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

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by 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.

You got statistics on animal strikes and speed?

I recommend you read my posts more carefully if you're going to try and quote from them.

[Suberman]

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.

Don't worry, I haven't hit anything belonging to anyone else nor anybody, ever. I've been hit a few times but not since 1992. Driving faster than anyone else seems to help avoid bring hit.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by mrceltic

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.

If you make a big enough mistake I may hit you.

Using brakes doesn't work unless you have distance to stop.

Many accidents result from people using brakes at the wrong time.

Until ABS became more or less universal this happened much more often than it does now.

Brake hard enough with no ABS and you may simply slide to the scene of your accident. With ABS you will be able to steer around the scene but, will you?

[Suberman]

Calm down and do the math.

Assume the moose steps out right in front of you (just as likely as any other scenario).

Figure out how much extra time you have whether you speed at 130 km/hr or don't speed at 110 km/hr.

The swedes call it a moose crash test for a reason.

[KEL-BRZ]

ive been ingoring this thread as honestly i just dont care to aruge I never asked for peoples opinions or thoughts of my diving/history. I dont care what you all think.

but to stir the pot and have some fun I thought I'd come back with an UPDATE!!!

so, I disputed ticket, put in transfer request to alberta, not only got a transfer but a promotion and raise!! seems they need people in Alberta! So ya I got a raise! and you want to know whats even better, when I traded in my "N" in Alberta I got my FULL CLASS 5 not even the GLP CLASS 5 all before my ticket in BC even went through. All I can say is bye bye BC & ICBC!!! So happy eveything worked out well for me Atleast in Alberta I can just pay to play! pay the ticket and move on! Just like the good old days in BC! on And cheaper gas in Alberta!! YAY!!!

and now for the haters to hate..... LOL

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Calm down and do the math.

Assume the moose steps out right in front of you (just as likely as any other scenario).

Figure out how much extra time you have whether you speed at 130 km/hr or don't speed at 110 km/hr.

The swedes call it a moose crash test for a reason.

I did the math, and instead I figured out how much distance you need, the calculations are a bit more straightforward. If you want to see the actual times, I can do that too.

The acceleration of the BRZ at full braking according to the above Car and Driver was mu*g = .992329*9.807m/s^2 = 9.732m/s^2

t = (v1-v2)/a = (130-110)/9.732 = 2.06 seconds!

BTW, D1 is distance travelled while reacting, D2 is the distance travelled while braking.

Looks like you'd need an extra 21.5m in the BRZ (130kmh-->70mph, close enough). A baseline car is about 28.5m for the same.

[Kimsey47]

Rob Ford says, "Speeding ain't #### compared to how I roll! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!!"

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by PMPB

I did the math, and instead I figured out how much distance you need, the calculations are a bit more straightforward. If you want to see the actual times, I can do that too.

The acceleration of the BRZ at full braking according to the above Car and Driver was mu*g = .992329*9.807m/s^2 = 9.732m/s^2

t = (v1-v2)/a = (130-110)/9.732 = 2.06 seconds!

BTW, D1 is distance travelled while reacting, D2 is the distance travelled while braking.

Looks like you'd need an extra 21.5m in the BRZ (130kmh-->70mph, close enough). A baseline car is about 28.5m for the same.

This is quite brilliant. I'm interested to know at which data point each car struck the moose trying to evade it. You will note that at a given point the moose will survive the impact in the one case but not the other. This is called the moose vitality point, or MVP.

A dead moose is safer than a live moose as a live and wounded moose coming through your windshield will kill you, although perhaps unintentionally. (Not guilty by reason of provocation ).

The relevant distance is actually only about 6 meters, which is the additional distance the faster car will travel before the brakes can be applied or evasive maneuvers commenced, assuming an approximate assessment and reaction time of 1 second (sleepy drivers take much longer).

This, as you will realize, is about a car length or so.

The ONLY way to avoid an animal strike is to swerve around the rear of the animal ASAP, ie the instant you see it. Anything slower and you're gonna nail it.

If you can see an animal in the road, or about to come into the road, far enough ahead of you to avoid it by braking to a stop you would have to be completely incompetent behind the wheel to actually hit the animal, even if it's a cow.

