Speed traps

[Slim]

Both infanteer and acorn have made some valid points.

However...

Those that drive in the slow lane creating a slow-moving obstruction for other motorists are not really the issue being debated (to my mind at least) A driver, whjo is aware of his/her surroundings and paying attention should be able to see these folks and adjust themselves accordingly.

Sometimes unexpected road hazards do crop up. (which is why we are taught to view the road as far ahead as possible)

The mathis really simple. The faster you go the less time there is to slow down and aviod the Whatever that wasn't there yeaterday but is now blacking the two right-hand lanes.

Lets face it. We all speed....And with the traffic flow is usually no problem. And there are those silly places out there that are mismarked...or set up for the town council to make money.

But its still speeding and, to a  degree, still dangerous.

Slim

 

[someguyincanada]

Just to let everyone know I'm really opposed to radar, photo, laser etc. If Ive come accross as being a jerk. Im sorry. I knew it would spark a bit of debate but not to the level that it is at now. Im looking at the thread now and am wondering where my head was the other day.  now wheres that lock button...

 

[Slim]

Just to let everyone know I'm really opposed to radar, photo, laser etc.

The devices that you mentioned above are pretty much the only way a police officer can tell whether you're exceeding the speed limit or not. It may seem silly to you right now, but it does save lives! And is the price we pay for driving irresponsibly. Personally I wish there were more police out there as they never seem to catch the truley bad offenders, which sometimes results in  very bad accidents.

As for locking the thread...I, for one, would like to leave it open for a bit yet as I believe that everyone needs a chance to say their piece...Good or bad. (just keep within the lanes!)

I appreciate your sentiment and the thoughts behind them though.

Slim

 

[Acorn]

Muskrat,

My home town has a law that states women't bathing costumes must cover them to the elbow and men must wear bathing costumes with tops that cover the chest. See you at the beach?

A law that is arbitary or which applies to a situation no longer valid should be struck down. An example is the 55Mph speed limit which was a failed measure to deal with the oil crisis of the mid-'70s. Most US jurisdictions have realized that and increased the speed limits to 65-75Mph.

Slim,

A couple of things about your last two posts:

Radar devices are not the only way a police officer can tell your speed, but they are the most reliable and best if it comes to court.

The pont I made below was the slow moving vehicle in the FAST lane.

As well, I'll offer this definition: there is "speeding" which is driving excessivly fast and recklessly, and there is "exceeding the speed limit" which is against the law. The former is dangerous, the latter merely expensive (and, I would add, unecessarily so). Exceeding the speed limit is only irresponsible when it creates a hazard in itself. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the majority of people are barely competent drivers in the first place, and many speed limits are beyond their capabilities.

Acorn

 

[muskrat89]

My home town has a law that states women't bathing costumes must cover them to the elbow and men must wear bathing costumes with tops that cover the chest. See you at the beach?

No, but thanks. The next time I choose to break a law because I think its silly, I'll use that one and speedi limits as justifications.

???

 

[Acorn]

These are rules (laws, even). Who gives anyone the right to ignore them, just because they think the rule is unfounded?

To me it reeks of situational ethics...  

See you at the beach then, in one of those lovely striped tank-tops and long trousers I guess. Situational ethics....

Acorn
(My emphasis added to the quoted passage)

 

[muskrat89]

See you at the beach then, in one of those lovely striped tank-tops and long trousers I guess

Believe me, that's the attire you would rather see me in anyway, if we are at the beach 

 

[Acorn]

One of the reasons you won't see me at the beach (I need the same attire).

