CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
Profile
Posts: 2095
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:21 pm
 


Michigan’s differential speed limit for trucks and cars on freeways makes sense. Increasing the limit for all vehicles, as they have recently done, certainly does not.

https://www.michiganautolaw.com/blog/20 ... limit-law/

Any politician who votes for a law like that should have to meet the families of those killed by it.


Last edited by Sunnyways on Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:23 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Yeah, I sped lots when I was young too.

Then I grew up and realized that if I wanted to get somewhere two minutes earlier, I could just listen to traffic reports and just leave a bit earlier if traffic was bad.

I've been lucky and only gotten a handful of tickets in my life, most of them in the 80s or 90s, and the last one I got was a photo radar ticket in 2005. Since then, nada. I can think of better things to spend my time and money on then speeding tickets.

When I get on the highway, I set my cruise control at the posted speed limit and drive. If I need to pass a slow moving semi, then I do. If someone wants to pass me, go for it, I don't care. And I certainly don't care if my buddy gets to Calgary 15 minutes before I do because he chose to do 125.

To me, following the speed limit is no different than getting a flu shot (or the COVID vaccine when it's my turn), exercising, eating right and all the rest. It's something designed to help me live a longer life, which I'm all for. If someone wants to rush to their tombstone (or more likely a speeding ticket), that's their prerogative, but I have little pity for them when the odds catch up to them.

To me it has nothing to do with arriving some where faster. I will happily let people out of parking lots, allow people to merge in front of me, and in general be a courteous driver which ultimately is going to make me arrive by a bigger delta than any adjustment in speed would. I genuinely feel far safer moving at the same speed as everyone else. Again, this may be different in Alberta, but people around here do not drive the speed limit. Having vehicles driving 20km/h less than the majority of other drivers on the road is going to be a more hazardous condition for everyone on the road than that person going the same speed as everyone else.

Is going the speed limit safer being the only person on the road? Absolutely. So is going 40 under it. But when you're moving with 1000 other vehicles, that are going to be going 20% faster than you, quite frankly, it isn't. To me, driving with the flow of traffic is being a courteous driver. Going 20% slower than everyone and causing everyone around you to do unnecessary lane changes, especially semis, is being the opposite of a courteous driver. You're not doing anything to protect the people around you like a vaccine does. You're causing them to take risks that they otherwise may not need to.

I know you won't see it that way because "they should be going the speed limit" but that's not how human behaviour works. Getting a vaccine is just as important for the person who refuses to get one as it is for the person who can't. And when the vast majority of drivers completely ignore posted speed limits, being the one fish swimming against the school means you're the problem. Not the answer.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:29 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
You can't easily widen a road to handle the needed lane width for faster traffic. You can't change the force your car exerts on the road at a given speed. If the road can't handle keeping your car on the road surface, you wind up in a ditch at best.
Completely ignoring that many roads handle a higher speed than the posted speed limit.


Completely ignoring many that can't. You can't arbitrarily decide that the speed limit can be higher if everyone speeds. Imagine if no one paid their taxes? ;)

Tricks Tricks:
$1:
These are the things that are taken into when they are built, from the excavation of dirt to replacement with crushed gravel to handle the load and not easily fall into disrepair, to the the banking and angles of road surface. Making a road that was built for 90, and bumped up to 100 in the 70s, then to run at 120 will not be safe.
The 401 was built for 120.


Congrats. What about the 427? Highway 1? What about the roads people use to get to the 401?

Tricks Tricks:
$1:
I don't know that Ontario has that law. I do know that Alberta has it, and during rush hour it is not followed nor enforced.

But after that window, it is enforced. $225 fine. And I read that BC is quite adamant about it.

I'm not aware of that law in Ontario. If it exists, it's never enforced. I assume it doesn't exist based off that.


Yes, ignorance of the law is perfectly valid reason to ignore it. Judges love that defence.

$1:
147. Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

(c) road service vehicle; or

(d) bicycle in a lane designated under subsection 153 (2) for travel in the opposite direction of traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2); 2015, c. 14, s. 41.

Offence

(3) Every person who, while driving a motor vehicle, contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $150 and not more than $1,000. 2019, c. 8, Sched. 1, s. 27.


https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK249

Tricks Tricks:
$1:
You are comparing the Highway Traffic Act, which was written with the specific goal of public safety in mind with an arbitrary law that prudes enacted because they don't know how to have fun.

Try again.

You really think there aren't antiquated parts of the highway traffic act? And that some laws in it aren't arbitrary?


