I know you asked from dared3vil0, but here is my truly unbiased answer:

The studies show that roads are "Safest" when everyone is travelling the same speed. Disregarding speed limits, if everyone is travelling 50 the one car bombing along that road at 70 or 80 is seriously putting everyone else in danger, on the flip side the person going 30 because they are looking for a restaurant or w/e is also creating a hazard. Now the focus in the past has always been on that guy going 80, because when he crashes it is more devastating and spectacular. That is very fair, but more recently we have run into a more troubling problem:

When everyone is going 100 in an 80 zone, and then there is that one car travelling 75-80 this creates and impediment and other cars get upset, or put themselves and others in a vulnerable situation trying to pass this car. Of course the car travelling at 80 is doing nothing wrong, he is actually in theory "the most responsible motorist", but in practice he is simply a hazard. The studies are suggesting that there is nothing you can do to stop those speeding motorists, because there are many people who simply disregard speed limits all together and simply travel along a road the a speed they believe is reasonable.

The idea of increasing the speed limits is not to make it legal for everyone to bomb across residential roads at 80 or down Kingsway at 100. It is a notion to recognize that most people are going to continue going 100 along Hwy 1 instead of 80 and to make this the speed of travel along that stretch to alleviate tensions on the road and make it safer.

-------------------

Now the opposition to all this is clear, and I do not know some of the factors in these studies, but yes, stats can be skewed. For example if they took a normal road where it was 80 and lowered the speed limit to 60 all of a sudden, then of course they probably saw and increase in accidents. While simply jacking up the speed limit to 100 would not have had such a profound effect.

-------------------

True cliffnotes version:

The stats say that when everyone travels the same speed there are less collisions altogether. There is no differentiation for speed limits in these studies.

so the trade off would be... more collisions at lower rates of speed vs less collisions at higher rates, which results in more damage/seriousness of injuries?

Every accident is very different in terms of damage and injuries, you can be hurt pretty badly in an accident at only 30 if the odds stack up against you.

But looking back historically, our roads have been getting much safer, in terms of injuries sustained during an accident. So as I asked before: were we absolute lunatics 20 years ago when we were all doing 80km/h in our ford pintos and other miscellaneous death traps? Or maybe there is a need to up the speed limits in this new day and age...

Yeah Spidey, what Meme said is 100% correct. Speeding is not dangerous according to the studies, it's the people travelling at the outer fringes of traffic. i.e the guy going 80 when traffic is going 110, or the guy going 150 when traffic is going 110.

That basically means hwy 1 going through burnaby, and ESPECIALLY over the bridge, if you are going the speed limit (80km/h) you are actually the danger.

my question is, when does the pubic stop asking for higher speed limits. IMO, I don't see why it is necessary to be traveling at speeds higher than what is posted. What is the rush? Why does someone need to be traveling 110+ in a 90 zone?

If you truly believe that the people who are traveling the speed limits when others around them are traveling at 110 are the ones "causing" collisions, I don't know what to say. The people traveling 80 in an 80 or even 90 in an 80 are not the ones "causing" collisions, it is the ones around them that are impatient and for some reason need to be rushing everywhere they go. Should the ones traveling "slower" than the flow move over to the right? Yes. Should that give people excuses to road rage, cut people off, etc? No.

Speeding itself may or may not be dangerous. But the results of a collision at higher speeds= more dangerous. That is fact. If the government looks at it where they rather have more collisions at lower rates of speed than a handful of fatals, at higher speeds, I am on their side.

As for our roads being safer now than it was back then, I think it is largely a result of safer vehicles, increased strictness of impaired driving and other traffic offences, to name a few.

I don't know why you came back because we are at the same cross roads we were at before.

We are not talking about impaired driving here or other traffic traffic offenses why do people keep bringing up things that don't have to do with speeding. First the weather, then driving while distracted, and now drinking and driving? Again, stick to speeding and speed limits that is the discussion we are having here...

As for having less collisions at higher speeds vs more collisions at lower speeds, the problem becomes that you cannot stop those individuals who are speeding, hand out as many tickets as you like people will continue to go 100 through the burnaby stretch of highway 1, and that guy going 80 is inevitably going to cause that guy who is going 100 to crash... So the net effect is still a lot of drivers going 100 spinning out all over the road. Whereas had everyone been going 100 nobody would have crashed...

