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

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Suberman

Its irrational to say that driving is dangerous and therefore driving faster is more dangerous.

ehh?

driving is dangerous

and driving faster is more dangerous

but it's a risk we all take, and the goal of social policy is to reduce that risk, one of which are laws that force you to slow most people down, because at least if they get into accidents for all the other reasons of ineptitude, then the consequences won't be quite as bad.

[mrceltic]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand that you think cops are just after quick cash, not the point. I understand that you believe speed limits should be raised, not the point. What I don't understand is how you don't understand that accident avoidance is more difficult the faster you are driving.

Braking distances increase at higher speeds. Ability to quickly and safely change direction decreases at higher speeds. Time to react to an obstacle decreases at higher speeds. These are basic facts, we're talking simple physics.

I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD all drive 5kph, it's not practical. But claiming that it's no safer than driving 50kph is ridiculous. If you have less time to react, less ability to maneuver, and take longer to brake... How can higher speeds not make accident avoidance more difficult. If you don't (or won't) accept that you're either a) not very bright, b) trolling or c) a generous helping of both.

[Suberman]

My point is that actual studies fail to establish the point you are trying to make.

You are performing a thought experiment and of course you apply simple logic and deduce you are correct.

The odd thing is when we go out into the real world and survey what actually happens it turns out there is no evidence to support your nice logical thought experiment. If you do the research on the Internet be very careful which studies you rely upon. Most are just bogus and derive from statistics originating with untrained police officers just ticking boxes. When real traffic engineers do the studies they all find no meaningful correlation between accident rates and speed.

I concluded that speed has no discernible material effect on accident rates because that is what the evidence shows. In fact, the evidence shows the minimum accident rate occurs when traffic is flowing at between 15 and 20% higher than the posted limit on a freeway, just for example.

The error in your analysis arises from an unspoken assumption that driving is a difficult task and that, therefore, driving faster is more difficult. In reality, driving is absurdly simple to do and driving faster is not more difficult than driving more slowly.

For this reason human beings can drive a car at 300 km/hr fairly easily. Flying a plane at that speed is not so easy, just for example.

The accident rate is probably proportional to the competence of the drivers and not to the speed they are driving I.e. An incompetent driver is just dangerous at any speed. That is my observation. I'm certainly safer at my advanced age than I was at twenty, good thing because I drive faster cars and I drive them very fast. Hard to actually verify this correlation by studies though.

Oh and just by the way I know speed enforcement is about raising revenue and not about safety. Its a fact.

[mrceltic]

I think you've read a couple studies, and used them to justify some bad driving habits, prove a mistrust of law enforcement and politicians (fair enough) or just to be contrary on the internet?

But you seem like a smart enough guy, I just don't understand how you can think that driving faster has no impact on your ability to avoid a possible accident or interact with the traffic around you in a safer and more controlled manner.

If you honestly believe that, best of luck, and I hope that nobody is injured when the light finally comes on for you.

[7thgear]

Originally Posted by Suberman

You are performing a thought experiment and of course you apply simple logic and deduce you are correct.

car A is driving at 50km/h and car B is driving at 150km/h

at an equal distance from both cars, a moose walks on to the road

assuming the drivers are of equal skill, who has the higher chance of avoiding and perhaps surviving this encounter?

or is this just a bogus thought experiment with no real world correlation?

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

car A is driving at 50km/h and car B is driving at 150km/h

at an equal distance from both cars, a moose walks on to the road

assuming the drivers are of equal skill, who has the higher chance of avoiding and perhaps surviving this encounter?

or is this just a bogus thought experiment with no real world correlation?

Driver B.

Simply because he would have hit 88 mph (141 km/h) sooner, and thus been transported back to 1985 when said moose would not have been born yet.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

car A is driving at 50km/h and car B is driving at 150km/h

at an equal distance from both cars, a moose walks on to the road

assuming the drivers are of equal skill, who has the higher chance of avoiding and perhaps surviving this encounter?

or is this just a bogus thought experiment with no real world correlation?