Irrelvant. I'm sure there are, but they can still be enforced. I'm all for ignoring irrational statutes, but ones that uphold the public safety are not these.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:31 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
Tricks Tricks:
Speed limits should NEVER be set to reflect "public attitude", they should be set based on collision history, collision severity, engineering and the types of vehicles and people using the road.

So better engineered vehicles than 50 years ago should mean a higher speed limit then right?


"Ye canna change the laws of physics!"

Hydrostatic shock hasn't changed.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:38 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Completely ignoring many that can't. You can't arbitrarily decide that the speed limit can be higher if everyone speeds. Imagine if no one paid their taxes? ;)


Then don't increase speeds on those roads where their designed speed already matches the posted speed limit. It doesn't have to be a universal increase.

$1:
Congrats. What about the 427? Highway 1? What about the roads people use to get to the 401?
Irrelevant. See above.

$1:
Yes, ignorance of the law is perfectly valid reason to ignore it. Judges love that defence.

$1:
147. Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

(c) road service vehicle; or

(d) bicycle in a lane designated under subsection 153 (2) for travel in the opposite direction of traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2); 2015, c. 14, s. 41.

Offence

(3) Every person who, while driving a motor vehicle, contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $150 and not more than $1,000. 2019, c. 8, Sched. 1, s. 27.


https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK249


I don't think that says what you think it says.
1)It doesn't say you can't drive in the left lane/passing lane continuously. It only states you can't if you're going slower than the flow of traffic. (bolded)
2) I find it interesting it says nothing about speed limit.




$1:

Irrelvant. I'm sure there are, but they can still be enforced. I'm all for ignoring irrational statutes, but ones that uphold the public safety are not these.

Sure, so could pot being illegal. That was the point. Someone may see pot being illegal being about public safety.

I guarantee you there are parts of the HTA that have nothing to do with public safety. Would you be okay with enforcement being ignored of those parts?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:42 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Tricks Tricks:
Tricks Tricks:
Speed limits should NEVER be set to reflect "public attitude", they should be set based on collision history, collision severity, engineering and the types of vehicles and people using the road.

So better engineered vehicles than 50 years ago should mean a higher speed limit then right?


"Ye canna change the laws of physics!"

Hydrostatic shock hasn't changed.

Hydro static shock is 1) about a bullet penetrating the body and 2) not a conclusively valid thing.

And when we're talking about vehicles with and without air bags, you haven't changed the laws of physics, but you've mitigated them. And considering the first vehicle with airbags was in the 80s, yeah there is a huge difference.

Jumping off a build with and without an air bag below you still operate under the same laws of physics. I'm pretty sure we'd both rather do the former though.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:17 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Have you ever looked at highway fatalities in the 1970s and 1980s? There were much higher back then then they are now. Here's what Stats Can has on an archived page:

$1:
Over the past 25 years (1979 vs 2004), the annual number of Canadians who died from motor vehicle accidents dropped by 52%, from 5,933 in 1979 to 2,875 in 2004.


Driving back then was anything but safe.

Yes, part of that is due to safer vehicles, but it also comes from better road design, better rules for setting speed limits and other factors. For example, cloverleaf interchanges were common on highways across North America for a long time, but in the past few decades, we've realized there are better options, such as partial cloverleaf interchanges, which are safer and have fewer crashes.

Same goes for roundabouts, which are springing up all over the place because they eliminate T-bone/left turn accidents, which often lead to serious injuries and/or fatalities. Obviously, they don't work well on freeways or high volume roads, but work very well at less busy intersections.


I don't think you adequately stating how significant safety changes have been made. Just the fact that airbags weren't required until the 80s is a huge thing. Smash a car made in the 80s into a car made last year and the difference in the cabin damage is genuinely astounding. I was in an accident where I hit someone who ran a red as I was going probably 65-70. The only injury I had was a skinned knuckle from my hand sliding across the top of the dashboard. That was a 2009 if I remember right. If that were a car in the 70s, I would have been in the hospital or dead.


No, I fully recognize that vehicles have become much safer in the past 40 years, but you implied that it was originally safe in the 1970s. Statistics showed it was much less safe, society simply was willing to accept a higher death/injury count on our roads than we do now.

The drop in fatalities and major injuries is due to many factors, not just safer vehicles. For example, impaired driving carries far more serious consequences now than it did 40 years ago and is not as prevalent as it was then. Better road design (as mentioned above) is another. Improvements like is another high tension cable barrier.

This video is a bit long, but it thoroughly explains the correlation between safer roads, vehicles, drivers and speeds.




FTR airbags became mandatory in the USA in 1998, as late as 2016, they were still not mandatory in Canada (not sure if that's changed in the past five years).


Tricks Tricks:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Speed limits should NEVER be set to reflect "public attitude", they should be set based on collision history, collision severity, engineering and the types of vehicles and people using the road.


