Group caught doing 140 kilometres an hour on Sea-to-Sky

[duy-]

Originally Posted by Marco911

And what makes you think that unlikely situation wouldn't be avoidable just because one happened to be travelling over the speed limit?

really just takes me back to that video of meowmeow screaming for dear life after her near death encounter at 15 km/h, if it were 140km/h then yes, speed is relevant... it's always relevant. its like saying if you can dodge a dodgeball, you can dodge a bullet. not that I'm saying these guys deserve a harsh punishment or recklessly endangering lives etc... I'm just saying they got caught, yes they know it's dangerous, why argue a ticket if they know they're wrong? and for you to comment on how Generation Y rolls over so easily is just disrespectful. sorry if it was me, I would gladly pay the ticket and take the 1 week impound, it was justified. if I knew I was breaking the law, I won't try to weasel out on a technicality. definitely respect zero offset for coming on and just telling his side of the story and not getting justifying or arguing whether or not his fine was deserved
Posted via RS Mobile

[SpuGen]

Hah 140.

I was cruising on the S2S, and Soccer moms with kids in the back, were passing me like I was standing still. Some old guy with Veteran plates smoked me out in his Diesel Truck, and gave me the finger for going "too slow" up a hill.

I wasn't exactly going slow, but we're talking 200lbft VS 600+lbft.

It sucks that these guys were caught, but next time, don't go in a big group, and above speed "limit". My guess, they drove past some uptight asshole going 60, and he called it in.

Originally Posted by Marshall Placid

The chances of an accident and the severity of it, increases that much more when a group of car travels near each other at high speeds, trying to periodically change lanes and overtake other cars in the group.

Have you ever driven on any road, ever?

[SpuGen]

Originally Posted by duy-

really just takes me back to that video of meowmeow screaming for dear life after her near death encounter at 15 km/h,

You mean this? Is it just me, or does it look she flung her hands in the air, while screaming? You see a hand fly up right near the end.

Originally Posted by MeowMeow

march 20th 2013 gilbert & granville - YouTube

happened just now
video looks kinda slow compared to what actually happened
warning: lot of screaming
might want to adjust you volume

[duy-]

yes, thank you kind sir. what a horrific encounter to relive... live every day to it's fullest gentlemen, hug your kids and family when you get home today
Posted via RS Mobile

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by duy-

why argue a ticket if they know they're wrong? and for you to comment on how Generation Y rolls over so easily is just disrespectful. sorry if it was me, I would gladly pay the ticket and take the 1 week impound, it was justified. if I knew I was breaking the law, I won't try to weasel out on a technicality. definitely respect zero offset for coming on and just telling his side of the story and not getting justifying or arguing whether or not his fine was deserved
Posted via RS Mobile

I would take responsibility if I cause harm to someone or damage to property. If I crashed my car and received a valid ticket for it, I certainly would not dispute it. Busting a few speed limits doesn't cause any harm to anyone, so I have no qualms disputing speeding tickets. Our civil liberties are being eroded every day by these ridiculous new laws. It's still one's right to be able to challenge a ticket in court, and I intend to use that right. If it ties up the system's resources, all the better.

Considering that the police have a right to impound your vehicle before you are even convicted of an offence demonstrates that the balance of power has shifted too far and the system is ripe for abuse. How many cases have we heard of cars being impounded and traffic courts later throwing the case out for insufficient evidence?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Marco911

I guess you're agreeing with me that there isn't enough evidence to convict based on the helicopter video and the road block they set up. Haha.

Based on that alone, there MAY not be... that's not what you said though. "You don't have any evidence that they were speeding, and neither does the police" - that's entirely different. Do you know whether another cop paced the group? Whether someone at the road block had RADAR or LIDAR? No. Aside from the video, you have no fucking idea what evidence the police do or don't have.

In any case, what I said before still applies: if the air cops can point to two landmarks of a known distance apart on the video, it's very easy to calculate a car's speed from the time it takes to cover that distance. Case closed.