Also you guys make it seem like going 100 vs. going 80 is some sort of HUGE increase in overall speed, its not.

The government has looked at it, many times and the studies which they used our tax dollars to fund stated that speed limits can be raised without the risk of grave danger to the public; however, the government decided to ignore these recommendations and punish the fuck out of those who speed. Which is BS, I don't get why you are not on the side of questioning those who you vote to represent your greatest interests. Instead you are just blindly believing what they tell you.

All those exploded tractor trailer tyres are the result of retreaded tyres being run long past their replacement point.

Spidey, you truly do not get it. As i have said, the safest speed is the one that 85% of traffic is travelling at. You keep coming back to this point of drunk drivers, road rage, etc. This is completely un related and another subject all together. Speed limits are "set" in regards to a perfectly sober driver, on clear sunny days.

Digging even deeper, suppose the speed limits get raised from 100km/h on hwy 1 after the port mann, to 110 km/h. if someone is stupid enough to drive drunk, i highly doubt a head on collision at a closing speed of 220km/h as opposed to 200km/h will have any affect on the results at all. You say you want tougher penalties on speeding? Do you follow the speed limit every where you go? No, you don't. if you claim you do, you're outright lying. I can guarantee you break the speed limit atleast once a day. Do you blast down canada way at 140km/h? i doubt it. (please don't) but i would bet you anything you reached atleast 51km/h. That's speeding, so do you feel you should get a ticket? And in your mind, a harsher penalty? Or do you condemn speeding, except when it's "only" 1km/h over? Where do you draw the line? Stop blindly defending rules that make zero sense.

wtf. no really what the f.... The only reason I mentioned drunk driving and distracted driving was in reference to you saying that stats reveal that roads are safer now than they were before. All I stated was that a reason for this is because cars are safer and less people are driving drunk. It had nothing to do with our debate regarding speed limits on highways.

Secondly, I do drive faster than the speed limit. But if I get ticketed, I won't bitch about it, because I know what I am doing, and it is a decision I make. Am I going to blame anyone else? No. Because when I took my driving test some 15 years ago, I KNEW what the laws were and KNEW driving was a privilege not a right. I am not saying everyone that goes 1+ over the limit should be nailed. I am saying those who speed and get caught should own up to it. When has anyone here been ticketed for going between 1-10km over the limit? When has anyone been nailed for going 110 in a 100 zone? I am sure it has happened, but it rarely ever happens. You might not believe me when I tell you but I personally don't know any cops that would waste their time writing a ticket for someone going 10 over the limit.

That said, if you are going to be going 40+ over the limit, don't expect to be given a slap on the wrist. You may argue that if the speed limits are raised, that very little people would get excessive tickets as they would not reach that high of a speed (ie they would have to drive at least 141 in a 100 zone), but be careful what you wish for.... if speed limits are increased, I wouldn't doubt the cops having lower thresholds for speeding... then all of you will be bitching for being given a 138 dollar ticket for going 110 in a 100 zone...

I truly believe, at the end of the day, drivers will always bitch and complain. I'll repeat it again since you and meme obviously think I am a traffic nazi. I realize everyone drives above the limit, that isn't what I am debating. People just need to own up to it, and think about why they need to be traveling faster than the limit. None of you can give me a legit answer as to why people need the speed limit to be 100 rather than 80, 80 instead of 60 etc.. except to cater to the impatient reckless drivers. If someone wants to pass a vehicle that is going too slow, guess what? You can do so safely and not be a total dick about it.

Spidey, just move on... No one has every answer to your question, no one always has the perfect answer especially for you. You ask some really ridiculous questions where we either don't have answers for, or if we gave you the answer like meme did, and you still say it's not enough as an answer. No offense but some of the stuff you ask and say on not this sub-forum but other part of the forum are really just non-sense, although I agree with a few posts with you in the past.

The reason why people speed has nothing to do with recklessness or anything like that. I have personally watched people cruising along with me in the car doing 100 on the highway, it is simply the speed they feel that is appropriate on that road at that given time. They do not at all feel like they are endangering themselves at that speed. Especially when you compare the road we are driving on to the road we were driving on 20 years ago. This is simply the speed that it makes sense for them to go in their minds. IT IS THE APPROPRIATE SPEED FOR THAT ROAD AT THAT GIVEN TIME.