So better engineered vehicles than 50 years ago should mean a higher speed limit then right?


When Ontario (and the rest of Canada) follow practices like the ones in the above video, it MAY be possible to increase speed limits on SOME roads. Alberta paid some lip service to it a decade ago, but it's gone by the wayside as deficits have grown.

I don't see that happening any time soon, simply because of the huge cost of building safe roads and hiring enough police officers to enforce the rules properly. Tools to make drivers better, like retesting and driver education courses aren't overly popular either.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:55 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
To me it has nothing to do with arriving some where faster. I will happily let people out of parking lots, allow people to merge in front of me, and in general be a courteous driver which ultimately is going to make me arrive by a bigger delta than any adjustment in speed would. I genuinely feel far safer moving at the same speed as everyone else.


I understand what you're saying, but it isn't safer.

Speeding is a factor (often amongst other factors as well) in a quarter of all accidents in Canada. Based on Ontario stats from 2019, your province is doing better than most on speed related crashes (80 deaths out of 543, so about 15%).

Maybe it's just me, but 80 people is 80 people too many.



Tricks Tricks:
Again, this may be different in Alberta, but people around here do not drive the speed limit.


No, lots of Albertans speed on a daily basis. We issue over one million speeding tickets a year in this province, and that really only scratches the surface if my driving experience is any indication.



Tricks Tricks:
Having vehicles driving 20km/h less than the majority of other drivers on the road is going to be a more hazardous condition for everyone on the road than that person going the same speed as everyone else.

Tricks Tricks:
So is going 40 under it.


This is the strawman that many speeders use. As the stats show, speeding is dangerous, period.




Tricks Tricks:
But when you're moving with 1000 other vehicles, that are going to be going 20% faster than you, quite frankly, it isn't.


Still more strawman - and not a little unlike the old "If your friends were jumping of a bridge, would you' argument some parents used to use. :wink:

I agree that if you want to travel well under the posted speed on a highway, there are usually rural roads/side streets that a motorist should use.



Tricks Tricks:
To me, driving with the flow of traffic is being a courteous driver. Going 20% slower than everyone and causing everyone around you to do unnecessary lane changes, especially semis, is being the opposite of a courteous driver.


If you're in the right hand lane, you're not impeding anyone nor being uncourteous.

Everyone who is speeding are the uncourteous ones, because if they lose control of their vehicle for any reason, they can wind up seriously harming you or your passenger(s).



Tricks Tricks:
You're not doing anything to protect the people around you like a vaccine does. You're causing them to take risks that they otherwise may not need to.


No, you're not, you're leading by example.

If not following the speed limit is safe and courteous, why is ANY other law related to driving? Do you feel distracted driving is safe? It is responsible for roughly the same amount of accidents as speeding is, according to statistics. Same goes for impaired driving.

Do you support any of those other dangerous driving behaviours? My bet is that you don't, just like most Canadians do not.

Yet somehow, you seem to think speeding is okay if everyone else is doing it.

I'll be honest when I say I don't understand that line of thinking coming from you, who seems to be by all accounts a pretty smart person.



Tricks Tricks:
I know you won't see it that way because "they should be going the speed limit" but that's not how human behaviour works. Getting a vaccine is just as important for the person who refuses to get one as it is for the person who can't. And when the vast majority of drivers completely ignore posted speed limits, being the one fish swimming against the school means you're the problem. Not the answer.


Again, if you're speeding (or impaired or distracted), then you're the problem.

A very dangerous problem.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:48 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
Completely ignoring many that can't. You can't arbitrarily decide that the speed limit can be higher if everyone speeds. Imagine if no one paid their taxes? ;)


Then don't increase speeds on those roads where their designed speed already matches the posted speed limit. It doesn't have to be a universal increase.



The point being, increasing a speed limit is not done by the rule 'well, everyone speeds anyhow'.

Tricks Tricks:
$1:
Yes, ignorance of the law is perfectly valid reason to ignore it. Judges love that defence.

$1:
147. Slow vehicles to travel on right side

147 (1) Any vehicle travelling upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at that time and place shall, where practicable, be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (1).

Exception

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a driver of a,

(a) vehicle while overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction;

(b) vehicle while preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway;

(c) road service vehicle; or

(d) bicycle in a lane designated under subsection 153 (2) for travel in the opposite direction of traffic. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 147 (2); 2015, c. 14, s. 41.