[tarobbt]

Originally Posted by Marco911

I love how Generation Y rolls over and gives up so easily.

I don't see no ferrari impounded

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Marco911

You lost your case because you failed to mount a suitable defence. An officer at the side of the road could be trained to visually estimate your speed. That does not mean he can still obtain a conviction if he is trying to estimate your speed from a moving chopper at altitude. That's not part of the training.

Your average motorcycle traffic cop wouldn't be manning the chopper in the first place - there's additional training specific to air support, just like there's additional training for accident investigation, homicide investigation, gang squad, and so forth.

Besides, like I said, speed determination from the air is something that's been done for decades - more often with planes than helicopters, but the principles are the same. It's not something the police are completely noob at.

Originally Posted by Marco911

Let's just say that if you are driving aggressively, you are concentrating on the drive. When you drive at the speed limit, your brain is likely to be cruising on auto pilot.

Oh please, I've seen plenty of drivers on the roads doing well over the speed limit while on autopilot. The ones texting while blowing past me on the freeway... the ones who fly past and then drift into my lane... puttering around town in a work van ensures that I have plenty of chance to witness stupidity by people going fast while zoned out of the world.

[R. Mutt]

Originally Posted by vitaminG

everybody focused on 140 not being that fast, maybe it isnt. You probably woundnt get pulled over, let alone impounded if it was just one person.

But if its a group of 8 people, in loud, heaty, modified cars, then your pretty much just asking for it and they got what they deserved for being retards.

well said

Originally Posted by tofu1413

8 Sea-to-Sky speeders tracked by RCMP chopper | CTV British Columbia News


LOL @ speed hunters sticker... whats the big deal?

FUCK...I just got my huge speedhunters windshield sticker. As if "speedhunters" didn't sound bad enough (to an officer) now this... :/

[cruz-in]

fuck with these gas prices... i cant afford to drive like that

how to stop speeding = be broke ass.

[TurboFC3S]

Sea-to-sky speeders busted | Global News Video

Global video, i remember some of these cars from the summer meet ! Lol.

They are saying in the vid cops used landmarks to judge their speed and some cars will potentially be permanently seized depending on driving records dont think thats likely to happen since they were not racing eachother or anything like that. The media hypes everything up sooo much.

Its funny when they mention they are drift cars then pan over to the integra

Im interested to see the outcome of everything after court

[tarobbt]

Also interested in the outcome, guilty by speeding for sure, but street racing hmm

"race" means circumstances in which, taking into account the condition of the highway, traffic, visibility and weather, the driver or operator of a motor vehicle is driving or operating the motor vehicle without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway or in a manner that may cause harm to an individual by doing any of the following:

(a) outdistancing or attempting to outdistance one or more other motor vehicles;

(b) preventing or attempting to prevent one or more other motor vehicles from passing;

(c) driving at excessive speed in order to arrive at or attempt to arrive at a given destination ahead of one or more other motor vehicles;

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by TurboFC3S

They are saying in the vid cops used landmarks to judge their speed

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? Yet Marco seems to think it's impossible to tell a car's speed when watching from the air.

[Juju]

That was some good Boston Pizza, tropical chicken is legit as fuck.


Any who if the cop knew better the last car had full oem aero kit!

[duy-]

Originally Posted by Marco911

I would take responsibility if I cause harm to someone or damage to property. If I crashed my car and received a valid ticket for it, I certainly would not dispute it. Busting a few speed limits doesn't cause any harm to anyone, so I have no qualms disputing speeding tickets. Our civil liberties are being eroded every day by these ridiculous new laws. It's still one's right to be able to challenge a ticket in court, and I intend to use that right. If it ties up the system's resources, all the better.