In this situation all traffic is not moving at the same speed (Bullwinkle the pedestrian) and the change in speed can cause a collision.

Stats show that the higher the speed the greater the trauma when a collision occurs.

And yes, stats also show that higher speeds make it more difficult to avoid collision due to road conditions, driver and vehicles ability. etc.

[RFB]

Originally Posted by 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

They do want your money.

In more advanced Gov't regions Police have had extensive training in collision investigation and traffic enforcement. Those cops enforce high accident locations intelligently and effectively.

Unfortunately those experts are a vanishing breed due to dwindling budgets and other political factors.

Now our cops are tax collectors who go to fishing spots to fill their quotas as quickley as possible with no thought of public safety.

[tiz22]

Originally Posted by mrceltic

I understand that you think cops are just after quick cash, not the point. I understand that you believe speed limits should be raised, not the point. What I don't understand is how you don't understand that accident avoidance is more difficult the faster you are driving.

Braking distances increase at higher speeds. Ability to quickly and safely change direction decreases at higher speeds. Time to react to an obstacle decreases at higher speeds. These are basic facts, we're talking simple physics.

I'm not suggesting that we SHOULD all drive 5kph, it's not practical. But claiming that it's no safer than driving 50kph is ridiculous. If you have less time to react, less ability to maneuver, and take longer to brake... How can higher speeds not make accident avoidance more difficult. If you don't (or won't) accept that you're either a) not very bright, b) trolling or c) a generous helping of both.

Originally Posted by 7thgear

car A is driving at 50km/h and car B is driving at 150km/h

at an equal distance from both cars, a moose walks on to the road

assuming the drivers are of equal skill, who has the higher chance of avoiding and perhaps surviving this encounter?

or is this just a bogus thought experiment with no real world correlation?

Aruging this is so pointless because you say driving slower is safer, but we shouldn't because it's not practical...So what's the point in making the argument? If 100km/h is more dangerous than 80km/h yet we still have highways at that speed, why not 120km/h instead of 100km/h? Sure it's more dangerous but at what point do we draw the line? Who decides? Clearly not statistics

What I'm trying to point out is that what a SIGN says on a road clearly does not depict what speed drivers are going to drive at....A perfect example is (for those of us who are canadian) the 407...Private highway posted at 100km/h but not a single driver (even in the slow lane) is going that speed...Average speed is about 130km/h....Sure 130 is "more dangerous" than 100 if you're by yourself but if you get on that highway doing 100 you will get your ass ridden all day, people honking, road rage, and cars swerving around you...Tell me how that is safer than doing 130 while driving calmly in the middle lane?
On the flip side, there are local streets with posted SIGNS that say 80km/h but in certain areas, this is too fast....the result?? Average speed of drivers is more around 65km/h because that's the flow of traffic...Going faster than that you have to dodge around cars = dangerous.

Bottom line = WE decide the speed the average car drives on a road, not the posted speed limit. If there's a 4-lane road posted at 50km/h (we've all run in to them)...Absolutely no one follows it. If we run into a 50km/h zone with a bunch of kids running around, everyone follows it.

If police were truly interested in keeping the roads safe from unnecessary speeding, they would observe the flow of traffic and get traffic engineers to do full studies showing that the posted limit is either too high or too low, and change it accordingly. The fact that posted speed limits haven't changed in 50+ years is a CLEAR sign that this does not occur ever. Why? Because police make a killing on the fines they issue for speeding...Cut that out and their budget drops through the floor (I know - I have many police officers in my family)

So in summary, yes driving faster makes it more difficult to maneuver and a longer distance to fully stop your vehicle - absolutely. But that fact alone does not dictate the speed of a road...High volume highways have large barriers around them for a reason - to keep animals, etc. OUT
If we thought the way you did then it would be necessary to keep all posted speed limits at 10km/h or less...Have fun with that

[tiz22]

Originally Posted by RFB

They do want your money.

In more advanced Gov't regions Police have had extensive training in collision investigation and traffic enforcement. Those cops enforce high accident locations intelligently and effectively.