Acorn

 

[Thompson_JM]

Im Willing to Bet any MSE-Op worth his trade badge (myself included), or MP will agree that speeding is a part of dangerous driving. speeding is not one in the same as aggressive driving, but at the same time it is still just as dangerous, since you never know what lies around the bend.

the truth of the matter is that if youre going to speed, at least be mature enough to admit you know its wrong and not try to justify it by using some comparison to swimsuit laws that were made eons ago. I do speed. I know its wrong and that i should not do it. I make every effort to avoid speeding by leaving earlier, taking less congested routes to ensure i can get from A to B in a timely and leasurely manner. sometimes its unavoidable. but even there, if youre going to speed use some common sense... its never safe to go 140-160 on any highway. im sure weve all done it. but the fact still remains that it is unsafe.

its late, im tired and starting to rant, so i'll end this now.

If youre going to speed, dont be an idiot about it, and dont blame the cops for trying to stop you... remember... it may be your wife, husband, son, daughter, etc.. who would have been killed by that speeder had the cops not stopped him/her....

do i like speed traps, not particularly... i was pulled over last november in Missisauga by a Peel Regional Marine Unit van that was done up to look a fair bit like a construction van.. ladder rack and PVC Pipe running down the center and everything.

was it a dirty trick?
yeah, a little...

If i wasnt speeding would i have been pulled over?
No...

So there ya go. Had i not been Breaking the law i wouldnt have had a problem.. it was my own damned fault....

to those of you who blame the cops, I hope you dont take that attitude into your military job.. since last i checked you were supposed to learn that you are responsable for your own actions as part of your basic training....

 

[DogOfWar]

I will admit there are idiots on the road, but I look at it this way, who is going to be involved in a accident more, a corvette or a firefly.... think about it...

Most running radar are"special constables" appointed with police power only to enforce Traffic concerns.
The Calgary City Police did a study that showed that giving someone a ticket is NO MORE effective then giving them a warning. "throwing the book at them" accomplishes nothing. They need to start suspending liscences. Its been proven time and again that tickets accomplish nothing.


Im not particularly fond of photo radar. Ive gotten boned. Paid it and moved on. I dont feel that a tag in the mail is as effective as a conversation with 'the fuzz'. Although Im not a policy writer......

When I took my Radar/Laser course is St.Paul with the Mounties they showed us fatal crash statistics. Up to about 100km's the survival rate stays the same- between 100 and 120 the survival rate drops to almost nil (lower chance= high speed)
I wish I still had my course notes.....

 

[Infanteer]

but at the same time it is still just as dangerous, since you never know what lies around the bend.

Just plain driving around is dangerous.   A kid was killed in my town a while back when he was going 80 in a little car and nailed a moose which went through the windshield and crushed him.

People here are saying speed kills in a manner that suggests that the entire thing could have been avoided if the person was obeying the sign.   Perhaps the lady who drove off the road died because she wasn't paying attention - which meant she probably wasn't aware of her speed or the fact that she was veering off into the ditch.   The semi-truck driver - was his accident because he was speeding, or was it because he falsified his logbook and was on his 18th hour of driving, unaware that he was going 130 and that there was a minivan infront of him?   The fact of the matter is that I'm willing to bet that most of the knotheads that off themselves on the freeway would have probably got into the accident if they were going 90KM/H.   Most often, it is sheer idiocy (or, like the moose, bad luck) that causes accidents, regardless of their velocity.

Look, I'm not arguing against tickets - it is the law and Law Enforcement Officers are doing their job when they give them out.   When I get caught speeding, I take responsibility for my actions and pay my fine.   I usually kid around with the officers and wish them a good day.   I'm not here to rail against speed limits - they serve a function.   Street racing, speeding through inhabited areas, blowing lights/signs and generally driving recklessly are all foolhardy and people deserve to get nailed.

I put my response up because people on the board were beginning to pile on to the notion that if you're going 120 km/h then you are a bloodthirsty, immoral twit.   There are so many variables involved with MVA, and pinning it all on speed everytime is a bit over the top, IMHO.   I'm not sure it's worthwhile zapping me for driving 125 through Manning Provincial Park when I'm 75km from civilization in any direction.

Next up, seatbelts fines.... ^-^

 

[old medic]

Just a point of clarification Acorn.  Announcing the location of speed traps is illlegal in most provinces and territories.
It is only legal in four as far as I know.