Take the sea to sky, as was given in the speed sense video, it went from being a treacherous one-lane each way cliff side pass. To a 4 lane concrete median highway. Yet the speed limit remained at 80km/h. When you spend my tax dollars improving a road I drive countless times a year, and then instead of raising the limits on it so that I can get to where I am going faster you punish me for driving at a reasonable speed on that road, thats where I draw the line.

The idea of roads and highways are to get people where they are going, so yes when they are improved dramatically I believe the speed limits should be increased to allow exactly that to happen.

Where do we draw the line, lets say we abandon this idea for 10 years, in 10 years time there are no longer any speed related accidents and the roads have 0 fatalities year upon year. Can we then up the speed limits? Or should we keep them the same because if we do we risk the chance of someone getting injured.

You have to weight the pros and the cons, of upping the speed limits vs. the damage done by keeping them the same. I believe we have reached a threshold at which we need to decide how much economic inconvenience we are willing to cause in order to save one more life. I will give you a brief breakdown (bear in mind I will use the US figures for this because they are more readily available):

The US department of transportation valued an average civilian life at $6 million dollars.

Using a cost-benefit analysis and a basic Value of Time formula it has been worked out that the state of Washington (I picked Washington cause it was close to BC and has a (relatively) similar population) loses 2.6 billion dollars a year in economic output tied directly to traffic and congestion. This same report claimed that this value could balloon to over 7 billion in 20 years if something was not done, but we will stick to the value of 2.6 billion.

You can probably see where I am going with this, and yes it is kinda gruesome and a crude way of looking at it. At the same time though, we have to think in terms of the greater picture.

Statistically if everyone could get where they are going 10% faster due to higher speed limits and less congestion, which is most definitely possible with a bump of 20% to the speed limits on major thoroughfares. Then washington would see a 260 million dollar increase in their economy. That is equivalent to 43 human lives.

Considering the 5 year average in Washington was 216 speed related fatalities spread out over round about 102 separate car accidents. I doubt we would see a near 22% hike in fatalities from simply raising the limit by 20% (ON MAJOR ROADS). Especially considering studies have proven that there are less collisions when limits were raised...

Therefore financially now is the time to act.:accepted:

I never said recklessness was due to high speeds. I said those who want to be driving faster than the speed limit shouldn't be passing and cutting people off (reckless driving) just so they can "go with the flow" or pass a person going the speed limit. There are proper ways to pass someone, and the dick way to do it.

Again, I will ask you, WHY do you need to get to a place faster? There are a lot more factors in congestion than just the speed limit. Rush hour, stalls, accidents, construction, etc. Upping the speed limit will not do much if there is a backup on the highway. Period. It will only affect the time you get somewhere if the lanes are basically completely open. There is no point upping speed limits if you are bumper to bumper, which is what causes congestion. The number of vehicles on the road vs. the amount of routes/lanes available is the biggest problem regarding congestion, imo. So I personally do not agree with your argument to increase speed to fix this problem.

Well thank the Lord we just spent 1 billion dollars building and upgrading the longest stretch of highway in the GVRD. So can we up the speed limit on it now?

And for the record your wrong it haven proven that upping the speed limit by as little as 5km/h reduces peak traffic periods by as much as 15 minutes. Traffic remains flowing smoothly for much longer than normal until the backup finally overwhelms the system. But then traffic also ends a little bit faster. Of course there will be a diminishing return on the amount of increase but it is interesting.

Also your fighting a moot point because I guarantee that the government will increase the speed limit to 100km/h on Hwy 1. So basically now what you are saying is: "even though the government says it's okay to go 100 I disagree an instead I'll be an asshat and go 80 still".
Posted via RS Mobile

Thanks again for putting words in my mouth/thoughts in my head. If the government increases the speed of hwy 1 from 80 to 100, then fine. Fact is it hasn't been done yet. Your mentality is the same as those who think it is okay to walk around smoking weed because "it will be legalized eventually anyways". Well guess what, it isn't. Just because it is a "minor" offence, doesn't mean the Police will look the other way. So until certain laws are changed, it's on you to accept the punishment.

