ICBC, excessive speeding, 7day impoundment questions? anyone know?

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

you're taking my jab waaaaayy too seriously, mang

I don't think anyone is taking you seriously at all, let alone way too.

Your posts are mainly incomprehensible.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Suberman

I don't think anyone is taking you seriously at all, let alone way too.

Your posts are mainly incomprehensible.

your jabs are 2/10 at best.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by Suberman

I think its the accident that causes the change in speed but, point taken nonetheless.

I suppose, pedantically, the change in speed IS the accident.

Studies of motor vehicle collisions take into account many factors , but the bottom line is - if everyone does the same speed, whether it be 15 kmh or 150 kmh , collision stats go way down.

Some smaller factors that affect that conclusion would be snow , following to close , and not having enough distance to stop , etc.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

Why would you not contest it? I contest EVERY ticket whether I'm guilty or not."


a capitalized EVERY is a far cry from "1 infraction 5 years"

you wrote the words and they were interpreted as those of an asshole, what' did you expect?

I'm 30 with 2 young kids. Considering that most people's insurance drops like a rock at age 25 and upon marriage I'll leave it to your self-assessed keen intellect determine when the bulk of my traffic infractions took place. And even then, there weren't that many. Still, the severity of traffic infractions committed versus those actually cited would make any rational person contest damn near every ticket they got.

You want to improve drivers? Ticket the shit that matters. Not people driving 10 MPH over the speed limit. A recent study showed over a third of all accidents are caused by simply failing to signal. Cell phones/texting are making roads gravely hazardous to everyone's health (pedestrians included), considering the relative impairment is worse than driving drunk in most cases. Saying speed is a factor in X number of accidents simply means that person was travelling over the speed limit, not that they were doing so unsafely. There's an enormous difference between speed causing accidents and being a factor. Any civil engineer involved in road design will tell you that.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

your jabs are 2/10 at best.

How would you know?

Black knight skit comes to mind (Holy Grail for those under 50).

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

...

we're talking about two things here

i'm sticking it to you for being a typical poster child for american "freedom of whatever", ie, your general attitude towards laws as social constructs and that everyone should contest any and all charges against them regardless if they're actually guilty of them simply because they can.

you on the other hand keep trying to dodge the subject by showing us how much of a progressive you are and what sort of laws should be enacted to make this world a better place.

tell me this, why bother making better laws if blokes like you are just gonna fight them anyway?

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Suberman

How would you know?

Black knight skit comes to mind (Holy Grail for those under 50).

I have a power level scouter here that goes up to 9000 andyou’re not reading very high on it. (Dragon Ball for those over 50)

[protpibe]

This would of been a lot more entertaining if the OP posted after he was called out for wrapping his 1st 86 around a tree.

It's great that the OP isn't contesting the fact that speeding is wrong and he's willing to pay the ticket, but why the confusion about why there are such harsh penalties on top of that for EXCESSIVE speeding? Those minor penalties (just a ticket) are for people who speed, not for people who excessively speed. That's why the two are differentiated. If you were doing 120 in a 100, you would get a ticket. If you do 150 in a 100, the penalty will be that much more harsh. I honestly hope the penalty fits the crime and you have to pay a price much stiffer than just a few $, not because I'm a sadistic prick, but because the pain of losing your license will cause may save you from killing yourself or someone else when you finally are able to drive again.

With the previous accident and now this ticket, I think ICBC would be crazy not to suspend your license for a long time.

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Speeding is in no way comparable to running a red light.

There is actually no properly done scientific study that proves any cause and effect between speeding and accident rates.

People who can't drive properly are afraid of speed. That's the majority of drivers. They shouldn't speed, but then again they really shouldn't be driving either.

Crashing at high speeds hurts a lot and makes a lot of noise. People readily believe that speeding is dangerous. It is but only if you hit something.

What people utterly fail to comprehend is that speed does NOT cause accidents.

If speed were a causative factor we should all creep around at 5 mph. The facts are that speed is attributed as a causative factor by untrained police officers attending accident scenes ticking the first available box. What they should tick is the box entitled "driver error" only there isn't one.

Are you suggesting that driving at higher speeds isn't any more dangerous than driving at a slower speed?

It sounds like it, but that's ridiculous right? Nobody with half a brain would believe that, I'm sure I just misunderstood your post.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by mrceltic

Are you suggesting that driving at higher speeds isn't any more dangerous than driving at a slower speed?

It sounds like it, but that's ridiculous right? Nobody with half a brain would believe that, I'm sure I just misunderstood your post.

