| prophetes1 |
Yesterday I went to canadian tire with my friend and there was this old old old lady driving an old crown victoria... she was trying to back out of her parking spot. It took her about 10 mins to do so... she had like some dude showing her how far she is from the car behind her and stuff.
All the time I see old drivers that have no idea what they are doing... probably cuz they cant see well enough. One just about hit me on at the intersection of 51 ave and calgary trail not too long ago... We were both turning.. there are 2 turning lanes... i was on the outside.. he was on the inside.. we both started turning at the same time... but he decided not to go into the inner lane.. he cut me off.
I wonder how many of you think that there should be an age, after which you should get retested every year or so, so that you can keep your licence. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
| I don't know about every year, but after 65 I think it should be every 3 years. Under 65 should be re-tested every five years. And the test needs to be WAAAAYYYYY more in depth than it currently is. It shouldn't just test you on knowing how to read a few road signs and take some turns. They should have it on a closed course and put you through actual situations that you likely will encounter on the road that 90 per cent of drivers are unprepared for. |
|
|
| Driven |
| :mad: all i can say. |
|
|
| sparkycivic |
there should be some additional important skill tests:
a freeway driving test(with merging and lane-changing)
...and a parking lot manouver test
...and a sharing-the-road test
...and a "it's green, just fucking go, already goddamnit" test
one lap around the city under the gun, basically |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
| I think they should just stick all the old people in a supermarket with shopping carts... If they can't even navigate a grocery store without crashing their carts, there's no fucking way they should be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle, seriously. |
|
|
| AdamP |
Old people are dumb.
The most dangerous time to be driving is probably between 10AM-2PM due to the old people. What surprises me the most is how it takes a 7-point turn to get out of a perpendicular parking spot. In terms of visibility I'm surprised how some of these people see over the steering wheel as well.
Kind of makes me wonder why they aren't cracking down on this issue before the RHD importation. :dunno: |
|
|
| ehos |
Because 'young' people don't cause any accidents. :rolleyes:
Yes there should be a mandatory retest age. Every 6 months between 16-20. And a Horsepower restriction as well.
I'm more worried about the teenager on his/her cellphone driving his overpowered car at high speeds than the old lady driving 40 in a 60 zone. |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by WorkInProgress
I think they should just stick all the old people in a supermarket with shopping carts... If they can't even navigate a grocery store without crashing their carts, there's no fucking way they should be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle, seriously.
ROFL |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
Because 'young' people don't cause any accidents. :rolleyes:
Yes there should be a mandatory retest age. Every 6 months between 16-20. And a Horsepower restriction as well.
I'm more worried about the teenager on his/her cellphone driving his overpowered car at high speeds than the old lady driving 40 in a 60 zone.
it would never happen, horsepower limitations that is. Fast cars are made specifically for young males. The auto industry has a major influence on the government. i don't think they would allow limitaions to ever happen. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
I'm more worried about the teenager on his/her cellphone driving his overpowered car at high speeds than the old lady driving 40 in a 60 zone.
Here is a thing.. Some1 told me a story how they saw an old lady driving 40km/h on whitemud.. in the fast lane. (it actualy happened). The cop tries to pull her over.. so he gets behind her and turns his lights on... She doesnt stop.. she keeps going. Then he turns his siren on.. she still doesnt stop... she keeps going 40 km/h not even noticing the cop. The cop then decides to pass her and stop in front of her... thats when she stoped. Wouldnt it piss you off to see a person like that in front of you when you are going 80?
Today i was turning into Rona by whitemud crossing.
I wastrying to turn into the parking lot but i couldnt cuz there was a ford windstar that is leaving the lot, and he decided to go through the middle of the lot exit. There was simply no room for me to turn.. i had to stop on the street and wait for the dude. It took him a while to get out cuz he was an elderly person and had hard time with A.) seeing, B.) turning his head to the side to look for oncoming traffic. I would feel bad to get pissed off about it cuz he is just simply physicaly disabled.... but then should he be driving? I think that class 5 licence should require a medical examination form to be filled out by a doctor just like they do that for classes 4,3,2 and 1. When i got my licence upgraded, I had to go to the doctor, who examined me, to make sure that i am physicaly eble to drive. I have to redo these examinations every 5 years i believe. and if im older than 60 or something... i gotta repeat those like every year. |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
| ^ SOOOO true. i had that happen before many times. old people would take up both lanes, i would slow down and have to wait 20 plus seconds on a busy main road while cars nearly kill me at the same time honking at the old person to move but they just don't seem to be aware i am even there. |
|
|
| RBS14.5 |
| Won't fix anything. Most of the people doing the testing and teaching people to drive can barely drive themselves!:mad: |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
| i was going to say old people probably use referals to get people who know they will pass them hahahaha |
|
|
| AdamP |
| I think if you need to 9-point turn out of a perpendicular parking spot then you need to lose your license. |
|
|
| ChromeDragon |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
it would never happen, horsepower limitations that is. Fast cars are made specifically for young males. The auto industry has a major influence on the government. i don't think they would allow limitaions to ever happen.
Ahhh the hypocrisy of the government, what fun it is. Someone please explain to me why pretty much every vehicle sold can easily break the maximum allowable speed limit of 110km/h. Many vehicles can quite easily double this. |
|
|
| drewb |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Ahhh the hypocrisy of the government, what fun it is. Someone please explain to me why pretty much every vehicle sold can easily break the maximum allowable speed limit of 110km/h. Many vehicles can quite easily double this.
emergency situations?:p |
|
|
| 300zxhunter |
| :boxing: :boxing: old people :boxing: :boxing: :boxing: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Ahhh the hypocrisy of the government, what fun it is. Someone please explain to me why pretty much every vehicle sold can easily break the maximum allowable speed limit of 110km/h. Many vehicles can quite easily double this.
Because in order to limit horsepower, you need to limit torque too. And the ability to get from a dead-stop up to speed can be very useful and can even prevent accidents.