Speed does kill. The biggest factor in an accident is speed. The faster your going, the more kinetic energy there is to be absorbed
by the human body. The calculation for that is (1/2 mass x velocity squared).

Lets say we had two Milcots involved in two traffic accidents.
Take the curb weight of the Milcot: 3401 kg. half of that (let's round down) is 1700.

so at:
            80 kph  1700 x (80 x 80) = 10 880 000
          120 kph  1700 x (120 x 120) = 24 480 000

The biggest factor is speed.  Even though it's only 50% faster, The kinetic energy that is going to demolish the vehicles
is 125% greater in the faster vehicle.

All vehicles can only absorb so much damage. The excess energy is absorbed by the human body. The more energy
you have to absorb, the greater chance of being killed.

Speed does kill, it kills every day.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html#c2

If this looks familiar to anyone, it's also how you calculate ballistic wound damage.  Small, very fast round does more
tissue damage than a big slow round.



<edit: fixed a typo>

 

[Infanteer]

I have no disagreement that "speed kills" - you can't argue with plain physics.

However, I would argue that speed isn't necessarily the cause of accidents (just as guns don't kill people   ^-^).   As I've admitted, I routinely float over the posted speed limit on highways/freeways and I haven't killed myself; I ensure that the vehicle is good to go, that I'm buckled up, that I'm physically and mentally prepared to drive.   Once you hit the highway, 10 million or 24 million joules of energy is going to suck either way (this is the inherent risk in driving period).  

The higher speed limits seem to be subjective statements of "safe", as other jurisdictions seem fine with going with higher/lower numbers or with none at all - for example, the US Interstates are all rated at 70m/h, which is faster than any posted speed limit in Canada - is driving in Canada inherently more dangerous, requiring a lower speed limit?

Where is this going?   I'm not sure, just stirring the pot as I'm not sure that tickets or speed limits are going to save good drivers or bad drivers from themselves on the highways and biways of Canada.   Speed is the cause of death, but the crux is in why the person ended up getting into an accident in the first place; reaction times certainly have a role to play in this discussion, but what is the best gage of reaction and driving abilities (I feel that it may lie in what the State of Montana has deemed as Reasonable and Prudent).   Like firearms, driving requires responsibilty in order to ensure that the pure physics doesn't cause death and destruction and I don't believe that going over some of the speed limits we see around Canada constitutes irresponsiblity.   Perhaps, as someone mentioned above, the target should be not the speed, but the stupid drivers who are liable to cause an accident on the freeway at 140km/h or downtown at 30km/h.

 

[Acorn]

Just a point of clarification Acorn.   Announcing the location of speed traps is illlegal in most provinces and territories.
It is only legal in four as far as I know.

I'll bow to you on this. I've lived in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario. I recall it being legal in Alberta and Ontario, but my memory of Quebec is dim. I guess it would behoove anyone posting the location of speed traps on the Internet to consider that he or she might be performing an illegal act.

Speed does kill. The biggest factor in an accident is speed. The faster your going, the more kinetic energy there is to be absorbed
by the human body. The calculation for that is (1/2 mass x velocity squared).

I understand the physics of it, but if "speed kills", I submit many posting here would be dead, including yourself (ever exceeded the posted speed limit in an ambulance?) "Speed kills" is a simple slogan, propaganda in fact. What kills is the impact, is it not? Yes, higher speed on impact significantly increases the chance of death, but it does not cause death.