Considering that the police have a right to impound your vehicle before you are even convicted of an offence demonstrates that the balance of power has shifted too far and the system is ripe for abuse. How many cases have we heard of cars being impounded and traffic courts later throwing the case out for insufficient evidence?

i would agree with you that without sufficient evidence of "excessive" speeding they wouldn't and shouldn't have the right to tow your vehicle. but we weren't there and can't say for sure whether they were going over 140 or well under, that's really the drivers own business and whether they would want to dispute it is up to them.

but i still think that its a stupid mindset to have believing "its okay to speed, i have a sports car". thats as bad as parking in a handicap zone and saying "ITS A FERRARI"
i really dont care if you're going 140 or 160, as long as you respect that speed is speed, you do take more risk the faster you go... its physics.

other than that really the media blows it way out of control, even the cops admit it, they weren't racing... they were going sorta fast with good distances between each other with no intent to pass, or in other words, cruising.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by duy-

other than that really the media blows it way out of control, even the cops admit it, they weren't racing... they were going sorta fast with good distances between each other with no intent to pass, or in other words, cruising.

... as opposed to Marco's "aggressive driving", where one is fully aware of the road conditions around him.

[Sushi604]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? Yet Marco seems to think it's impossible to tell a car's speed when watching from the air.

It's just physics 101. Speed = distance / time

You can determine how fast a car goes based on the time it takes for them to complete 2 points.

[bloodline129]

i love how soundy has his head up his own arse sooo deep.... priceless

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Based on that alone, there MAY not be... that's not what you said though. "You don't have any evidence that they were speeding, and neither does the police" - that's entirely different. Do you know whether another cop paced the group? Whether someone at the road block had RADAR or LIDAR? No. Aside from the video, you have no fucking idea what evidence the police do or don't have.

I can pretty much guarantee that the evidence the police will be using will be solely derived from that grainy video and not from pacing or radar/lidar.

In any case, what I said before still applies: if the air cops can point to two landmarks of a known distance apart on the video, it's very easy to calculate a car's speed from the time it takes to cover that distance. Case closed.

Wrong. They would build the case from the video after the event. The air cops did not calculate the speed of individual drivers from any markers. In order to calculate the speed from video, they have to be able to identify the exact car crossing the marker points and match that up against the car being pulled over. That is very difficult to do in the video shown. They have to show that the helicopter didn't lose sight of any car at any given time between the time they were filmed crossing the marker points till when they were pulled over. (Cars could have passed each other). You can see in the video it is hard to identify the exact cars, there was some passing going on and they lost sight of the cars at some points.

[Iceman-19]

I was just doing 120 on highway 1 and was getting passed left right and center. Is that ok? Just wanted to run it by the revscene hero squad.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Your average motorcycle traffic cop wouldn't be manning the chopper in the first place - there's additional training specific to air support, just like there's additional training for accident investigation, homicide investigation, gang squad, and so forth.

Besides, like I said, speed determination from the air is something that's been done for decades - more often with planes than helicopters, but the principles are the same. It's not something the police are completely noob at.

Did you even watch the video? Look at the time stamps between when they are filmed and when they are pulled over and listen to the conversation between the officers. Air One did nothing but try to keep track of the pack of cars and state that the drivers were pulling away though they were travelling at 140 km/h. The cops still have to calculate the exact speed of INDIVIDUAL cars from landmark points in the video (points at which the cars would have to be travelling at an excessive speed) and be able to prove it is the same car that they later pulled over and issued a ticket to. Watch the video and try to do that for even one of those cars, much less 8 of them. It is virtually impossible.

Oh please, I've seen plenty of drivers on the roads doing well over the speed limit while on autopilot. The ones texting while blowing past me on the freeway... the ones who fly past and then drift into my lane... puttering around town in a work van ensures that I have plenty of chance to witness stupidity by people going fast while zoned out of the world.

Lol. Glad you agree with me that being on autopilot reduces your reaction time and could make the difference in an emergency situation vs. a speeder who is alert and able to react faster.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that reference on how "today's cars have more modern safety systems" than my old C4S. I called you on your pitiful little bluff and you folded like a Hastings Hooker's mattress.

[falcon]

Originally Posted by Soundy

And you know this because you do it on a regular basis?