Now, a speed-limiter might work. But only if the fine for removing it was tough enough. Say......seizure of the vehicle, having the limiter reinstalled by the government, then auctioned to cover the cost of reinstalling the limiter. Whoever used to own it suffers no punishment other than having to buy a new car.
The problem is grandfathering. No one wants to have taken away what they already have. We've seen it when I've suggested grandfathering isn't something I agree with on other subjects. Now that they've ceased allowing grandfathering of most handguns and rifles, I say they carry that over to cars, since more deaths are caused by cars than by guns.
The other problem, of course, is motorsports. How do you put a limitation on when cars want to race? When the public wants to see races? When snowmobiles and quads can go faster than 110km/hr?
I agree with you on principle. Cars should not be allowed to exceed a given speed. 110km/hr is a little excessive in my mind, passing on undivided highways as an example would be very difficult, but I see your point as the law doesn't care and technically you still aren't allowed to speed. I'd say maybe 140km/hr as a top speed. It can't be done, it won't be done, but on principle, I like the idea.
I am with some other people here, who are more paranoid about teenagers than old people. Old people cause delays. It's only impatient fucks who drive too fast who turn delays into accidents (see the thread with the VW sitting on top of a 240 for examples of that). Or just plain assholes in trucks. I see 3 or 4 cars a day do something dangerous and act like selfish pricks who own the road, but I see at least a dozen trucks doing that stuff, and usually to a greater degree.
When I see pick-ups, I move the fuck off the road. When they pull up behind me, since they invariably tailgate me, I slow right down until they go around.
It isn't just old people who need to be tested more often, it's young people, normal aged people, everyone. Of course, this system would already be in place if the police had a big enough budget. Too many fines for driving like a dangerous retard (whether that be too slow, too fast, or too maniacal) will get you a suspension, followed by another longer suspension and required retraining and retesting.
But alas, too many people hate "pigs" for them to get the budgets they need to make the streets safe for those of us who don't act like retards. |
|
|
| Playa |
or.....
The gov't would not longer be able to make a killing off of photo radar tickets. The police could no longer make a killing by pulling you over for speeding. They could no longer "estimate" your speed on the highway and give you a BS ticket.
Just think, from a business perspective, why would the gov't want to take away a good source of revenue?
The auto manufacturers should make higher powered cars, The Gov't can then increase the fines for more revenue and brand it under public saftey....wait, they are already doing that. |
|
|
| WorkInProgress |
quote:
Originally posted by ChromeDragon
Ahhh the hypocrisy of the government, what fun it is. Someone please explain to me why pretty much every vehicle sold can easily break the maximum allowable speed limit of 110km/h. Many vehicles can quite easily double this.
It doesn't matter, let's say that all vehicles were limited to a maximum of 110 from the factory, there's nothing stopping someone from doing said 110 limit in a 50 zone... Or worse a school zone, it doesn't make sense for anyone to try and create some kind of maximum limit, also... Vehicles aren't driving strictly on roads, what about at the track, or on private property?
It's all dumb. |
|
|
| ehos |
Like Yau Man Chan said (paraphrased), old people have the benefit of NO testosterone running through them.
Old people > Testosterone packed teenies.
Sorry kiddies, thank god you have ZERO political power. As time goes on, kids rights/freedoms will always be restricted, while old people get to keep most of their freedoms. |
|
|
| russianrocket21 |
Personally i think the whole system of obtaining a license here is absolutely retarded. When we can get our learner's permit at 14 half of the population is just hitting puberty and still barely able to see over the steering wheel. At 16, where we're still very underdeveloped mentally (i remember my belief that i was invincible). The 10 hours of driving lessons we take don't even scratch the surface of what we should know to drive - as is evident by all the drivers out there who still have trouble distinguishing the gas from the brake.
I know two girls, one who has just finished her lessons (still unable to parallel park and scared as hell to drive), and one who just started to drive (also scared as hell to drive). The first is going for her license test tomorrow, and the other one has it scheduled for late next week. Chances are they'll end up getting their licenses. It seems like everyone here does.
When I went to Germany and Denmark last Christmas to visit some family, it was absolutely amazing to see the way that the people there drive. Germany is just indescribable, so systematic, and the drivers are so good. Their parallel parking skills are impeccable. As in an inch on the front, inch on the rear.
I think that we should completely revise the whole system - as was already mentioned, mandatory tests every few years, but more importantly, actually teaching how to drive. In Denmark they take an actual defensive driving course, and not just the theory but the actual techniques. Plus the exam costs about $3000, so people there actually make sure that they're gonna pass.
Maybe in time the government will finally realize just how shitty their drivers are, and will do something about it. But let's be realistic - it won't be in this lifetime. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by russianrocket21
Personally i think the whole system of obtaining a license here is absolutely retarded. When we can get our learner's permit at 14 half of the population is just hitting puberty and still barely able to see over the steering wheel. At 16, where we're still very underdeveloped mentally (i remember my belief that i was invincible). The 10 hours of driving lessons we take don't even scratch the surface of what we should know to drive - as is evident by all the drivers out there who still have trouble distinguishing the gas from the brake.
I know two girls, one who has just finished her lessons (still unable to parallel park and scared as hell to drive), and one who just started to drive (also scared as hell to drive). The first is going for her license test tomorrow, and the other one has it scheduled for late next week. Chances are they'll end up getting their licenses. It seems like everyone here does.
When I went to Germany and Denmark last Christmas to visit some family, it was absolutely amazing to see the way that the people there drive. Germany is just indescribable, so systematic, and the drivers are so good. Their parallel parking skills are impeccable. As in an inch on the front, inch on the rear.
I think that we should completely revise the whole system - as was already mentioned, mandatory tests every few years, but more importantly, actually teaching how to drive. In Denmark they take an actual defensive driving course, and not just the theory but the actual techniques. Plus the exam costs about $3000, so people there actually make sure that they're gonna pass.
