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

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Bogus, neither driver has any better or worse chance of avoiding the moose. The better driver will realize the highest probability action is evasion and aim for the moose's ass. Moose don't walk backwards.

Higher speed gives you more options. Taking speed off is much quicker than accelerating so faster speeds give you more options.

The driver at the higher speed got there before the moose walked into the road.

More options like?

Less reaction time. Higher braking distance. Most kinetic energy to dissipate upon impact (ie: more hurt for you!)...

How on earth can you justify this?

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Frost

More options like?

Less reaction time. Higher braking distance. Most kinetic energy to dissipate upon impact (ie: more hurt for you!)...

How on earth can you justify this?

Like avoiding the moose. I don't know how many animal strikes you've missed but if you think brakes are useful if an animal walks (or more likely jumps or runs) out in front of you then an animal strike us in your future. Mmmmm good, grilled venison.

The brakes aren't going to help you at all. The authorities that think lower speed limits reduce animal strikes have no evidence to support their crazy ideas. Your only real maneuver is some kind of avoidance. For those occasions where brakes might help it is important to realize that you can change your speed much more effectively with the brakes than the accelerator. If you needed to be going faster to avoid the strike then unless you are already going fast you're hooped. Sometimes slow isn't safe. Avoiding animals leaping into the road requires a high level of skill and situational awareness.

So far my score is a perfect zero strikes. In 40 plus years.

Over to you slo boy.

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

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.

I know what you are saying here. The number of times I've witness or been involved in near missed because other drivers don't use common courtesy in signally, not checking blind spots, not paying attention in general really blows my mind. Cops really should be giving tickets too all these people, and those fines should be huge.

But you know what? I assume all those people are assholes like you, and they would just go to court and contest it. Then you know what? It's the cops word against the defendant, and on the balance of probabilities, and in the courts eye, if it's a first offense, or a long time since the last, the court will side with the defendant, so why ticket in the first place? At least with a radar detector, the cop has a way of proving that you were speeding, and nail you to the wall.

There are SOOOOOOOO many people in this thread using 'Any civil engineer will tell you... blah blah blah, that proves that speed, is not the cause of accidents'

I have news for everybody, I studied Civil Engineering, I studied highway design, road design, bridge design, I have my 48mo of experience, and well on my way to acquiring my P. Eng. You guys are f-ing idiots.

Speed does kill, you know why we don't have traffic light on highways? Because nobody could stop in time. You know why hwys have 3.7m wide lanes, because that is what people need to feel comfortable, and to be able to have a chance to stay in their lanes. You know why highways, have long curves with good sight lines, it's so that people have a chance to slow down in time if there is a crash ahead.

I can tell you for 100% certain even 10-20km over the speed severely compromises your ability to stop in time in case there is a problem ahead. We design 400 series highways for 130km/h. Beyond that speed, there are vehicles on the road that will have major issues stopping in time. Of course, in ideal conditions, high performance vehicles have a performance advantage. But I can also tell you that we use a formula that is quite similar to the commonly know

E = 1/2mv^2 which describes the amount of energy in a system. Even small increases in speed greatly increase the amount of energy that is required to be dissipated by your braking systems, and that the traction of your vehicle is severely compromised. And emergency braking maneuver could easily brake a tire loose of its traction; your tires now go from a static friction (no slipping), to a dynamic friction regime, and dynamic friction at high speeds is a fraction of static friction.

Ask Ayrton Senna or any number of motor sport racers why shit hit the fan once they lost that initial traction at high speed.

So for all of you arm chair 'engineers' saying 'any civil engineer...' blah blah, Ef-right off, shut your pie hole, and obey the speed limits.


BTW, the autobahn is unlimited in straight section, or sections with very large radii, there are usually only two lanes which reduces the amount of randomness, and actually really limits how often a person is able to speed.

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Like avoiding the moose. I don't know how many animal strikes you've missed but if you think brakes are useful if an animal walks (or more likely jumps or runs) out in front of you then an animal strike us in your future. Mmmmm good, grilled venison.

The brakes aren't going to help you at all. The authorities that think lower speed limits reduce animal strikes have no evidence to support their crazy ideas. Your only real maneuver is some kind of avoidance. For those occasions where brakes might help it is important to realize that you can change your speed much more effectively with the brakes than the accelerator. If you needed to be going faster to avoid the strike then unless you are already going fast you're hooped. Sometimes slow isn't safe. Avoiding animals leaping into the road requires a high level of skill and situational awareness.

So far my score is a perfect zero strikes. In 40 plus years.

Over to you slo boy.

I'd like to see you swerve around a moose while speeding. You'll just kill yourself into a tree instead.

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by PMPB

There are SOOOOOOOO many people in this thread using 'Any civil engineer will tell you... blah blah blah, that proves that speed, is not the cause of accidents'

Suberman is really the only one left, and I think it's obvious that he's either a mouth breathing idiot, or another in a long line of sad, useless internet trolls.

Either way, not worth wasting any more time on. As I said before, I just hope when the light finally goes on for him it isn't after he's killed a family while driving too fast.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Like avoiding the moose. I don't know how many animal strikes you've missed but if you think brakes are useful if an animal walks (or more likely jumps or runs) out in front of you then an animal strike us in your future. Mmmmm good, grilled venison.

