Story goes he went around a croner that was more wet than he thought and he had less traction than he thought and spun into a tree with all nannies on I also own one of these cars and IMHO with all nannies on its impossible to slide this car unless you are on ice. I say this after tracking the car with no nannies on in pouring rain at the Ridge but again just my opinion.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48639

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4cf36c5f.jpg

http://i1251.photobucket.com/albums/...psfa3eb1c0.jpg

Lol "good old days"...

You don't have to agree with the 40KPH over rule but that doesn't mean you can just ignore it and break the rules. Had you not come across as an arrogant person then you wouldn't get the reaction that you're getting now. The law did not ruin your career as you're saying, you chose to go 55kph over the limit and got caught. It's idiots like you that ruin it for the rest of us. Now I'm kind of hoping that you'll get your license suspended and whatever else your company decides to do with you lol

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZWQ3YOMtJa...id-oh-snap.gif
Now, that's a 'LOL'

That's retarded.... change the rules to fit the crappy driving behaviour to make things safer? No.... change the crappy driving behaviour to follow the rules already in place. I'd rather be hit by some N driver in his Honda Fit and fart can muffler at 60k than at 100k.

Just because people are driving faster doesn't mean its a good idea to raise the limits so other drivers are forced to increase their speeds to fit in with the retards in the name of "safety".

I agree there should be much more involved driver training so that new driver's, regardless of age, are overall much better at not smacking into each other. Driver's cant handle the speeds they are driving right now while sharing the road with other drivers... If they could, there wouldn't be as many brainless preventable accidents.

It seems crashes are inevitable, so it does not make sense to encourage people to crash at higher speeds. It's hard to argue with physics... A car hitting a pole at 70k is going to have more potential to kill than at 40 or any lower speed.

PS - I haven't seen your video.

dis gonna be good

lololololololololololololol

I posted it, please give it a watch... (and its not "my" video, someone else made it. It just explains the problem much more clearly then I care to spend the time doing).

Your saying when someone crashes you would rather it be at a slower speed. Make sense.

What I am saying is, crashes shouldn't happen, or they should be so few and far in between that its no longer a threat we worry about, and achieving this has nothing to do with speed limits. It has to do with teaching people how to drive correctly.

Your right crashes are inevitable, even in my best case scenario crashes will happen, but how many will have speed as the necessary cause is debatable.



By the definitions above I argue that the only time we worry about speed is when it is the necessary cause. An argument could be made that we should be worried about it when it is a sufficient cause as well, but I would counter that by saying, in these cases stuff like alcohol or distracted driving should be the part that is focused on improving and correcting not the speed.

Also for everyone who uses the argument that the limits need to be lower because in bad weather or winter the roads are hazardous, this is a plain stupid argument. The speed limit on a road, is the maximum speed at which you may travel on a road at optimal conditions. If you are retarded enough to go plowing along in slush and ice at the maximum speed that is not the rest of humanities fault, that is called natural selection. This is another point that needs to be drilled in when they are providing better driver training. You do not keep the speed limits on roads lower because 2 months out of the year it may become a little slick, that makes no sense...

This is a stupid example, because I am not saying change the speed limit on kingsway to 100. I am saying on the highway where everyone is already travelling 100 (in what is an 80 zone), it makes no sense to travel 80km/h. If everyone was going 100 that poses no more risk to cause an accident than if you were travelling 80. Sure when you do get into an accident at 20km/h it may be a little more jarring, but cars today are much safer than even just 20 years ago. So how come we cannot go faster as the cars get safer and they become more capable? Or are you trying to say that 20 years ago we were all crazy lunatics for travelling at 80km/h in our death traps?


Actually thats exactly what it means.

Seriously watch the video:


If you are driving at a slower speed then everyone else on the road, tensions escalate and you become a hazard to both yourself and others around you.

hahaha so thats where that silver brz came from. Some shady surrey wrecker bought that and is now being rebuilt.

it doesn't matter how well you train drivers how to drive, human error and environmental hazards will occur. People will always put on their makeup, talk on their cell phone, text, eat, yell at their children, pick their nose, scratch their balls, change the radio station, fall asleep etc when driving. you can prepare people all you want. everyone drives cautiously and carefully when they do their road tests, but no one ever drives this way in real life. So teaching them more skills etc may have a minimal effect once/when they become complacent.

Yes, but the question here is:

Should we keep speed limits lower so that when these idiots inevitably crash they do less harm to themselves?

Or should we revoke their licenses until they learn some common sense, then up the speed limits since those who are left driving are proven to be competent...

EDIT:

My point stems from that fact that, distracted driving causes just as many crashes (if not more) than speeding. Sure speeding crashes where some idiot 16 year old was going 200 are more horrific, but those are just as rare as when someone collides head on with someone else at 60 because they were trying to fire off a text while driving.

So how come distracted driving doesn't carry such a heavy penalty as speeding..?

This argument can go on forever, so I am not going to bother. I can see both sides of it. As of right now though. Obey the speeds, pay attention, and you should be fine

Wasn't there a study that stated that it didn't matter if they raised or lowered the speed limit on a given road, most people just drove where they were comfortable at? Not sure how accurate it is.

Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits

"The results of the study indicated that lowering posted speed limits by as much as 20 mi/h (32 km/h), or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mi/h (24 km/h) had little effect on motorist' speed"

"Lowering speed limits below the 50th percentile does not reduce accidents, but does significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds or accidents."