Maybe in time the government will finally realize just how shitty their drivers are, and will do something about it. But let's be realistic - it won't be in this lifetime.
^ Totaly agree. I came here from poland and i can tell you what it is like over there.... you need to be 18 to obtain a licence. First you have to go and do a drivers course.. which takes FEW MONTHS to do. The course is not easy. You have both in-class and practical classes. For practical, first they take you to their sriving range where you have like lines drawn on the pavement. They teach you how to paralel park, use mirrors, turn properly, shift gears (you always learn on a stick cuz no1 drives automatics there - almost.) And then you take your licence test.. you take it once. If you fail you take it second time. And if you fail again, im pretty sure they make you retake the whole course. you can't make even ONE mistake.
You mentioned that people in germany are awesome at handling their cars. Well, its not only in germany, but all over europe. Keep in mind that europe is very populated and everything is very tight. The lanes are way narrower than here. the parking spots are tighter and there are more cars than here (relatively speaking - like # of cars per square kilometer). Quite often you have to park on the sidewalk (which over there is legal) and the fact that nobody cares about the speed limit over there also makes them learn how to drive.
Given the conditions people over there have to drive in, we will never be nearly as good at handling our cars as they are. But i do agree that a way harder process for obatining driver's licence is needed. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
My grandfather is pushing close to 80, he can still drive good, better than average... while my grandmother(other side) tried to drive a car for the first time in 20yrs a couple years back... so drove 40 on the capilano... 3 days later she stopped driving cause she knew she couldn't hack it.
The old people think most of us younger guys, under 30 shouldn't be driving.
I do think the testing needs to be better.. mine was a joke
And I think we should be re-teted on license renewal... would get alot of the bad by nature drivers off the road, but not the lazy or aggresive drivers.. Back when I was sub 22yrs old, I drove with a heavy foot, got airborn a few places, etc, etc.. but with my parents, grandparents, cops around I could drive text book. And so can alot of the "bad drivers" if they want to. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by prophetes1
Their parallel parking skills are impeccable. As in an inch on the front, inch on the rear
Sorry that's just not possible... you get anymore than 10degree angle on a car and there goes your two inches...
Buy yeah, with parking people here are to lazy, it's all "Oh thats good enough" when it's not even close.
Should teach everybody how to paralle park with a trailer attached.... I know it's a completely diff technique, but still after paralle parking a car with a trailer... the amount of time it takes to paralle park a car without one... is nothing... and yes, I've done it. with a 16-17ft trailer(ball to trailer bumper) |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
The laws in europe are also more strictly enforced though.
Undertaking on the autobahn - automatic fine. Caught doing it again, automatic suspension. Caught a third time, banned from the autobahn
Following too close - Same as above......even if the guy you're too close behind is breaking the law by driving to slow in the fast lane.
Driving too slow in the fast lane - Same as above. When someone flashes their lights, move the fuck over.
Then there's normal city driving where anything remotely wreckless gets your car taken away. Make it not worth it to break laws and very few people will. |
|
|
| Ethanol |
| agree 100% on the 6 month retest. I dont mind, but i dont wanna pay $50 for every retest I have to take. maybe get the people who speed and tailgate and other tickets to pay for everyone's retest:thumbup: |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
The laws in europe are also more strictly enforced though.
Hehe not where i come from... police too corrupt. Plus they dont have enough money for gear, like cruisers that would be able to chase a BMW going 260 km/h (which over there happens all the time).
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Driving too slow in the fast lane - Same as above. When someone flashes their lights, move the fuck over.
[/B]
FINALLY SOME1 SAID IT :bowdown: :bowdown: :thumbup: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
Where are you from then? I know the Statz Polizei in Germany is well funded.
Thailand has really corrupt cops, but their punishments are so harsh that no one even dares litter, and I've never heard anyone who went there complain about being treated unfairly despite it.
We're just spoiled here. Cops are relatively uncorrupt compared to most places so people hassle them for doing their job, like giving out speed, tint and exhaust ticket. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Where are you from then?
Im from poland.. we are post-comunists.. bad habbits
You can pretty much talk yourself out of anything =D |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by prophetes1
Im from poland.. we are post-comunists.. bad habbits
You can pretty much talk yourself out of anything =D
Figured. The only places that I know have bad rap are Poland and Bosnia. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Figured. The only places that I know have bad rap are Poland and Bosnia.
Yeah.. old USSR too... but still.. German drivers are nuts. My dad went there, he rented out a ford mondeo (like taurus over here but quicker) and he was doing like 130 km/h. He was in the fast lane, than from behind him jumps out a BMW and he is flashing his lights at him... my dad said that he had to run to the outer lane, the guy passed him as if he was standing still.. my dad said the guy was doing over 200 for sure.. and that he saw a lot of that over there.
Oh.. and to the guy that says that paralel parking down to few inches is impossible... go and see for yourself...
One thing that i notice is that over there.. there are many "unwriten" rules that every1 obeys.. that no1 even thinks about over here. Over here... i go on a 4 lane highway (2 lanes each way).. and both lanes are taken up by semis... or there will be 2 cars going with the same speed beside eachother... over there...NO WAy.. you'll get honked and flashed at. you wanna go the same speed.. you go in the slow lane one behind the other, unless you are passing.. you see some1 catching up to you.. you move over. There are a lot of rules like that, i cant even remember anymore (i never had a licence back home.) But i learned a bit from my dad's and grandpa's driving. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Figured. The only places that I know have bad rap are Poland and Bosnia.
Hehe... i went to syria when i was little, with my dad... poland and bosnia are NOTHING comparing to driving in middle east. Over there they dont even use signals. they honk to signal. and they yeal at eachother all the time..:geezuz: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by prophetes1
Yeah.. old USSR too... but still.. German drivers are nuts. My dad went there, he rented out a ford mondeo (like taurus over here but quicker) and he was doing like 130 km/h. He was in the fast lane, than from behind him jumps out a BMW and he is flashing his lights at him... my dad said that he had to run to the outer lane, the guy passed him as if he was standing still.. my dad said the guy was doing over 200 for sure.. and that he saw a lot of that over there.
