CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:43 am
 


Tricks Tricks:
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.


I didn't think you made it up. But did you read some of those other links? Third paragraph, first link:

$1:
More than 9,000 deaths — 26 percent of all crash fatalities — occurred in speed-related crashes in 2019. High speeds make a crash more likely because it takes longer to stop or slow down. They also make collisions more deadly because crash energy increases exponentially as speeds go up.

Raising speed limits leads to more deaths. People often drive faster than the speed limit, and if the limit is raised they will go faster still. Research shows that when speed limits are raised, speeds go up, as do fatal crashes.

Enforcement of speed limits helps keep speeds down. Traditional enforcement, which relies on police officers to measure speed with radar or other technology, has been joined recently by speed cameras. Speed cameras have been shown to reduce speeds and crashes.


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

Tricks Tricks:
$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.


Read it again. Nothing is written about speed, because there are posted signs limiting the maximum speed you can travel, and is in another statute. That is understood as law. But the important parts are the exceptions:

$1:
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.


Translation - you must drive in the right lane.

$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;


Translation - You can use the left lane for passing only.

And it's also not just my opinion.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1863905/onta ... ing-lanes/

I gave you the link to the statutes so you could keep reading, to the next one:

$1:
148 (1) Every person in charge of a vehicle on a highway meeting another vehicle shall turn out to the right from the centre of the roadway, allowing the other vehicle one-half of the roadway free

Vehicles or equestrians overtaken

(2) Every person in charge of a vehicle or on horseback on a highway who is overtaken by a vehicle or equestrian travelling at a greater speed shall turn out to the right and allow the overtaking vehicle or equestrian to pass.


https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h08#BK250

Seems pretty clear. The left lane is for passing. The right is for driving.

Tricks Tricks:
$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.


Never claimed to be. But I do have some experience in the operation of a motor vehicle at speeds is it not designed for, and operating on surfaces that are designed for speed and how to design them for speed. And what happens if they are not designed properly.

The argument you are using implies one case justifies the other. Just because cannabis was legalized does not mean speeding will be, or has to be. They aren't related. Speeding just isn't enforced to the degree it should be, because of lack of funding for police.

You can see this in the prevalence of photo-radar, where the only consequence of your actions is monetary.

In my youth, I once got 3 speeding tickets in 3 provinces on the same day. I maxed out at 13 of 15 demerit points. One more ticket would cost me my license, and I got a letter from the province to that effect. That changed my driving habits very quickly.

Having cops pull people over emphasizes the point that speeding is unacceptable.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:52 am
 


Tricks Tricks:
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.


Head on collisions are rare on a divided highway. On an undivided highway, they are usually corner to corner. Those are actually worse, because only part of the energy is used in the collision. The vehicles are then left with a lot of energy, and will spin, flip or hit obstacles. Or even make their way back into traffic.

Tricks Tricks:
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.


True, but they are more common in speed related accidents where people run yellow or red lights. You get a lot of people clearing the intersection turning left and getting hit by someone who floors it to make the yellow before their picture is taken.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:47 pm
 


And another thing, why can't Ontarians keep the wheels attached to their cars? Every couple months I read stories where some random wheel takes out a driver going the opposite direction. Never seems to happen anywhere else.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 8:41 am
 


Not that it will change most people's minds, but here are some very interesting statistics about speeding...


$1:
If you’re driving at 90 km/h, it will take you 83 metres to stop – that’s your reaction time plus your braking distance, Robertson said.

But at 130 km/h, you need 150 metres. That’s longer than a football field.


...

For example, there’s the idea that it’s safer to drive the same speed as the traffic around you, even if everyone else speeding. So, the thinking goes, if you’re driving 110 km/h and the cars around you are going 130 km/h, it’s safer for everyone if you speed up.

But that’s not true – even if everyone else is speeding, it’s still safer to go the speed limit because you have more time to react to other drivers and stop, Robertson said.

...


“It’s basic physics – the crash energy increases exponentially with the speed of the impact,” said Joe Young, spokesman for the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS). “Driving just a little bit faster makes a crash more likely and makes that crash more severe.”
...

When British Columbia hiked speed limits to 120 km/h on some highways in 2014, the number of fatal crashes doubled.


You can read the entire article here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/c ... -big-deal/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21108
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 8:54 am
 


They have a variable speed limit on the Coquihalla now, which is nice. The posted speed limit was 120 there. That's for a nice summer daytime drive. But you get these dummys who think they have to go 120 minimum regardless of conditions--winter, snowing, freezing, slippery, dark. So the variable speed is nice because some people are just too ignorant to slow down to conditions on the road.


Sure increasing speed limits results in more casualties. If you want no casualties then simply set the speed limit to zero. Problem solved right?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 9:01 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Sure increasing speed limits results in more casualties. If you want no casualties then simply set the speed limit to zero. Problem solved right?


Ahh, nothing like tossing a reductio ad absurdum out there for everyone's enjoyment. :lol:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21108
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 9:21 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Sure increasing speed limits results in more casualties. If you want no casualties then simply set the speed limit to zero. Problem solved right?