If the posted speed limit is 100Kph (typical 4-6 lane highway speed in Canada) why is 120 more dangerous? The chance of surviving an accident is based on the energy at impact, as you say, but the safety features of the vehicle (and whether the occupants are using them) is also a significant factor. In certain types of collisions the vehicle's features are more of a factor than the speed at impact (putting radically high speeds at the outside of the bell curve). Many modern vehicles, with a properly positioned, seat-belted driver, can sustain a head-on impact with another vehicle at a combined speed of 160kph and the driver will survive (albeit not without injury.) A friend of mine, driving an Alfa Romeo sports car, blew a tire at 140Kph (this was in Europe, and a legal speed). The car flipped a number of times and landed in the oncoming lanes - fortunately no other vehicle was involved (late at night). The driver walked away with seat-belt burns. Yes, it could have been much worse, even fatal, but it was the failure of a vehicle part that cause the accident, not the speed.

Most accidents are caused by the interface between the brain and the controls. If speed were the killer there wouldn't be many living race-car drivers. The key is that the driver should know his/her limits, the limits of the vehicle and drive to conditions. I'm sure if you objectively examined every fatal accident you attended youd realize that, while speed was a factor, it was a symptom of reckess driving, and not the cause in itself.

Acorn

 

[Acorn]

Im Willing to Bet any MSE-Op worth his trade badge (myself included), or MP will agree that speeding is a part of dangerous driving. speeding is not one in the same as aggressive driving, but at the same time it is still just as dangerous, since you never know what lies around the bend.

Really? So, on a straight, flat four lane highway with vis of 2 km and a speed limit of 100Kph "you never know what's round the bend."

the truth of the matter is that if youre going to speed, at least be mature enough to admit you know its wrong and not try to justify it by using some comparison to swimsuit laws that were made eons ago.

Maybe when you have some more experience son, you'll understand the analogy of the swimsuit thing. Till then, consider any accusations of immaturity carefully before you sling them around (maybe get some sleep - it may help your reasoning ability).

Take another look at what has been written. Consider it carefully, then if you want to make accusations that individuals are trying to justify lawbreaking make them pointed at those individuals so they can put you in your place.

its never safe to go 140-160 on any highway.

Ye'd better try telling that to the Germans.

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

Since this is now an interesting political discussion about the law, it goes into the Politics section.

 

[Thompson_JM]

Really? So, on a straight, flat four lane highway with vis of 2 km and a speed limit of 100Kph "you never know what's round the bend."

There are always going to be other circumstances surrounding a crash, however why add speed to the equation? and no you still dont know what could happen... I guess i should have explained in my last statement how road and traffic conditions factor into not knowing what is around the bend.... If its a beautiful sunny day, and your driving accross the praries, then yeah, i can see how you arnt going to be too worried about anything when youre the only car for miles.... but Im speaking from experiance on ontario highways. even on a good day on the 401 you still dont know if that truck in front of you is going to loose a tire, or if the guy talking on his cell phone is going to drift over into your lane, or the kid beside you spills his coffee everywhere by accident and swerves.   driving the limit isnt just about your abilities, its about taking into account the abilities of the drivers around you. thats what i mean by you dont know whats round the bend. I mean that you cant always predict what will happen 100m down the road.

Maybe when you have some more experience son, you'll understand the analogy of the swimsuit thing. Till then, consider any accusations of immaturity carefully before you sling them around (maybe get some sleep - it may help your reasoning ability).

Take another look at what has been written. Consider it carefully, then if you want to make accusations that individuals are trying to justify lawbreaking make them pointed at those individuals so they can put you in your place.

Point Taken. it was a long day and i was a little tired. i guess what i wanted to write was more along the lines of, if we up the limit, does it mean people will speed faster? their reasoning being "well, now that the limit is 110 or 120 then i know i can do 140 before i get pulled over..."  

Ye'd better try telling that to the Germans

Last I heard most of the MVC's on the Autobahn were fatalities.


more then that though. it seems from what ive read, that the average driver on the Autobahn is more considerate then the average north american, (ontario) driver.  

with all due respect Acorn, I didnt mean to challenge your experiance, but as i said ealier, Im willing to bet there are not alot of professional drivers who are going to advocate that its ok to speed.

Perhaps, as someone mentioned above, the target should be not the speed, but the stupid drivers who are liable to cause an accident on the freeway at 140km/h or downtown at 30km/h.