Oh.. and to the guy that says that paralel parking down to few inches is impossible... go and see for yourself...
One thing that i notice is that over there.. there are many "unwriten" rules that every1 obeys.. that no1 even thinks about over here. Over here... i go on a 4 lane highway (2 lanes each way).. and both lanes are taken up by semis... or there will be 2 cars going with the same speed beside eachother... over there...NO WAy.. you'll get honked and flashed at. you wanna go the same speed.. you go in the slow lane one behind the other, unless you are passing.. you see some1 catching up to you.. you move over. There are a lot of rules like that, i cant even remember anymore (i never had a licence back home.) But i learned a bit from my dad's and grandpa's driving.
Err......those are written laws in most of Europe, definately in Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland. Big fines for being out of the far right lane if you're not passing.
A few inches: possible. 1 inch on either side: not possible.
Best you could do is a foot either way, which gives 2 feet of wiggle, and even that is insanely hard to do. |
|
|
| Tech2 |
| I've actually watched someone parallel park with 1-2 inches on either side. Of course, he was parking by touch. |
|
|
| jwkbbp |
Quite often you have to park on the sidewalk (which over there is legal) and the fact that nobody cares about the speed limit over there also makes them learn how to drive.
Given the conditions people over there have to drive in, we will never be nearly as good at handling our cars as they are. But i do agree that a way harder process for obatining driver's licence is needed. [/B][/QUOTE]
your quote about how drivers in europe speed like crazy but they are still really good drivers illustrates one of my biggest problems with the eps. the fact that the only thing they seem to enforce is speeding. in edmonton u see people run through stop signs, switch lanes illegally basically do everything wrong except speed and they most likely go their whole life w/o a ticket so they think theyre good drivers.
i know its a lot more expensive to enforce other things but something needs to be done in this city.
when i lived in TO how u would rarely see people pulled over for speeding but u would see cops hiding around stop signs giving tickets if u didnt stop. i remeber cabbing it home from a club once and the cabbie ran a stop sign and he got pulled over and he was like to the cop whats ur problem its 430 at night and the cop was like this is toronto u can never assume that there isnt any traffic. |
|
|
| jwkbbp |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
The laws in europe are also more strictly enforced though.
Undertaking on the autobahn - automatic fine. Caught doing it again, automatic suspension. Caught a third time, banned from the autobahn
Following too close - Same as above......even if the guy you're too close behind is breaking the law by driving to slow in the fast lane.
Driving too slow in the fast lane - Same as above. When someone flashes their lights, move the fuck over.
Then there's normal city driving where anything remotely wreckless gets your car taken away. Make it not worth it to break laws and very few people will.
totally agree with only using the fast lane as a passing lane and i wish it was a law here. but i thought in europe when someone flashes their lights at you they are saying stay in your lane i am going to pass you. i remeber hearing that lots of accidnets are caused by north americans in europe because when someone flashes their lights we switch lanes while theyre trying to pass. ??? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by jwkbbp
totally agree with only using the fast lane as a passing lane and i wish it was a law here. but i thought in europe when someone flashes their lights at you they are saying stay in your lane i am going to pass you. i remeber hearing that lots of accidnets are caused by north americans in europe because when someone flashes their lights we switch lanes while theyre trying to pass. ???
It is law here, on roads named as highways. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by jwkbbp
Quite often you have to park on the sidewalk (which over there is legal) and the fact that nobody cares about the speed limit over there also makes them learn how to drive.
Given the conditions people over there have to drive in, we will never be nearly as good at handling our cars as they are. But i do agree that a way harder process for obatining driver's licence is needed.
your quote about how drivers in europe speed like crazy but they are still really good drivers illustrates one of my biggest problems with the eps. the fact that the only thing they seem to enforce is speeding. in edmonton u see people run through stop signs, switch lanes illegally basically do everything wrong except speed and they most likely go their whole life w/o a ticket so they think theyre good drivers.
i know its a lot more expensive to enforce other things but something needs to be done in this city.
when i lived in TO how u would rarely see people pulled over for speeding but u would see cops hiding around stop signs giving tickets if u didnt stop. i remeber cabbing it home from a club once and the cabbie ran a stop sign and he got pulled over and he was like to the cop whats ur problem its 430 at night and the cop was like this is toronto u can never assume that there isnt any traffic.
Woah....hang on there sport.
No one said they don't enforce speeding laws in Europe. He's talking about countries that enforce NOTHING. Do you honestly believe it's safe to drive the roads in Bosnia and those places simply because people "speed"?
Do you really want to know what's wrong with the EPS? The same thing that's wrong with CPS, RCMP, OPP, Peel Regional, QPP, Montreal Metro, Toronto Metro, WPS, BPS, OPS, etc. And I'll tell you what it is.
Public opinion. That's it, plain and simple. People in North America are spoiled. Our society is relatively safe, so we can afford to have officers doing generic traiffic. I guarantee you that if the spoiled masses here were left to fend for themselves without traffic enforcement, there'd be carnage on the streets and everyone would be driving a peice of shit jalopi like over there.
People whine about cops hastling them. Exhaust, tint, speed....those things have been deemed as "unsafe". Now tell me, how many people do we have on this board who could be deemed as auto-collision experts? 2? Maybe 3? At most 3. Yet every day there's another ass-clown flapping his gums about cops not out busting real criminals.
Do you want to know why cops target speeders more than unsafe lane changes? An unsafe lane change will generally cause no more than a fender bender. Now let's say you pulled a guy over for speeding and he had a machine gun in the passenger seat and a dead body in the back. Do you really think the cop will lay the speeding charge? Nope. Why not? It's not the most serious, pressing charge.