Unfortunately those experts are a vanishing breed due to dwindling budgets and other political factors.

Now our cops are tax collectors who go to fishing spots to fill their quotas as quickley as possible with no thought of public safety.

Agreed.

I mean it's hard to argue the stats - you look at highways like the Autobahn in Germany....Sections where you can drive whatever speed you want...Now compare that to the 401 in Canada where everyone is reduced to a ridiculous 100km/h

Where are more accidents occurring?? I'll let anyone who argues
"SLOWER IS BETTER ALL THE TIME NO MATTER WHAT FOR SAFETY AND POLICE DON'T WANT OUR MONEY JUST OUR WELL-BEING" research it and let us all know

[Frost]

Wow, after peeling through all 4 pages of this post I have come to the following conclusion:

1- OP is crazy. I am happy there is a likelihood he will be off the roads. I hope he learns from this. Driving is a privilege and not a right.

2- Fighting charges. I saw the back and forth on fighting charges and here's my $0.02: I have only ever received one speeding ticket myself in 13 years of driving (a stupid one I might add - doing 70km/hr in a 50 km/hr on a ramp to a road downtown). I don't fight tickets because I am innocent. I went to court over it because I think the fine was too stiff for my first time ever (I haven't gotten a ticket since, knock on wood) and the cop didn't give a rats ass that it was. I explained to the prosecutor this was my first ticket ever, she acknowledged that and dropped the demerit points and reduced the fine from $120 to $20. I agreed and pled guilty to that. I do NOT ever expect to be NOT guilty since I do know I did speed but just asked for forgiveness which I was given. However, it did take me almost a whole day in line at the courts (plus parking fees) in downtown Toronto to do this. In the end, if it weren't for time-off-in-lieu at work, I would have lost more money if I were paid by the hour and had to take a day off (not vacation). People who fight everything for the sake of fighting really bother me. There are laws for a reason and if you deem a law too harsh, then go petition for the penalty to be reduced. Your OP is your OP. By advising everyone to fight everything, we bog down the already bogged down courts. This is what is wrong with today's society. Everything is always someone else's fault.

3- Speeding will increase the odds of an accident. It's plain old physics. Most roads in North America were not built for excessive speeds, nor are they maintained for them either. If you are doing 160km/hr plus on the DVP, I say good luck on avoiding them potholes or cracks or uneven bumps! Heck, the Gardiner westbound out of Toronto had this RIDICULOUS bump just when you hit LakeShore West until a few years ago when they finally flattened it down a little. If you hit it today at 200km/hr I am sure you will prolly get air. I used to get air at 120km/hr. Once I learnt about that I just always slowed down to 80-90 to make sure my suspension doesn't take a beating.

The correlation to German Autobahners doing 200km/hr and not killing themselves is incorrect. German traffic rules are different as are their penalties. In Germany, if you are caught in the left lane of a 3 lane highway with no one else in the other lanes, you get a fine. If you fail to yield to a faster car in the left lane, you get a fine. Yadda, yadda, etc. The drivers there are a different breed entirely. They were bred with different rules and the roads there from what I understand are in better shape.

Also, not all of the autobahn is a speed limitless. In fact, most of it is regulated.

4- I agree I find it very disturbing and downright conflict of interest when cops give out tickets which fund their coffers. This is pure conflict of interest. They can technically fine EVERYONE to enrich themselves and toss the cost of everyone fighting it to the courts. This is downright wrong!

[Kazuya]

I think everything is said and done, just let this thread die, we can only hope for the best for him at this point.

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by 7thgear

car A is driving at 50km/h and car B is driving at 150km/h

at an equal distance from both cars, a moose walks on to the road

assuming the drivers are of equal skill, who has the higher chance of avoiding and perhaps surviving this encounter?

or is this just a bogus thought experiment with no real world correlation?

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.

[7thgear]

so not only do you choose to completly ignore the parameters set out before you, but in your world people who drive faster also think and brake faster.

you're very good at dodging direct scruitny... do you work in sales?