Irrelevant. Estimating speed of a vehicle from the air is easy if you have fixed markers of a known distance. If you know point A and B are X distance apart, and a car passes them in Y seconds, it's dead simple to calculate the speed VERY ACCURATELY. Pick two points that are 1km apart - if a car takes one minute to travel between them, you know it's doing 60km/h.

You sound like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. I do groundspeed checks, on route KTAS speed checks and let me tell you... The margin of error for something "one KM apart'' to gauge speed is very high. It's not "dead simple" like you say. Hard enough during the day, let alone at night and you need to know your set heading point. Start meandering from that point a bit and swerving around and it all goes out the window and impossible to do accurately. Also realize the cars are going around corners, covering more distance than a heli is flying in a straight line. The only things that exist for this are the white lines you see painted on the road. Those can gauge a speed within a certain margin of error. Try seeing one of those from 1500' up in the sky at night. Oh, wait... you can't.

Bottom line, they have no proof how fast these cars are going and saying the "whirlybird" is going 142kms DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean the cars were going that fast. He could have been flying into a headwind and the air passing over the pitot tube and static port would be much higher, indicating a higher airspeed than actual. And because of this is why you do true airspeed and groundspeed checks.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Isn't that exactly what I've been saying? Yet Marco seems to think it's impossible to tell a car's speed when watching from the air.

Ok, tell me the time stamp of where you would think you could measure each of the 8 cars speeding excessively. Then fast forward to when they are pulled over and identify each of those 8 cars again.

Good luck with that.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by falcon

You sound like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. I do groundspeed checks, on route KTAS speed checks and let me tell you... The margin of error for something "one KM apart'' to gauge speed is very high. It's not "dead simple" like you say. Hard enough during the day, let alone at night and you need to know your set heading point. Start meandering from that point a bit and swerving around and it all goes out the window and impossible to do accurately. Also realize the cars are going around corners, covering more distance than a heli is flying in a straight line. The only things that exist for this are the white lines you see painted on the road. Those can gauge a speed within a certain margin of error. Try seeing one of those from 1500' up in the sky at night. Oh, wait... you can't.

Bottom line, they have no proof how fast these cars are going and saying the "whirlybird" is going 142kms DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean the cars were going that fast. He could have been flying into a headwind and the air passing over the pitot tube and static port would be much higher, indicating a higher airspeed than actual. And because of this is why you do true airspeed and groundspeed checks.

All excellent points. The helicopter's air speed is not certified to measure a vehicle's speed on the ground. Cops have to show that their speedometers are calibrated to have a pacing charge hold up in court. When we had photoradar, the unit had to be certified and specified in the Motor vehicle regs in order to be approved as a speed measuring device.

[Marco911]

Originally Posted by duy-

i would agree with you that without sufficient evidence of "excessive" speeding they wouldn't and shouldn't have the right to tow your vehicle. but we weren't there and can't say for sure whether they were going over 140 or well under, that's really the drivers own business and whether they would want to dispute it is up to them.

The cops who set up the road block didn't witness the drivers speeding either. At the time, they did not even calculate the speed of individual drivers. Something they will attempt to do later from the video, and most likely fail at. Yet they could impound all the cars. Totally unjustified.

but i still think that its a stupid mindset to have believing "its okay to speed, i have a sports car". thats as bad as parking in a handicap zone and saying "ITS A FERRARI"
i really dont care if you're going 140 or 160, as long as you respect that speed is speed, you do take more risk the faster you go... its physics.

You will have to show me how driving above the posted speed limit in a manner that is reasonable and prudent significantly increases risk.

BTW, calculation of risk is as much math as physics. Mathematically, you might be a higher risk if you drive more miles than I do even if I drive faster than you.

other than that really the media blows it way out of control, even the cops admit it, they weren't racing... they were going sorta fast with good distances between each other with no intent to pass, or in other words, cruising.

Must have been a slow news days. Group of friends out for a spirited drive occurs everywhere in the world every single day. I've taken part in this many times myself. Not sure how it is even news.