The brakes aren't going to help you at all. The authorities that think lower speed limits reduce animal strikes have no evidence to support their crazy ideas. Your only real maneuver is some kind of avoidance. For those occasions where brakes might help it is important to realize that you can change your speed much more effectively with the brakes than the accelerator. If you needed to be going faster to avoid the strike then unless you are already going fast you're hooped. Sometimes slow isn't safe. Avoiding animals leaping into the road requires a high level of skill and situational awareness.

So far my score is a perfect zero strikes. In 40 plus years.

Over to you slo boy.

in other news, I've saved 150 bucks a year by not buying new brake pads...cuz fuck braking, who needs that shiet.

[RFB]

I often speed where it is safe to do so (moose free zones etc.) and am grateful for the almost motorcycle agility of our cars to avoid unexpected hazards.

I always speed when traffic (usually always speeding) is breaking the limit.

When traffic on the qwick and queasy or the 401 or 403 or 407 moves at an average of 20 kmph over the limit, the plodder obeying the law is the hazard causing vastly larger changes in speed, which causes more collisions.

All traffic going at the same velocity (whatever it is ) means less conflict.

Even the Provincial tail light chasers give us a break because of this.

On the multi lane highways they dont bother you unless you are going over 120 (except teen agers in sporty cars ).

The least they can do since they are exempt from speeding laws.

[Muskokan]

I think the whole braking to avoid animals completely relies on the road.
Where I live animals are such a hazard our roads have the trees and everything trimmed back like 20 feet from the shoulder, so if your aware of your surroundings their isn't really a reason to hit an animal.

[Suberman]

[QUOTE=PMPB;1334523
I have news for everybody, I studied Civil Engineering, I studied highway design, road design, bridge design, I have my 48mo of experience, and well on my way to acquiring my P. Eng. You guys are f-ing idiots.

[/QUOTE]

Wow, 48 months eh? Even an engineer can tell you that's four years.

Let us hope nobody hires you to design highways or set speed limits or we'll all have to take the bus.

"Speed kills" is pure unadulterated BS. Crashing kills. Indeed, falling on your head while walking kills. If that worries you, just wear a helmet although what of value you'd be protecting is debatable.

Your reference to Senna is gratuitously disrespectful to the great man's memory.

Two F1 drivers died that weekend. The remainder survived. News flash: they were all driving on the same track AT THE SAME SPEEDS!

Senna was killed by a suspension component penetrating his helmet. We're still not entirely sure how that great driver lost control at that point, he appeared to drive straight off the road. Speed was not a relevant factor and the design of the cars and tracks were altered after that accident. Ratzenberger lost control and were not sure exactly why but it seems likely it was a car issue. Speed wasn't a factor. Since the redesigns implemented after those appalling losses no F1 driver has been killed while racing.

The 1994 cars were very difficult to drive partly because active suspension had been banned the year before.

You missed the entire point of this thread and, like many unthinking people who don't know what they're talking about, have accepted the party line repeated by the authorities. Those same authorities know full well how to improve road safety but they won't do it. If they did implement the necessary changes about 25% of existing drivers would be disqualified, maybe more.

Just btw highway safety will not improve in this country until they stop issuing drivers licenses to people who don't know how to drive, which would appear to include you.

And if you think this might be personally offensive perhaps re-read your own post before you get too indignant.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Muskokan

I think the whole braking to avoid animals completely relies on the road.
Where I live animals are such a hazard our roads have the trees and everything trimmed back like 20 feet from the shoulder, so if your aware of your surroundings their isn't really a reason to hit an animal.

Braking is one option but rarely the best option. Speed isn't relevant to the probability of striking the animal, except statistically the faster you travel the less time you spend exposed to the risk.

Hitting an animal at highway speeds is very dangerous. News flash, hitting anything at highway speeds is very dangerous, for somebody.

Safety tip: don't hit anything at highway speeds.

[Muskokan]

Okay, show me these "statistics" that show speed isn't relevant in animal accidents. On roads with good visible shoulders slowing down when you see something half a k down the road seems like a better idea than speeding up, to me. Speed makes shit go wrong faster, giving you less time to react to immanent collision... Last time I checked.

But you sound like a super smart guy, your sources are probably very reliable, can't wait to see them.

Originally Posted by Suberman

Braking is one option but rarely the best option. Speed isn't relevant to the probability of striking the animal, except statistically the faster you travel the less time you spend exposed to the risk.

Hitting an animal at highway speeds is very dangerous. News flash, hitting anything at highway speeds is very dangerous, for somebody.

Safety tip: don't hit anything at highway speeds.

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by mrceltic

Suberman is really the only one left, and I think it's obvious that he's either a mouth breathing idiot, or another in a long line of sad, useless internet trolls.

Either way, not worth wasting any more time on. As I said before, I just hope when the light finally goes on for him it isn't after he's killed a family while driving too fast.

With his latest posts, clearly you are a better judge than me. His arrogance, and "statistics", are nothing short of appalling. I'm glad I live no where close to him; unfortunately I have family who do live in Calgary, and will have to share the road.

[RFB]

All so touchy on the intraweb -

Prolly from all those years of socialist gument and high taxes -

(its a joke peeps !)

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by PMPB

With his latest posts, clearly you are a better judge than me. His arrogance, and "statistics", are nothing short of appalling. I'm glad I live no where close to him; unfortunately I have family who do live in Calgary, and will have to share the road.

You can't fix stupid.

Hopefully your family never finds themselves in front of a driver who believes that you don't use your brakes to avoid an accident.