I am going to be moving on. Outside of the Police forums, I like to be devil's advocate. I ask questions, whether people think it is ridiculous or not, to get people defending their opinion to think. There are some topics I feel strongly on, but the majority, I really am neutral.

[
The US department of transportation valued an average civilian life at $6 million dollars.

Using a cost-benefit analysis and a basic Value of Time formula it has been worked out that the state of Washington (I picked Washington cause it was close to BC and has a (relatively) similar population) loses 2.6 billion dollars a year in economic output tied directly to traffic and congestion. This same report claimed that this value could balloon to over 7 billion in 20 years if something was not done, but we will stick to the value of 2.6 billion.



Statistically if everyone could get where they are going 10% faster due to higher speed limits and less congestion, which is most definitely possible with a bump of 20% to the speed limits on major thoroughfares. Then washington would see a 260 million dollar increase in their economy. That is equivalent to 43 human lives.


So, using RS logic, if they removed the speed limits and let everybody drive as fast as they wanted, how many million dollars improvement would that make for their economy? :devil:

I clearly outlined in my post that you have to balance the loss of life and the economic benefit, but obviously your to stupid to get down off your high horse to pay attention. Just because everyone else walks around here sucking your dick doesn't mean I am going to. You never answered my question from before, so unless you want to respond and actually have an intelligent conversation please STFU.


Actually I didn't put shit in your mouth, you put words into mine. I am not saying everyone should go around speeding because the speed limits don't make sense. In fact if you went back to my first post in this thread I clearly sided with everyone else at how big of an idiot the OP is, and how he deserves the ticket he got. Also when I got my ticket I didn't dispute it or anything, in fact I was very respectful to the officer who pulled me over. I owned up to what I did and paid the consequences (I continue to pay for them as I just received my first of 3 installments for the drivers risk penalty associated with the excessive speed ticket) . Since then I have been much more mindful of how fast I am going.

You say you like to play devils advocate? Yeah your right it seems you do, too bad you are questioning the wrong people, what you should be questioning is the motives of those who set our roads speed limits. Go play devils advocate with them. That is all I am saying, our speed limits do not make sense, and they should be revised. Until such date they are still the speed limits and people should abide by them. I know they won't, but that's not the point, if you are caught speeding its no excuse to say you were doing it cause the speed limit was BS.

So no I am not at all like the people who smoke weed just because it should be legal.

You kept asking me for proof as to why our speed limits do not make sense, and reasons why people speed. So I provided you with them. I never said speeding was the correct thing to do, nor do I approve of it.

so angry...:Popcorn

What a troll. I take it your raising the white flag? Or do you have more stupid questions to ask?

Spidey, Meme and I (mostly him, i'm not putting nearly as much effort into trying to explain this to you) are doing our best to answer all your questions because you're too lazy to google the damn questions, yet it's never enough. Are you trolling? You then say we keep putting words in your mouth, yet you then say you speed and accept the risks. You then say you won't bitch if you get a ticket. Did we ever actually complain about getting tickets? No, we didn't. If i'm going 110/kmh in an 80 zone, and i get hit with Radar, the cop giving me a ticket is just doing his job, whether he agrees with it or not is completely irrelevant. Please don't lump us in with the people who try their best to fight every ticket, even when they are clearly in the wrong. (Regardless of whether they agree with the law they were charged under or not.)

/Endrant.

You clearly have had multiple jimmies rustled. we can go back and forth all day long. I've said all that I needed to. And you have clearly shown you have statistics from the US to backup what you believe would translate onto Canadian roads. So let's agree to disagree.

But don't worry, I am sure the next time I have a stupid question to ask, you will have an example from the US. :)

During all my research the evidence for the GTA was even more damning, but I figured that Washington was a better fit for our west coast macro-economy and geographical area.

Sorry my statistical evidence was not up to snuff to answer your borderline mentally retarded question...:wgaf:

He's GOTTA be trolling at this point...

Kenzie?s Korner: Speed Limits | MotoringTV

For anyone else reading this, if you don't believe me and you want to see it from someone who's on TV for some reason there you have it.

As much as I enjoy Kenzie's corner and Motoring....I think he secretly wishes he was Clarkson on Top Gear. :fullofwin:

So this thread has gone from "How badly will I be punished for breaking this law?" to "How just do we feel this law is?"

Those are very very different threads.