I'll agree with this. but the question is how do we do it?

rather, how do we curb agressive drivers?

 

[medicineman]

the reason i posted the links was cause i feel that the police service could be better serving the public by stopping crime in the inner city then them sitting in a ford windstar van drinking a hot steamy cup of timmy ho's nailing people doing 60 in a 50 zone. Im sorry if I offend people with the way I think. but i can think of better ways to spend tax payer money.

I take it you'd rather that the money go to the health care expenses and long term care bills of some poor slob who gets hit by someone speeding?

MM

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Speeding" is whatever exceeds the driver's ability to deal with current conditions (road, weather, vehicle, driver, etc).

Deceleration - too much, too soon - is what kills.

 

[Acorn]

There are always going to be other circumstances surrounding a crash, however why add speed to the equation? and no you still dont know what could happen... I guess i should have explained in my last statement how road and traffic conditions factor into not knowing what is around the bend.... If its a beautiful sunny day, and your driving accross the praries, then yeah, i can see how you arnt going to be too worried about anything when youre the only car for miles.... but Im speaking from experiance on ontario highways. even on a good day on the 401 you still dont know if that truck in front of you is going to loose a tire, or if the guy talking on his cell phone is going to drift over into your lane, or the kid beside you spills his coffee everywhere by accident and swerves.   driving the limit isnt just about your abilities, its about taking into account the abilities of the drivers around you. thats what i mean by you dont know whats round the bend. I mean that you cant always predict what will happen 100m down the road.

I know that, as do most experienced drivers. Some of us learned the hard way, buy were fortunate enough to only suffer in the wallet. A pointed out above, the laws of physics mean that speed is a major factor in the consequences of an accident, but I would argue that speed is NOT the cause. Accidents are caused by drivers who fail to pay attention, fail to drive to the conditions, fail to realize that their 1996 Honda Civic is not a BMW M3, or generally drive recklessly.

Point Taken. it was a long day and i was a little tired. i guess what i wanted to write was more along the lines of, if we up the limit, does it mean people will speed faster? their reasoning being "well, now that the limit is 110 or 120 then i know i can do 140 before i get pulled over..."  

That will always be a problem, but is 20 Kph over the limit truly the issue? Other than a ticket the consequences are nil - unless that speed is not appropriate to the conditions.

Last I heard most of the MVC's on the Autobahn were fatalities.

I'm not sure what the statistics are. However, with the arguments I've seen made by some here, one should conclude that ALL autobahn traffic accidents result in fatalities. That is clearly not the case. I recall seeing a clip sent to me on the Internet of a Porsche single-vehicle accident that looked like a disaster. The car was clipping along at greater than 100Kph and the driver lost control, the car flipped several times, shedding body panels. A few seconds after the wreck came to rest, the driver kicked himself free and walked away. That's German engineering - they build their cars to deal with Autobahn accidents. Most modern cars built in North America and Japan are also built with excellent safety features.

more then that though. it seems from what ive read, that the average driver on the Autobahn is more considerate then the average north american, (ontario) driver.  

It's not as good as it used to be, but they have LAWS that better regulate drivers (like the "drive on the right" law I mentioned upstream).

with all due respect Acorn, I didnt mean to challenge your experience, but as i said ealier, Im willing to bet there are not alot of professional drivers who are going to advocate that its ok to speed.

With all respect to your profession, I think you may be a bit optomistic. Drive any Ontario highway and clock the trucks - professional drivers - who routinely exceed the posted speed limits.

We curb agressive/incompetent drivers by applying legal sanctions to the bad habits - as well as training future drives in how to drive, as opposed to how to pass the driver's exam. Enforce "drive right" and reckless driving regulations.

Unfortunately, speed violations are:

a. easy to track (radar/ladar/photo radar)

b. major cash providers to municipalities (it is known that many municipalities actually count fine proceeds in their annual budgets)

Acorn