Speed, however, is the #1 contributing factors to fatalities in collisions nowadays. #1. As in the most common. Unsafe lane changes aren't even on the top 10. That's why speeders will get nailed before rolling through a stop, or an unsafe lane change, or driving too slow in the fast lane. All of those are dangerous, but the primary focus of traffic enforcement today is speed enforcement. It used to be drunk driving, but the public has for the most part accepted that it's unsafe, only a retard would do it, and the punishment is too harsh to be worth the risk. Once the general public feels the same way about speeding, you'll see that focus shift again.
So why the exhaust fines? Why tint tickets? Why not be out catching speeders and unsafe lane changes then? There aren't always speeders and unsafe lane changes when you're around, but an equipment violation might be. I'd rather the officers my tax dollars pay are doing SOMETHING on the job instead of joyriding waiting for something more serious to happen. At least tint and muffler tickets go into the government and subsidize their wage.
It's really getting old, this ragging on the police. Do you not understand the concept of a secure society? Is there something here that the general public can't seem to understand?
Dig your heads out of your asses people. If you really think speeding is safe, you've been reading too many statistics published by 20 year olds trying to justify their desires to drive in an unsafe manner.
Think about it, the government and law enforcement agencies don't WANT to fine you. They WANT to not have to do it, to be able to cut back on the police department or dedicate those officers to more important things. They hate the amount they have to budget. They WANT you to slow down. And if you did, they'd be happy and content. What could they gain from false statistics?
It's like people who claim the government publishes false statistics with regards to the health-risks of pot and whatnot. THey could stand to make a KILLING off it if they legalized it, and save a TON on incarceration and enforcement costs....so what do they gain?
Cops not going after speeders is like parents not telling their children it's bad to play in traffic. If you don't want to listen, fine, but you'll either die or get punished. And your "opinion", as a John Q. Public, matters very little compared to what "experts" who study it have to say on the subject.
And they disagree with you. So law off the cops for doing their job and get this notion that speeding makes you a better driver out of your head. It doesn't. Not in the least. Someone who speeds MIGHT be a really good driver, but the act of speeding won't make him better. Look at the assclown who just wrote off his 4th car in 4 years. He speeds, how good a driver do you think he is? |
|
|
| jwkbbp |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Woah....hang on there sport.
No one said they don't enforce speeding laws in Europe. He's talking about countries that enforce NOTHING. Do you honestly believe it's safe to drive the roads in Bosnia and those places simply because people "speed"?
Do you really want to know what's wrong with the EPS? The same thing that's wrong with CPS, RCMP, OPP, Peel Regional, QPP, Montreal Metro, Toronto Metro, WPS, BPS, OPS, etc. And I'll tell you what it is.
Public opinion. That's it, plain and simple. People in North America are spoiled. Our society is relatively safe, so we can afford to have officers doing generic traiffic. I guarantee you that if the spoiled masses here were left to fend for themselves without traffic enforcement, there'd be carnage on the streets and everyone would be driving a peice of shit jalopi like over there.
People whine about cops hastling them. Exhaust, tint, speed....those things have been deemed as "unsafe". Now tell me, how many people do we have on this board who could be deemed as auto-collision experts? 2? Maybe 3? At most 3. Yet every day there's another ass-clown flapping his gums about cops not out busting real criminals.
Do you want to know why cops target speeders more than unsafe lane changes? An unsafe lane change will generally cause no more than a fender bender. Now let's say you pulled a guy over for speeding and he had a machine gun in the passenger seat and a dead body in the back. Do you really think the cop will lay the speeding charge? Nope. Why not? It's not the most serious, pressing charge.
Speed, however, is the #1 contributing factors to fatalities in collisions nowadays. #1. As in the most common. Unsafe lane changes aren't even on the top 10. That's why speeders will get nailed before rolling through a stop, or an unsafe lane change, or driving too slow in the fast lane. All of those are dangerous, but the primary focus of traffic enforcement today is speed enforcement. It used to be drunk driving, but the public has for the most part accepted that it's unsafe, only a retard would do it, and the punishment is too harsh to be worth the risk. Once the general public feels the same way about speeding, you'll see that focus shift again.
So why the exhaust fines? Why tint tickets? Why not be out catching speeders and unsafe lane changes then? There aren't always speeders and unsafe lane changes when you're around, but an equipment violation might be. I'd rather the officers my tax dollars pay are doing SOMETHING on the job instead of joyriding waiting for something more serious to happen. At least tint and muffler tickets go into the government and subsidize their wage.
It's really getting old, this ragging on the police. Do you not understand the concept of a secure society? Is there something here that the general public can't seem to understand?
Dig your heads out of your asses people. If you really think speeding is safe, you've been reading too many statistics published by 20 year olds trying to justify their desires to drive in an unsafe manner.
Think about it, the government and law enforcement agencies don't WANT to fine you. They WANT to not have to do it, to be able to cut back on the police department or dedicate those officers to more important things. They hate the amount they have to budget. They WANT you to slow down. And if you did, they'd be happy and content. What could they gain from false statistics?
It's like people who claim the government publishes false statistics with regards to the health-risks of pot and whatnot. THey could stand to make a KILLING off it if they legalized it, and save a TON on incarceration and enforcement costs....so what do they gain?
Cops not going after speeders is like parents not telling their children it's bad to play in traffic. If you don't want to listen, fine, but you'll either die or get punished. And your "opinion", as a John Q. Public, matters very little compared to what "experts" who study it have to say on the subject.