Only German journalists call it the moose crash test. The test is designed to demonstrate avoidance maneuvers. The idea is to avoid crashing into an object that is within your stopping distance, by far the most common accident situation. This is something Canadian " professional " driving instruction completely omits. Certainly no jurisdiction in Canada tests for this before you get your license.

So, this thread may save your life someday.

Some of you really need to look up the definition of sarcasm. Here:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm"]Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

PS Only really bright people can do sarcasm.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by Pbrown

Get yourself a helmet for Christmas and get out to the track. If you drive for a living then I have to question your intelligence. Why would you do anything to jeopardize your livelihood? Anyway get through this and try to make better choices as to when you are going to LET R Rip!!!!

Good luck.

I'm just glad he's not driving a WRX or STI. If an 86 can get away from him like that, imagine how easily a turbo awd would.

To the op, I was going to extend my sympathies, and in a way I'm still somewhat sympathetic. But, you earned this one.

Do I speed? Technically, yes, but I have a simple guideline: unless I'm doing so to keep moderately at the speed of traffic, NO sustained speeding over 10 mph (1.6 km per mile, so, 16kph) in zones where there are cops, which is just about everywhere. Otherwise I stick to speed of traffic or a bit over & stay in the fast lane. Now, I'm not Canadian, but here in the US, we've got some strict speeding laws here too, so I'm not speaking from a very permissive area.

Take this lesson & take it like a man, and when you lose your license, accept that you deserved it & be glad you can earn it back instead of being permanently barred from being relicensed. Driving is a privilege, not an enumerated right. So, while getting it back, realize you've been in the wrong & commit to changing your driving habits and learn to be safer... Much safer.

After all, you ARE controlling a vehicle that can deliver more killing energy than a machine gun. Consider that too.



Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by PMPB

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.

Since you wanted to make it personal, go fuck yourself. How's that for starters? 48 months of experience? That's laughable in engineering. That gets your foot in the door. And I drove on the autobahn for 2 years if you couldn't tell by simply looking below my screen name. And you're wrong in your sweeping generalization about their roads, too, the majority of A-routes are well over 2 lanes and are based on population and demand, not constricting traffic to "reduce randomness" (nice engineering term and argument, there). I don't need schooling on what German traffic laws are, and I don't apply those speeds to US or Canadian highways.

Knowing your rights and contesting citations in court doesn't make you an asshole. It makes you an informed citizen. Especially when the system is set from top to bottom as a revenue generating machine that could give two fucks about your safety. I never said speed doesn't kill. But highway speeds in many areas, and especially city roads, are notoriously low in tons of areas because they are revenue generators with cops posted at the speed limit sign to nail people who don't make 30MPH drops in some places. Because half the drivers on the road don't respect speed limits, you have constant conflict (not to mention large mass automobiles traveling at very different speeds creates problems) between drivers who do and drivers (at least in the US) who know highway patrols usually won't ticket them unless they're doing 5 over in some states, 10 over in others, and as little as 1-3 over in still more. It's an asinine patchwork of laws that is not based on traffic demand or safety, but setting arbitrary limits set by uninformed lawmakers.

Speeding tickets are mostly about money. That's my issue with them. Spurious arguments about moose and your shiny new college degree don't change the fact that most limits are set by politicians for many reasons that don't involve safety outside of residential and high pedestrian traffic areas. Driving in Philadelphia on I-95 and I-76 was the perfect example, cops barely enforced speeding tickets on a 55mph 4-6 lane interstate, where at least a third of traffic was doing 70MPH most of the time. That is a complete and total failure of a system. If you did the speed limit on I-95, you were being honked at, consistently cut of, and at serious, serious risk of an accident if you weren't a tractor-trailer (most of whom were happily speeding with the cars).

Another perfect example was driving from El Paso TX, to Ruidoso, NM, where one piss-ant hick town dropped the speed limit from 55MPH to 25MPH and had a town cop sitting there every single time I drove through on the way to an indian casino with friends. Their lights were flashing every single time I drove by, with the exception of the car I was riding in getting pulled over and eventually released for a DWB. That was fun. Texas is actually leading the nation in road innovation, with 85MPH toll roads and desert freeways with 80-85MPH daytime speed limits where there's visibility for miles and miles, and low volume. Populated areas are getting more variable speed limits and high speed toll roads as well, which are excellent at reducing accidents and commute times.

