate of speed along with the rest of the traffic?

Two scenarios:

Speed limit is 50kph, traffic is flowing at 65kph. You, travelling at 50kph being hit by a vehicle making an unsafe lane change at 65kph aren't likely to be killed at that speed. Injured, yes. Seriously? Perhaps.

However, your risk of being involved in the collision in the first place (and by extention risk of being injured or killed) decreases as your speed becomes more consistent with that of the vehicles around you.


Now, let's look at this on the freeway where average travel speeds are frequently 20kph over the posted limit.

You're doing 80kph and are hit by a car making an unsafe lane change at 100kph. Your chance of being seriously injured or killed at those speeds is much greater than in the first scenario above.

Now you can go on and claim that the three dozen cars around you moving at 100kph should all have been doing 80kph, but at what point do you take responsibility for your own safety and recognize that perhaps it isn't wise for you to be the only one doing the speed limit?

Enforcement shouldn't target absolute speed - it should focus on drivers who are travelling significantly faster or significantly slower than the flow of traffic at that time and place - the drivers who are statistically more likely to be involved in a collision.

[Transience]

Now you can go on and claim that the three dozen cars around you moving at 100kph should all have been doing 80kph, but at what point do you take responsibility for your own safety and recognize that perhaps it isn't wise for you to be the only one doing the speed limit?

Enforcement shouldn't target absolute speed - it should focus on drivers who are travelling significantly faster or significantly slower than the flow of traffic at that time and place - the drivers who are statistically more likely to be involved in a collision.

I guarantee you that raising speed limits would increase collision/injury/fatality rates, especially in the Lower Mainland.

I want you to think about the following three words:

lowest common denominator.

I have no doubt that you are a proficient driver, otherwise, you wouldn't be lobbying so hard to raise speed limits (right?!??). However, you also need to think about the rest of the driving population, who probably aren't as good a driver as you. Forcing them to drive at speeds outside of their comfort zone is only going to increase the frequency of poor decisions that are already being made by the majority of drivers on our roads today.

[sebberry]

There's always a risk that the "lowest common denominator" includes intoxicated/tired/etc.. drivers. Don't forget the inexperienced and the elderly.

Perhaps if you want to set limits based on the LCD, then all the speed limits should be dropped to 30kph in town and 50kph on the freeway?

[sebberry]

Despite limits increasing by 10kph, average speeds only increased by 3.2 to 4kph:

As a result, speed limits were raised from 90 km/h to 100 km/h on approximately 2,000 kilometers of road. During 1997, Phase II reviews were conducted. As a result, speed limits were raised from 90 km/h to 100 km/h on approximately 1,870 kilometers of Provincial highway. A before and after analysis conducted in 1999 suggested that average speeds increased by 3.2 km/h to 4 km/h on segments were speed limits were raised.

Members 10-9 and Zulutango maintain that drivers simply hadn't noticed the increased speed limits and as such were suddenly in compliance with the law.

So if these so called oblivious drivers haven't noticed the increase in speed limits, then what explains the reduction in collisions?

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.

[gc200]

they should improvised slow lane and fast lane specially in highway. there are a lot of dum drivers here in bc thats y there are a lot of accidents.

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by gc200

they should improvised slow lane and fast lane specially in highway. there are a lot of dum drivers here in bc thats y there are a lot of accidents.

Strong spelling for the post.

As far as Seb's comment about the unsafe lane change...An unsafe lane change is an unsafe lane change. Whether there's a speed differential or not, it can result in an accident. Also, if the person who is legally speeding clips the person who is following the law, it was unsafe due to the conditions; as Transience mentioned the LCD is often something to consider. My attitude around unpredictable drivers, around seemingly nervous drivers, around slower drivers...they're all different. it's situational awareness. Of course if we cherry-pick the scenarios that we want to give out we can get the answers we want. But that's not always reflective of reality.

In the "do you drive with a camera rolling" thread, there was a case of a Subaru Legacy which changed lanes into one occupied by a minivan; both of which were travelling at the proper speed limit, yet there was a collision. Increased speed limits would not have been a factor there, and yet an unsafe lane change was made. Gasp! People can make mistakes regardless of speed!


As far as your 10km/hr increase on highways, I haven't a clue why it was better. I can tell you that on my now-former daily commute on hastings street, there are some stretches where 60km is decently comfortable (Cassiar to Renfrew), and others where people will barely reach 20-30 (Renfrew to Nanaimo); and so increasing the speed limit is fairly pointless. Even during non-rush-hour traffic, the community is fairly active with people parking, crossing the street, and several schools in the area; kids are often unpredictable and the loss of reaction time in a situation like so would be quite dreadful.

I don't disagree that education is an essential component of reducing crashes. But my mom won't stop getting nervous about left turns, and if the speed limits go up, she'll only get more anxious about driving. Something you seem to share with her, though in an inverse relationship.

[Transience]

There's always a risk that the "lowest common denominator" includes intoxicated/tired/etc.. drivers. Don't forget the inexperienced and the elderly.

good point.

Perhaps if you want to set limits based on the LCD, then all the speed limits should be dropped to 30kph in town and 50kph on the freeway?

poor point.