And they disagree with you. So law off the cops for doing their job and get this notion that speeding makes you a better driver out of your head. It doesn't. Not in the least. Someone who speeds MIGHT be a really good driver, but the act of speeding won't make him better. Look at the assclown who just wrote off his 4th car in 4 years. He speeds, how good a driver do you think he is?
well first let me preface this by saying that i have only had one ticket in my life (which i got thrown out in court) and am planning on being here in alberta for less than a year so this post isnt me letting off steam about a ticket i just got that i think is unfair. im just talking about what i see in edmonton
i also wasnt saying if u speed u are a good driver. i was saying that safe driving is an equation that is made up of many things ie proper lane changes, stopping at stop signs and yes not speeding. and i was just saying i wish traffic enforcement in edmonton reflected this ie i want traffic enforcement not just speed enforcement
i also think other actions can be just as dangerous as speeding. for instance i saw an accident where a car ran a stop sign and was side swiped on his drivers side by another car. the guy who hit the car that ran the stop sign didnt seem like he was speeding but im sure the guy who was hit had serious injuries
i mean ive only been in one accident and it was a lady who rear ended me while sliding on some ice. she prob hit me at under 15 km/h. she definately wasnt speeding and it still hurt like hell for a few days (on a side note she barely left a dent in my bumper and it was really slippery and could have happened to anyone so i let her go). so i cant even imagine how it feels to get hit at 60km+
also many actions of the eps seem to be cash grabs. for instance years ago i remeber watching the news and the cops said that speeding tickets and red light cameras were way down so they were talking about trying to hide photo radar better i think they said something like they want to put it in construction vehicles or something like that.
also why do cops have quotas for the amount of tickets they have to issue each month that doesnt seem like an example of them not wanting to issue tickets. i remember i was in the car with a friend and we got pulled over for doing 100 on whitemud at 230am. there was like 3 other cars on the road. i didnt think he was driving dangerously and it totally seemed like it was a money grab
im not a formal expert on traffic and i never claimed to be (outside of the fact that i have been driving for 9 years) so if someone gives me a logical explanation for some of the issues ive raised such as why cops have quotas i am more than willing to listen. again i dont have any issues with cops like i said ive only ever talked to a traffic cop once and he was really nice and i didnt end up losing any money in the end so its not an attack against cops im just commenting on what i see. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
To be fair, my post wasn't entirely directed at you, it's directed at anyone who makes the comments that cops are doing a shitty job, which comes up all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by jwkbbp
well first let me preface this by saying that i have only had one ticket in my life (which i got thrown out in court) and am planning on being here in alberta for less than a year so this post isnt me letting off steam about a ticket i just got that i think is unfair. im just talking about what i see in edmonton
Duly noted. And my last experience with a cop licked balls, so I'm not implying they're all angels.
quote:
i also wasnt saying if u speed u are a good driver. i was saying that safe driving is an equation that is made up of many things ie proper lane changes, stopping at stop signs and yes not speeding. and i was just saying i wish traffic enforcement in edmonton reflected this ie i want traffic enforcement not just speed enforcement
Ahhh...but...again, speed is the most dangerous one in most cases. Therefore, the primary focus of traffic enforcement is speed. To be fair, I always prioritized it drunk driving, wreckless driving, failure to stop, speeding, everything else. Drunk driving didn't come up often. Wreckless driving wasn't as rare as one might think, as I consider drifting in a residential street to be wreckless. Running red lights and stop signs you don't see much of, people tend to not do that kind of stuff when a cop is around. Worst they do is perhaps right turn on red when not allowed, which I always just gave warnings for. Then speed, which you could do ALL day. Everything else was based on whether or not it was a slow night.
Again, the purpose is to make the streets safe. Not every law can be enforced every time. If you just gave a ticket for speeding, you probably won't pull over the very next car for not having a licence plate light, as an example. However if 2 hours go by and you see nothing, the quietness of the night justifies it.
Regardless, speeding is such a major factor in whether or not people walk away from accidents that it HAS to be high on the priority list. Like I said, it's taken over from drunk driving as the chief cause of fatalities in accidents. Which means it will now be treated by enforcement the way drunk driving was in the 80's and 90's.
quote:
i also think other actions can be just as dangerous as speeding. for instance i saw an accident where a car ran a stop sign and was side swiped on his drivers side by another car. the guy who hit the car that ran the stop sign didnt seem like he was speeding but im sure the guy who was hit had serious injuries
And I guarantee you that if a guy drove by going 25 over the limit and another guy ran a stopsign, the cop would stop the guy who ran the stop first. That's not a lack of enforcement, it's not a fault of EPS, those types of things just don't always happen in front of your cruiser.
quote:
i mean ive only been in one accident and it was a lady who rear ended me while sliding on some ice. she prob hit me at under 15 km/h. she definately wasnt speeding and it still hurt like hell for a few days (on a side note she barely left a dent in my bumper and it was really slippery and could have happened to anyone so i let her go). so i cant even imagine how it feels to get hit at 60km+
Hurts like a son-of-a-bitch. And following too close would merit a ticket too. But again....you were a little sore. Cops could focus on following too closely, but chances are slim that following too close alone will cost as many lives in accidents as speeding will, so the focus is speeding. I'm sure you're seeing the pattern as it's a simple concept.
quote:
also many actions of the eps seem to be cash grabs. for instance years ago i remeber watching the news and the cops said that speeding tickets and red light cameras were way down so they were talking about trying to hide photo radar better i think they said something like they want to put it in construction vehicles or something like that.
Well...I won't start a debate on the merit of photo radar or not, that's too heated and there are too many opinions. But look at it this way: make the assumption the goal is safety, and not money. I know, probably a big stretch for most people, but assume that. Now, people recognize the vans, slow down for 100 yards, then speed up again. See the problem there? The goal is to catch them speeding, force them to pay a fine, and hopefully think twice before doing it again because it gets expensive.
If you make the vans harder to recognize, people will suddenly have to, get this, drive the speed limit all the time in order to not get a fine, which means theoretically less fatalities in collisions. Again, it's probably a stretch to assume they want to do good for most people, but is their reason for doing it as important as the lives it might save? Hmm?