Offence

(3) Every person who, while driving a motor vehicle, contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not less than $150 and not more than $1,000. 2019, c. 8, Sched. 1, s. 27.


https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK249


I don't think that says what you think it says.
1)It doesn't say you can't drive in the left lane/passing lane continuously. It only states you can't if you're going slower than the flow of traffic. (bolded)
2) I find it interesting it says nothing about speed limit.


And you don't see how #1 and #2 are related? The posted speed LIMIT is the LIMIT.

That section spells it out. Slower traffic must use the right lane, faster traffic may use the left lane to pass.

No one is allowed to speed past the LIMIT. It says exactly what I think it does.

Tricks Tricks:
$1:

Irrelvant. I'm sure there are, but they can still be enforced. I'm all for ignoring irrational statutes, but ones that uphold the public safety are not these.

Sure, so could pot being illegal. That was the point. Someone may see pot being illegal being about public safety.

I guarantee you there are parts of the HTA that have nothing to do with public safety. Would you be okay with enforcement being ignored of those parts?


Red herring. Safe driving is not cannabis smoking. In fact . . . ;)


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:55 pm
 


Tricks Tricks:
Hydro static shock is 1) about a bullet penetrating the body and 2) not a conclusively valid thing.


If it is a thing, then there is a limit to the amount of force a living organism can take before it is killed by the impact alone. Bullet, or blunt force. Vehicles get better with time, but there is always an upper limit.

Tricks Tricks:
And when we're talking about vehicles with and without air bags, you haven't changed the laws of physics, but you've mitigated them. And considering the first vehicle with airbags was in the 80s, yeah there is a huge difference.

Jumping off a build with and without an air bag below you still operate under the same laws of physics. I'm pretty sure we'd both rather do the former though.


It isn't airbags alone that make the difference. Vehicles are now designed so that the force of impact, instead of being directed at the occupants, now is redirected around the cabin and into the car. Certain areas are designed to be sacrificial and take the force instead of the people inside. But again, this has limits.

And I wasn't talking about them. ;)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30994

Warnings: (20%)
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:14 pm
 


Add explosive reactive armour to passenger vehicles. The same thing they use on battle tanks and APCs to chew up all the kinetic energy of an incoming projectile in a pre-emptive reactive explosion so the penetrator loses all it's strength and can't pierce the underlying armour plate. Costs lots but at least we'd be entertained by the detonations erupting everywhere all around us every time a couple of moron-guided cars have a fender-bender. 8)


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:59 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
No, I fully recognize that vehicles have become much safer in the past 40 years, but you implied that it was originally safe in the 1970s. Statistics showed it was much less safe, society simply was willing to accept a higher death/injury count on our roads than we do now.
You're putting words in my mouth. I was stating that the 401 speeds would likely be higher now if they hadn't been lowered as a result of the oil crisis. They were lowered for that reason and never looked at seriously since. The speeds were gradually raised after the 401's construction to what the road could handle.
$1:
The drop in fatalities and major injuries is due to many factors, not just safer vehicles. For example, impaired driving carries far more serious consequences now than it did 40 years ago and is not as prevalent as it was then. Better road design (as mentioned above) is another. Improvements like is another high tension cable barrier.

Absolutely. I don't disagree at all. But to minimize the fact that a collision going 60-70 in the 70s had a high likelihood of killing you vs now you're walking away without a scratch is significant.

bootlegga bootlegga:
When Ontario (and the rest of Canada) follow practices like the ones in the above video, it MAY be possible to increase speed limits on SOME roads. Alberta paid some lip service to it a decade ago, but it's gone by the wayside as deficits have grown.

I don't see that happening any time soon, simply because of the huge cost of building safe roads and hiring enough police officers to enforce the rules properly. Tools to make drivers better, like retesting and driver education courses aren't overly popular either.

As I've already said, the 401 is already designed with a higher speed in mind.

I would 100% agree with more stringent drivers education and licensing.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:26 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
I understand what you're saying, but it isn't safer.

Speeding is a factor (often amongst other factors as well) in a quarter of all accidents in Canada. Based on Ontario stats from 2019, your province is doing better than most on speed related crashes (80 deaths out of 543, so about 15%).

Maybe it's just me, but 80 people is 80 people too many.

I'd be curious to find out what "speed related collisions" is. Is that saying, you were speeding so that's why you hit them? Because technically I was speeding when I t-boned a guy running a red light, but I had no shot of avoiding it. I time to yell "fuck" before I hit him and that was about it. So would that be classified as "speed related"? Even if only going 5 km over? How much over were those speed related deaths?


$1:
No, lots of Albertans speed on a daily basis. We issue over one million speeding tickets a year in this province, and that really only scratches the surface if my driving experience is any indication.
No I don't mean lots. Driving a few hundred KM on the 401 I will encounter 95% speeding 5% not.