Are you trying to say that you would be comfortable with drunks, elderly and inexperienced drivers doing a minimum of 70km/h on city roads? People tend to speed regardless of the posted limit so realistically 80km/h would be a common speed most would be traveling at.

For a poor driver I would be more than happy if they went no more than 50km/h...or better yet, they make obtaining a licence more difficult to weed out the dangerous drivers...but that will never happen so unfortunately you, I, and everyone else will have to follow the rules set out by the Motor Vehicle Branch.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Despite limits increasing by 10kph, average speeds only increased by 3.2 to 4kph:




Members 10-9 and Zulutango maintain that drivers simply hadn't noticed the increased speed limits and as such were suddenly in compliance with the law.

So if these so called oblivious drivers haven't noticed the increase in speed limits, then what explains the reduction in collisions?

Ah....no such thing...I have always insisted (and observed) that they did notice the increased limits and then increased their speeds to what they consider appropriate above the new limit.

[sebberry]

Zulu, in your experience, what % of drivers chose (speed limit+15kph) before the limits were raised, and what % of drivers chose (speed limit+15kph) after the change?

And to what do you attribute the reduction in collisions?

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Transience

Are you trying to say that you would be comfortable with drunks, elderly and inexperienced drivers doing a minimum of 70km/h on city roads? People tend to speed regardless of the posted limit so realistically 80km/h would be a common speed most would be traveling at.

You're suggesting that the limits be set according to some of the poorest drivers on the road. Shouldn't that include drunks and inattentive drivers?

Where do you suggest the line that defines the "lowest common denominator" be drawn?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Ah....no such thing...I have always insisted (and observed) that they did notice the increased limits and then increased their speeds to what they consider appropriate above the new limit.

I suspect what's happening is that they're actually settling on the middle ground between what they consider appropriate, and what they think they can get away with. The figure they can safely go 20 over, they believe they can get away with 10 over, so they end up around 15 over.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Zulu, in your experience, what % of drivers chose (speed limit+15kph) before the limits were raised, and what % of drivers chose (speed limit+15kph) after the change?

And to what do you attribute the reduction in collisions?

What Soundy said....as far as percentages go,....depends on what road, at what time, on what day, in what weather...and who is driving. Nothing cut and dried. Most people slow down in what they believe is bad weather, for instance. Early mornings with light traffic you tend to find a greater percentage of drivers choose to speed...however this can be a bad choice if wildlife is present. 2nd major cause of crashes on a 4 lane Hwy I worked was car vs elk/deer. They all happened in light traffic and usually early mornings or evenings when some speeders said it was "safe". In really general terms...and I mean really general terms, people who are going to speed are going to speed. Raising the limits does not keep them from breaking the law, they simply adjust their own personal limit to what they want. Jumping the Hwy 19 speed from 90 to 100 did not drop the observed speeds so that nobody drove over 100 now...it increased the average speed to 10-20 k above the new limit....what used to be 100 to 110 went to 110 to 120.


As far as the reduction in numbers of collisions go ...I would have to examin the data in detail and be familiar with the details of each crash investigation, not just look at a list of numbers. It all depends on how the stats were collected. I know of one programme probably still being used, that automatically lists alcohol impairment as the primary causal factor for a crash. This was true even if legal levels of impairment were not reached...something as simple as a mention of any consumption at all & the programme insisted that booze caused the crash. It was being done because the programme designer had an investment in making the stats say what he wanted. Lies, dammed lies...and statistics, to quote someone who knew.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

. It was being done because the programme designer had an investment in making the stats say what he wanted. Lies, dammed lies...and statistics, to quote someone who knew.

Who would have thought that a personal bias would have any influence on the way facts and figures were collected.

Any chance the BC Government is shovelling numbers from the "alcohol" column to the "speed" column when a drunk driver crashes his car while speeding?


At the end of the day, total crashes were down at those control sites. Unfortunately nobody in government making the decisions has the testicular fortitude to buck the "speed kills" trend and raise the limits. Sadly there's a lot of money to be made by the government and private interests by misleading already ignorant members of the public and maintaining the status quo.

[sebberry]

Media Release - Distracted Driving Legislation Failing to Make the Roads Safer

Winnipeg, 13 July 2012: According to a new backgrounder report from the Frontier Centre released today, distracted driving legislation has failed to improve road safety in Manitoba. Highway fatalities reached an all-time high in that province during the first full year under the legislation.

[...]

Read more: Media Release - Distracted Driving Legislation Failing to Make the Roads Safer: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy


And I believe it.

I was watching someone merge onto the highway the other day. It's a fairly short onramp as far as onramps go, and traffic was pretty thick. The woman merging only had a small spot to squeeze into (I couldn't back off too much because the truck merging behind me was still accelerating) but I could clearly see her texting.

Her phone was in her lap and she was spending equal amounts of time looking down as she was looking forwards - at the car she was tailgating at 80kph.

The speed trap ahead gave me the warm and fuzzies however and I knew it was all going to be OK


IMO, the law needs a revamp. Perhaps if you let people check their messages or send a quick text while stopped at a red light you can reduce the urge to send texts while merging onto the freeway.




.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

And I believe it.

Of course you do - you found an article that agrees with your own zany outlook.