Don't be so quick to jump on the "cash grab" bandwagon without examining all sides of the argument first. People are mad because it's money out of their pocket and they don't the government has the right to snag their hard-earned dollars without putting someone out there to catch them. But if it saves lives, and only punishes people who are breaking the law, how can anyone really complain?
quote:
also why do cops have quotas for the amount of tickets they have to issue each month that doesnt seem like an example of them not wanting to issue tickets. i remember i was in the car with a friend and we got pulled over for doing 100 on whitemud at 230am. there was like 3 other cars on the road. i didnt think he was driving dangerously and it totally seemed like it was a money grab
Simple answer: they don't have quotas. Don't believe everything you read or hear. Let me ask you something: there was 3 cars on the road, ok.....but what's the speed limit? Where you speeding? If so......what's your beef? Was it a speeding ticket, or a driving dangerously ticket?
You were speeding and you got caught, again...what's your beef? What if you had blown a tire and swirved into the concrete on the side of the road? Are you saying that the goverment should only ticket you if you endanger someone else and not if you only endanger yourself? Slower speed mean better reaction, better stopping. Again, makes perfect sense to me. Don't want to get the fines? Don't break the law.
quote:
im not a formal expert on traffic and i never claimed to be (outside of the fact that i have been driving for 9 years) so if someone gives me a logical explanation for some of the issues ive raised such as why cops have quotas i am more than willing to listen. again i dont have any issues with cops like i said ive only ever talked to a traffic cop once and he was really nice and i didnt end up losing any money in the end so its not an attack against cops im just commenting on what i see.
I think I've given you valid explanations for all those things (such as the fact that cops don't have quotas). Now if only you can give me a valid explanation for why you think saving lives is a cash grab, we might get somewhere. |
|
|
| ehos |
| It would be illegal to have 'quotas'. This has been gone over many times, and it's proven to be an urban myth. |
|
|
| Flex |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
It would be illegal to have 'quotas'. This has been gone over many times, and it's proven to be an urban myth.
Ya quotas might be an urban myth, the cops call it stats. As this long weekend was all about the stats of how many tickets they could give out. Also if the cops arent writting as many tickets as the powers that be think they should be writting they get asked about it.
I heard this from an officer directly....no third hand info. And It was actually this weekend that I heard it to. |
|
|
| Fazda |
| i hate being behind old, people, its like the world is in slow motion! |
|
|
| jwkbbp |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
It would be illegal to have 'quotas'. This has been gone over many times, and it's proven to be an urban myth.
ive never heard anything about eps having quotas but i coulda swore there was an article in the calgary herald how calgary police do and they were unhappy about it. and since they cant strike they were doing things like not working overtime etc |
|
|
| Genma |
| I Honestly blame the easy driving schools. The ones where you go for 1 day of inclass where you cannot fail the written, and where the driving portion is a joke they pass to meny people who are unable to even shoulder check properly. Im oriental and i see Orientals who do not deserve a license. Fuck its like a fad. "I come to canada i get my citizenship and get a drivers license by any means possible" fuck it pisses the hell out of me. My aunt failed the driving test 4 times and i swear people like her do not belong on the road. Thank god she doesnt drive, its more like a trophy then anything else -_- :asshole: |
|
|
| Zed |
| I've always found it funny how people rail against speed and blame speed for so many deaths and yet the death rate per mile driven on the German autobahn and the U.S highways is almost always identical, to me that points to something OTHER than speed being the variable that we need to focus on to save lives and make the roads safer. And yes I understand that Germany's licensing system is much stricter and semis have restricted hours and that their cars are probably on average better performing. I just think that with all the advances that we have made in automobiles in the last 25 years that the speed limits should have at least been pushed up to 140 on major highways, you have to make the limits reasonable, and when the average car is travelling 20k /hr over the speed limit (every time I've ever driven on highway 2) the limit is obviously not reasonable to the average driver. And I don't mind old drivers, they've earned the right to drive slow, I don't think that they cause that many accidents. |
|
|
| midnite |
| i find old people often misjudge the speed of their vehicle, and more often other vehicles way more then the general population. that is probably why they drive so slow.. |
|
|
| Invalid Zero |
| I have nothing against older drivers, but it seems like they are the only ones who brake tap every 3 seconds for no reason on straight flat roads (and I'm not a tailgater either). :mad: :mad: :mad: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Flex
Ya quotas might be an urban myth, the cops call it stats. As this long weekend was all about the stats of how many tickets they could give out. Also if the cops arent writting as many tickets as the powers that be think they should be writting they get asked about it.
I heard this from an officer directly....no third hand info. And It was actually this weekend that I heard it to.
So....what you're saying is that if an officer writes half as many tickets as the force average, no one should ask him?
So if you work in a menswear store, and your sales were half what everyone else made, you wouldn't expect your boss to question you?
our tax dollars pay their salary. These "unofficial quotas" are the departments way of making sure cops are writing tickets they're supposed to be. There's no shortage of people breaking the law, trust me. We went on a blitz and wrote $1 million worth of tickets in one month between 6 of us once back when I was working. If a cop is just joyriding around in a car paid for by taxpayers, using gas paid for by taxpayers, and receiving a salary paid for by taxpayers, I damn well hope the powers that be ask a question or two when their figures don't compare with everyone elses. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Zed
I've always found it funny how people rail against speed and blame speed for so many deaths and yet the death rate per mile driven on the German autobahn and the U.S highways is almost always identical, to me that points to something OTHER than speed being the variable that we need to focus on to save lives and make the roads safer. And yes I understand that Germany's licensing system is much stricter and semis have restricted hours and that their cars are probably on average better performing. I just think that with all the advances that we have made in automobiles in the last 25 years that the speed limits should have at least been pushed up to 140 on major highways, you have to make the limits reasonable, and when the average car is travelling 20k /hr over the speed limit (every time I've ever driven on highway 2) the limit is obviously not reasonable to the average driver. And I don't mind old drivers, they've earned the right to drive slow, I don't think that they cause that many accidents.