Driving at higher speeds is only more dangerous when other traffic is driving at lower speeds.

All traffic at 10 m.p.h. is as safe as all traffic at 100 m.p.h.

The change in speed is what causes collisions. That change is caused by many factors - driver error,road condition hazards,mechanical failure etc.

Statistical analysis has always revealed that conclusion.

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by RFB

Driving at higher speeds is only more dangerous when other traffic is driving at lower speeds.

All traffic at 10 m.p.h. is as safe as all traffic at 100 m.p.h.

The change in speed is what causes collisions. That change is caused by many factors - driver error,road condition hazards,mechanical failure etc.

Statistical analysis has always revealed that conclusion.

Yes, if all traffic is travelling in a straight line, moving at the same speed, with no cross traffic, then I can see how 10mph = 100mph.

But in the real world there ARE cars travelling at different speeds, turns and bumps in the road, cross traffic, wet patches and kids chasing balls into the street. And while they may be the "cause" of an accident, there is no arguing that travelling at higher speeds makes cornering/avoiding harder and more dangerous, increases braking distance and reducing the time a driver has to react before reaching the point of impact.

Arguing any different is putting semantics before common sense and real world applications.

[tiz22]

Wow this thread is one of funniest I've read in a while...

To the OP --> Anyone who crashes a car, buys a replacement and gets a 50+ over speeding ticket....is a dumbass - sorry but you didn't learn your lesson so now let's hope you did

As for the rest of the discussion...You should DEFINITELY fight every ticket you get that includes points...I have had about 6-7 tickets in my 10 years of driving and EVERY SINGLE ONE has been reduced or eliminated completely...Say what you will but clearly judges disagree that fighting is a "waste of time". If we were wasting tax payers dollars they would not comply so frequently.

They want your money. Plain and simple.

Proof? I got an AMBER LIGHT ticket in Etobicoke while going to get a pizza...I was driving my Mazda3 (stock) and the officer said he heard me rev up to make the light with his windows up...For all of you who don't know an amber light ticket is EXACTLY the same as a red light ticket in terms of points (why? who knows..)
When I went to fight it, I barely said two words before the judge wiped it clean and said have a nice day....To me, that's the judge saying "You're right - this was a stupid ticket in the first place, you put in the time/money to fight it so you win"

The other thing to do - regarless of where you live...Think of the #1 spot that police camp out to get speeders...Now think about how many accidents you have seen in that spot...My guess is - not many. If police were truly trying to prevent accidents, they would sit in spots where accident rates are high and ticket the "speeders" (if that's whats truly causing the accidents)... In my city, they sit around a corner of a 50km/h zone as people get off the hwy....Everyone has been travelling 100-120+ on the hwy and tend to go a little faster because it's a 4-lane 50km zone...Haven't seen an accident there in 24 years yet they sit there everyyyyy month

[Suberman]

Police usually try to put speed traps where it is safe to speed. That way they fill their quota more quickly and can go for coffee and a donut for the remainder if their shift. Most officers know speed enforcement is about raising money and not about safety.

The 85th percentile drive at a safe speed. On most modern highways this is now speeding. Speed limits haven't changed for over 50 years. Er, cars have. Modern cars stop waaaay shorter than cars driven when speed limits were first posted. Just for example.

Running a red light is just as dangerous now as it was fifty years ago. Speeding just isn't.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by mrceltic

Yes, if all traffic is travelling in a straight line, moving at the same speed, with no cross traffic, then I can see how 10mph = 100mph.

But in the real world there ARE cars travelling at different speeds, turns and bumps in the road, cross traffic, wet patches and kids chasing balls into the street. And while they may be the "cause" of an accident, there is no arguing that travelling at higher speeds makes cornering/avoiding harder and more dangerous, increases braking distance and reducing the time a driver has to react before reaching the point of impact.

Arguing any different is putting semantics before common sense and real world applications.

Not semantics. Facts. Traffic safety engineers have known about this for years.

Study after study shows the validity of the 85 th percentile rule. It works. In fact it is the only engineering based measure of a safe speed limit. No modern highway has it's posted limit set in this way or speed limits would be closer to 150 km/hr (which is what British drivers do in their 115 km/hr zones. )

And just btw, all of your arguments are just arguments in favour of driving more slowly. The slower the better is the fundamental assumption. Well duh, let's all drive at 5 km/hr then, if we are serious about speeding.

Its irrational to say that driving is dangerous and therefore driving faster is more dangerous. Driving as fast as possible is the social objective otherwise don't drive at all.