Ahh, nothing like tossing a reductio ad absurdum out there for everyone's enjoyment. :lol:


A reductio ad absurdum argument is logically sound. And when an argument is framed in the context of single dependent/independent variable relationship (higher speeds = more casualties), then it is perfectly appropriate to use.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 9:32 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Sure increasing speed limits results in more casualties. If you want no casualties then simply set the speed limit to zero. Problem solved right?


Ahh, nothing like tossing a reductio ad absurdum out there for everyone's enjoyment. :lol:


A reductio ad absurdum argument is logically sound. And when an argument is framed in the context of single dependent/independent variable relationship (higher speeds = more casualties), then it is perfectly appropriate to use.


But higher speed = more casualties is Physics, not absurdity. Kinetic Energy is half the mass, but the square of the speed.

A 2000kg SUV at 110km/h has the same kinetic energy as heavy truck (5000kg) travelling at 50km/h. Crashing the heavy truck may result in minor injuries, crashing the SUV may result in deaths.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21108
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 9:58 am
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:
But higher speed = more casualties is Physics, not absurdity. Kinetic Energy is half the mass, but the square of the speed.

A 2000kg SUV at 110km/h has the same kinetic energy as heavy truck (5000kg) travelling at 50km/h. Crashing the heavy truck may result in minor injuries, crashing the SUV may result in deaths.


It's not a physics problem. It's a sociological one. Since the speed limit is not zero, then we are, as a society, accepting x amount of deaths per year. What is the appropriate value of x?

Many variables are at play. Environmentalists, for example, encouraged the use of small cars that required less gasoline. But small cars are inherently more deadly than large ones.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 10:16 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Sure increasing speed limits results in more casualties. If you want no casualties then simply set the speed limit to zero. Problem solved right?


Ahh, nothing like tossing a reductio ad absurdum out there for everyone's enjoyment. :lol:


A reductio ad absurdum argument is logically sound. And when an argument is framed in the context of single dependent/independent variable relationship (higher speeds = more casualties), then it is perfectly appropriate to use.


Just because it's logically sound, doesn't mean it is worthwhile. You can make all of logical arguments that are still have terrible social, economic, human costs, but that doesn't make them good decision making (like the LWNJs who think we should get rid of 90% of humans to stop climate change).

People need to drive their vehicles for all sorts of reasons (work, commuting, travel, etc.) and banning their use - which is what a speed limit of zero is - would critically impact society with all sorts of social and economic costs.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21935
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 10:22 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
But higher speed = more casualties is Physics, not absurdity. Kinetic Energy is half the mass, but the square of the speed.

A 2000kg SUV at 110km/h has the same kinetic energy as heavy truck (5000kg) travelling at 50km/h. Crashing the heavy truck may result in minor injuries, crashing the SUV may result in deaths.


It's not a physics problem. It's a sociological one. Since the speed limit is not zero, then we are, as a society, accepting x amount of deaths per year. What is the appropriate value of x?

Many variables are at play. Environmentalists, for example, encouraged the use of small cars that required less gasoline. But small cars are inherently more deadly than large ones.


Actually, the most common type of vehicle involved in fatal crashes are often pick-up trucks, not small sedans. And the likelihood of you dying in a crash with semi-truck jumps to dramatically because of their size, weight and speed.

Physics is definitely part of the problem, whether or not people understand that.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 10:27 am
 


Zipperfish Zipperfish:
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
But higher speed = more casualties is Physics, not absurdity. Kinetic Energy is half the mass, but the square of the speed.

A 2000kg SUV at 110km/h has the same kinetic energy as heavy truck (5000kg) travelling at 50km/h. Crashing the heavy truck may result in minor injuries, crashing the SUV may result in deaths.


It's not a physics problem. It's a sociological one. Since the speed limit is not zero, then we are, as a society, accepting x amount of deaths per year. What is the appropriate value of x?


Its multi-faceted. Vehicles have been heavily regulated as far as fuel economy and safety over the last 100 years. We've gone from where a low speed crash could impale you through the chest on the steering column, or eject you from the vehicle; to where a head on crash at highway speed is marginally survivable.

But we know there will never be zero driving related deaths so long as speeds exceed the ability of materials and construction techniques to survive a crash, and people wouldn't put up with the kind of restrictions needed to get to zero fatalities.

But Kinetic Energy is still the ultimate challenge, and it's not an absurd question to ask if maximum speeds are appropriate speeds.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Many variables are at play. Environmentalists, for example, encouraged the use of small cars that required less gasoline. But small cars are inherently more deadly than large ones.


And larger vehicles are not crash tested, nor regulated in a dissimilar crash scenario, or vehicle/pedestrian collissions. And even in smaller cars, people can choose to disobey the speed limits. Kinetic energy is still the decider when an SUV takes out a Smart Car.

That's another question society will have to ask, if having large vehicles and small vehicles on the same roads and the resulting crashes are acceptable losses.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21108
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 11:51 am
 


I imagine the landscape will change a lot in the next couple of decades. AI will likely be managing most of the driving by then, and that in itself will likely have profound impacts on vehicle design, including safety design.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 40075
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 11:55 am
 


Don't even get me started. :twisted:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019 ... e-learning


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21108
PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2021 1:01 pm
 


DrCaleb DrCaleb:


Interesting!


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



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CDN_PATRIOT and 24 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.