Yup, it gets touched on in the video i posted.

But there was another study, that said when they lowered speed limits crashes went up and when they raised the speed limit crashes went down.

I think that just proves stats can be skewed anyway you like.


@Spidey, oh I am with you on that I see both sides, I just like one side more than the other. Like you said for now, us good drivers will obey the speed limits as best as possible and continue to focus on driving at all times. Then at least we have some chance of reacting to another driver before they sideswipe us or T-bone us.

LOL Mr.Jay you scared him away!

"when you slow down, you see more". I love how OP is complaining the speed limit is so low. Trust me if you had a blown tire when you were travelling at 130km/hr, you will lose control and die and possibly injure other people. Too much self-confidence in people these days especially N drivers. Not to stereotype people, but 50% of the dangerous moves that I see on the road are pulled off by N drivers. When I had my N about over an year ago, I remembered that my dad told me to slow down, drive safe, obey the rules until I get my class 5. Now I have my class 5, I still obey the rules and not exceed speed limit? Why? I want to continue driving, and I don't want my Insurance to go up.

If you wanna continue driving, drive safe, don't cause an accident, don't get your insurance high, simple as that.

Gotta own up to what you did. And btw there is no such thing as unlucky. If you obey the laws every single time, you will never get caught. If you speed 5 out of 10 or 8 times out of 10 thinking that police won't be here this time around, trust me sooner or later you will get caught. And I bet you are one of those people that speed not only once, not only twice, but many many times.

Close to 50% of the VT's I issued were to N drivers, but they make up about 14% of the total driving universe. Because I stopped the car from head on most of the time, OR the N was not displayed, I didn't know it was an N until the car was stopped and DL produced. It was the driver's actual driving and not the N status that got them stopped.

My previous post was not intended to slag all N drivers, rather to simply point out that there seems to be a disconnect between the safe driving habits they were taught, and used, when they first got their N.

As a full time driving/riding instructor now I still see this same pattern and I spend considerable time in my classes in the classroom, and in the car, pointing out the advantages of making good choices and the consequences of making bad ones.

Really thats what you worry about happening? Im sorry but I like the complaint about wildlife running out on the highway, more than having a spontaneous tire burst on his brand new car...
:rukidding:

Impacts with wildlife was the second major cause of crashes on the nice safe Inland Island Hwy on mid Van Island...after speeding. I know because I was responsible for collecting the stats.

^ Zulu, do you feel people should not exceed the speed limit ever? Even when countless studies prove the most dangerous drivers are the ones who are travelling on the outer fringes of traffic? (either much faster or much slower than the speed of traffic, i.e hwy 1 where the vast majority of traffic is at ~20km/h over etc)

Yea that's what I'm worried about at 130km/hr. At that speed, if he had a blown tire, he doesn't have the experience to control the car.

If wildlife runs out on the highway, there's nothing you can do for no matter what speed you are travelling at whether it's 80 or 130. The only way to do it is hit it not trying to avoid it.

The law says that speeding even 1 kmh over the limit is speeding. The only legal explanation that may be accepted as justification for speeding, is in a life & death circumstance. For example, you are driving at the limit and someone is flying up behind you and will rear end your car unless you speed up to safely move out of the way. Studies prove what the designers of those studies want them to prove, either before or after doing the actual work.

There are times that "going with the flow" may be the safest, but that depends on why everybody is choosing to speed and if it is "safe". A pack of cars exceeding the speed limt in bad weather, poor visibility, very heavy traffic is not safe. There is no legal excuse escape from a VT just because "everybody was doing it" but an explanation to a JP in court may result in a somewhat more favourable punishment if you can articulate why you were exceeding the limit. Pulling over, moving to a slower lane or even exiting a higher speed roadway may be a better decision that speeding with everybody else.

Can we leave the weather out of this for a minute? As we all know the speed limits on roads are meant to be enforced under next to ideal climate conditions. They are the maximum safe speed someone could travel on a given stretch of road when the surface is dry and the weather is good.

In those circumstances do you believe that 70-80km/h through the stretch of highway one through BBY and over the 2nd narrows and all through NV is a true representation of the maximum safe speed that someone should go.

I am asking your opinion on this, and I want you to answer truthfully, and no I will not go to the media after this and say "o but this cop said that speed limits are for loserz". I am not an asshat.



For the record, when someone has to exit a highway because they were doing the speed limit and afraid of all the other drivers speeding around them I believe there is a problem with the speed limits...

EDIT:

I get where you were going with this, but I was kinda just making a joke about how having a spontaneous tire burst on a near new car was a stupid thing to worry about. The BRZ in fact and decently new non shitbox car is capable of much more than 130 and a lot more stress on the tire before it would burst.

Also this happened within the GVRD, so your stats from vancouver island are probably a lot less valid, but thats not the point here...

I am not dissing you in anyway, just making a few clarifications...

You're retarded. Tires hardly ever burst from manufacturing defects.... They get damaged from debris on the roads... nails/screws/basically anything sharp and hard enough. If people are so desperate to save some time they should stop smoking dope and buying stuffed animals to put on their dash:devil:

are stats that support higher speeds saying that there are overall less collisions at the higher limits, or less fatal collisions, or both? I am not about to read all the stats because I honestly don't want to, so cliff notes from you would be nice.