$1:
This is the strawman that many speeders use. As the stats show, speeding is dangerous, period.
So is driving slower than everyone around you. They're both dangerous.

$1:
Still more strawman - and not a little unlike the old "If your friends were jumping of a bridge, would you' argument some parents used to use. :wink:

I agree that if you want to travel well under the posted speed on a highway, there are usually rural roads/side streets that a motorist should use.
I'm not saying you should do it because of some misguided peer pressure. I'm saying you should do it because it fucks traffic up and makes people do unsafe things. It's a response to observable human behaviour.




$1:
If you're in the right hand lane, you're not impeding anyone nor being uncourteous.
You'll impede semis. Which then WILL change lanes to go around you. There is little more unsafe than semi's changing lanes more than they need to in my eyes.
$1:
Everyone who is speeding are the uncourteous ones, because if they lose control of their vehicle for any reason, they can wind up seriously harming you or your passenger(s).
Do you actually think people lose control of their vehicle because they're going 110 or 120 instead of 100?



$1:
No, you're not, you're leading by example.
And example that will not be followed. To think otherwise is superbly naive.
$1:
If not following the speed limit is safe and courteous, why is ANY other law related to driving? Do you feel distracted driving is safe? It is responsible for roughly the same amount of accidents as speeding is, according to statistics. Same goes for impaired driving.

Do you support any of those other dangerous driving behaviours? My bet is that you don't, just like most Canadians do not.
You'd be correct. Because there are substantially less people that do either one of those things than speed. The fact that they are more or less equivalent shows how much more dangerous they are.

I would not be the least bit surprised if 90% of accidents within ontario include someone going over the speed limit at or shortly before the point of impact. I would not the say the same thing about distracted driving and impaired driving, not eve close.
$1:
I'll be honest when I say I don't understand that line of thinking coming from you, who seems to be by all accounts a pretty smart person.

I grew up being taught that you should go with the flow of traffic (providing the conditions supported it and you were comfortable). I have driven slower than the flow of traffic when driving a vehicle I was unfamiliar with, or in horrible conditions in a sports car, I was aware that driving at that speed would be dangerous. I see no reason to drive 100 when everyone else is going 120 on a bright sunny day in the middle of summer. Again, I've done it, and I've felt substantially more uncomfortable than when going with the flow. Because when you drive 100 in ontario on the 401, semis will sit 3 feet from your bumper. Every single person on the road will ride you, even sticking to the right lane the entire time. I'm not going to put myself in that position.


Last edited by Tricks on Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:33 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
The point being, increasing a speed limit is not done by the rule 'well, everyone speeds anyhow'.
Well.. except historically, it has been.

https://www.ite.org/technical-resources ... ed-limits/

The 85 percentile rule is a thing for a reason. I didn't just drum it up.

$1:
And you don't see how #1 and #2 are related? The posted speed LIMIT is the LIMIT.

That section spells it out. Slower traffic must use the right lane, faster traffic may use the left lane to pass.

No one is allowed to speed past the LIMIT. It says exactly what I think it does.
No, it doesn't. You quoted that law in response to this:
$1:
Drive in the GTA and tell me people should be charged for driving in the passing lane. You'd effectively make the traffic problem around Toronto 30% worse.


Nothing was said about speed. You can drive in the left lane going the speed limit and not be charged with that. There is nothing in the ontario HTA that I'm aware of that says the left lane MUST be kept clear for passing. What you cited does not say that. It merely says you can't use that lane if you're driving below, presumably, the speed limit.


$1:
Red herring. Safe driving is not cannabis smoking. In fact . . . ;)

To you it isn't. To someone else it may be comparable. You are not the paragon of what is considered for the public good.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24888
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:49 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
If it is a thing, then there is a limit to the amount of force a living organism can take before it is killed by the impact alone. Bullet, or blunt force. Vehicles get better with time, but there is always an upper limit.
Absolutely! There becomes a point where if you hit something at speed that stationary, it doesn't matter what the car does you're dead. I'd be genuinely curious what the stats are like for type of accident on the high way. Shouldn't have any head on at all. Rear collision and sideswipe I would assume are pretty much the only ones. and I'd assume those are also the lowest in terms of fatality.

Tricks Tricks:
It isn't airbags alone that make the difference. Vehicles are now designed so that the force of impact, instead of being directed at the occupants, now is redirected around the cabin and into the car. Certain areas are designed to be sacrificial and take the force instead of the people inside. But again, this has limits.

And I wasn't talking about them. ;)

Airbags were an example. To me you're talking about a head-on (or solid object) collision at speed. Those are going to be exceedingly rare on a highway.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.