Conversely, in many parts of New Jersey and Delaware, they've installed variable speed limit signs, which adapt to traffic and weather conditions. That's brilliant. You know why? Because higher speed traffic clears roads faster, and leads to lower volume rush hours, which is when the majority of freeway accidents happen. Not at high speeds.

It's about money:
http://www.wnyc.org/story/show-me-mo...keting-policy/

Speed kills as a matter of physics, not necessarily as a matter of statistics:
http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/2...he-speed-limit

There were 32,310 traffic fatalities in 2011, the fewest there have been since 1949. More importantly, fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have dropped substantially over the years, falling from 24.09 in 1921 to 1.09 in 2011. In addition, while interstate highway speed limits have risen since Congress repealed all federally imposed speed limits in 1995, fatalities categorized as “speeding-related” by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have declined since then. Specifically, there were 13,414 speeding-related fatalities in 1995 and 10,591 in 2011. Of the 10,591 speeding-related fatalities in 2011, just 964 occurred on interstate highways with speed limits “over 55 MPH.”

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if that decrease came primarily from safer cars and driver aids like ABS and ESC, but the point remains.

And we're being policed by people who don't take them seriously themselves, routinely being excused from infractions as a matter of "professional courtesy [hypocrisy]."
http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/16/pa...vestigating-po

Or by people who game the system:
http://watchdog.org/66629/city-red-f...yellow-lights/

And real traffic engineers say you're full of shit: http://reason.com/24-7/2012/12/12/fe...traps-ticket-b
Full story: http://watchdog.org/64378/va-federal...ger-motorists/
http://www.motorists.org/speed-limit...setting-limits

The NMSL legacy of numeric values being determined by political decree has understandably left States in confusion with who has authority over traffic engineering issues. Compounded by the myth our government created to support the NMSL that equates lower speed limits with safety; this has all but institutionalized unreasonably low limits and with incorrectly applied or absent traffic control devices that directly contributing to increased accident rates while making violators out of safe drivers.

And if you think that doesn't happen in Canada or elsewhere you're deluding yourself.

So why don't you get off your retarded high horses, check in with reality, and stop trying to lay retarded hyperbolic guilt trips about killing families. The road systems in North America are arbitrary, stupid, dangerous, and frequently designed for profit over safety. So I contest. Without any moral reservation whatsoever. One time in the last 5 years. Magically, without my action in court ever wiping out entire innocent families! But that makes me an asshole. Get real.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

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?

Not enacted, enforced.

And why are you against making better laws? When did I say I'd intentionally violate good or bad laws? My bone to pick (and why I contest) is disparate enforcement, arbitrary and unscientific law, and ridiculous posters like yourself who believe the OP should just take it in the ass and lose his job over a speeding ticket. Our legal system is designed to offer protections from stupid law. Which is why I use it to my advantage.

Thankfully, he didn't, his life situation improved, and I bet he's still learned something from the whole ordeal. And isn't that supposed to be the point of the justice system? Correction and rehabilitation? Or is the point government sadism and monetary ruin led by cheer-leading clowns like you?

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

And why are you against making better laws?

Again you're dodging my initial comment! So sneaky!

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

When did I say I'd intentionally violate good or bad laws?

SERIOUSLY?

okay, for the last time, i will entertain your forgetful self and quote you your own words:

"I contest EVERY ticket whether I'm guilty or not"

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

Again you're dodging my initial comment! So sneaky!

SERIOUSLY?

okay, for the last time, i will entertain your forgetful self and quote you your own words:

"I contest EVERY ticket whether I'm guilty or not"

No, this statement:

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

Is a completely false choice. My whole point was I contest every ticket because the system is hopelessly retarded and stupid. If the system was focused on safety and in line with federal law (which my last link clearly demonstrates that it isn't in either case in the US) then I wouldn't take issue with traffic law. But it isn't and I do. I don't feel like donating to local coffers because some elected twit in the county I'm driving through arbitrarily decided that the speed limit was going to be X in clear violation of federal law.

So rather than play your retarded semantic games continually why don't you actually read the citations and recommendations from traffic engineers who demonstrate how retarded (and often illegal) traffic laws are. You wanted citations, I just gave you a bucket of them. Start reading and stop with the half-assed half-witted responses.

[PMPB]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

The road systems in North America are arbitrary, stupid, dangerous, and frequently designed for profit over safety.

Just stop. We'd lose our licenses if we prioritized money over safety.