Speeding doesn't cause accidents. No stats try to prove that. So your argument of "deaths per mile" is irrelevant. The question is deaths per collision, and deaths per collision on the autobahn are through the rough, there just aren't many collisions because there is a precise method to drive and punishments are severe for not obeying them.
As Mike once pointed out, what's most likely to kill you in a colision is the rapid deceleration of the superstructure around you that you then smash into. The faster you're going, the more rapid this deceleration, and the more likely it is that your injuries will be more severe.
The logic used on the autobahn is that it's a super-freeway. Traffic flows one-way divided, exits and merges have dedicated, free flow merge lanes to allow one to get up to speed, and enforcement of violatoins is swift and severe. The result is people who are unconfident or who's vehicles aren't up to it avoid the autobahn. People who want to drive recklessly are removed from it.
That's the answer to your "deaths per mile" riddle. Speeding isn't safer, increasing the limit won't reduce accidents, but neither will reducing the limit. However, faster moving vehicles will increase the risk someone won't walk away from the accident exponentially. Those are facts. Undeniable facts. Trying to quote irrelevent statistics doesn't matter. How about next we compare rate of deaths on the space shuttle to rate of deaths on planes, cars, boats and trains and argue we should all use space shuttles to travel.
You have to look at the stats that matter, and not examine a misrepresentation of the stats and facts the state and safety experts are putting forward. |
|
|
| Zed |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Speeding doesn't cause accidents. No stats try to prove that. So your argument of "deaths per mile" is irrelevant. The question is deaths per collision, and deaths per collision on the autobahn are through the rough, there just aren't many collisions because there is a precise method to drive and punishments are severe for not obeying them.
As Mike once pointed out, what's most likely to kill you in a colision is the rapid deceleration of the superstructure around you that you then smash into. The faster you're going, the more rapid this deceleration, and the more likely it is that your injuries will be more severe.
The logic used on the autobahn is that it's a super-freeway. Traffic flows one-way divided, exits and merges have dedicated, free flow merge lanes to allow one to get up to speed, and enforcement of violatoins is swift and severe. The result is people who are unconfident or who's vehicles aren't up to it avoid the autobahn. People who want to drive recklessly are removed from it.
That's the answer to your "deaths per mile" riddle. Speeding isn't safer, increasing the limit won't reduce accidents, but neither will reducing the limit. However, faster moving vehicles will increase the risk someone won't walk away from the accident exponentially. Those are facts. Undeniable facts. Trying to quote irrelevent statistics doesn't matter. How about next we compare rate of deaths on the space shuttle to rate of deaths on planes, cars, boats and trains and argue we should all use space shuttles to travel.
You have to look at the stats that matter, and not examine a misrepresentation of the stats and facts the state and safety experts are putting forward.
I believe that speed kills was the motto, or perhaps just the favourite saying, of the NHTSA for years; while they were putting out faulty comparison statistics of the autobahn and U.S highways, they were trying to prove that speed does kill and does cause accidents.
How much more likely to die is someone in an accident on the autobahn than the highways here and at what speeds were they travelling? I looked but couldn't find any info whatsoever.
Obviously the faster you are travelling the worse the accident will be and at 200k+ it becomes really scary, but there are still many variables left that will determine whether or not you get into the accident and whether or not you'll live. It is the other variables, at least the ones that can be controlled, that have allowed Germans to travel significantly faster average speeds than elsewhere with the same amount of people dying.
Disregarding deaths per mile as "irrelevant" is absolutely ridiculous, I'd like to see any stat that is more relevant to the safety of highways and that proves my point that we could have higher speeds with no increase in deaths. The problem in many countries is a lack of training combined with poorer quality autos and roads. Canada could have extremely quick autobahn like highways, but at a hugely prohibitive cost.
Limits should be raised to a level of about 140 on primary and 120 on secondary highways. This is the speed that many people are already travelling and is a realistic and reasonable limit. All low speed limits are is a cash cow for cops. Higher limits would kill police revenue and the government would have to come up with at least some of that money and there is a lot of political resistance to the general idea of raising speed limits so I doubt it happening anytime soon.
Vehicles have undergone significant improvements and refinements however speed limits have not evolved with them, and this is all I want. The average new car today that 20 years ago would have been one of the fastest and best handling vehicles on the road is still limited to the same speeds as an average shitbox was then (I'm not entirely sure about when the last increase was, I know each province is different but I can't remember a speed increase in my entire life, let alone my drving life).
You are forgetting or not seeing what I think is the key in this whole debate. Isn't the time it takes to get somewhere vital to the whole existence of the automobile? The quicker the commute the better, it's an essential part of all travel. The fewer stopovers the better on the plane, and the less time on the road the better in an automobile. Why don't we ban all cars, or make the limits 30kmh, that way no one will die? Time is money as they say, and we live in a world obsessed with money. I would much rather travel at a higher speed, with at worst a slightly higher risk of dying because as many crashes as there may be, driving a vehicle is still a very safe thing.
Do you really believe that the speed limits here are set to the right level?
And space shuttles would make terrible cars, one out of ten blows up the first time you drive it :p |
|
|
| midnite |
| i want my flying car already. then when a police officer chases me for driving too fast, i'll up up and away! i'll have to keep my eyes open for the helicopter though. |
|
|
| ehos |
quote:
Originally posted by midnite
i find old people often misjudge the speed of their vehicle, and more often other vehicles way more then the general population. that is probably why they drive so slow..
I find young people misjudge the speed of their vehicle. They often misjudge how well they can drive due to their lack of experience and testosterone.
Then when they smash up their cars, they get defensive and make excuses about 'bad drivers'. Or try to rationalize speed as something 'good' and righteous, when in reality it's speed that accounts for most accidents (next to drunk driving of course, which is mostly again, kids). |
|
|
| Flex |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
So....what you're saying is that if an officer writes half as many tickets as the force average, no one should ask him?
So if you work in a menswear store, and your sales were half what everyone else made, you wouldn't expect your boss to question you?
our tax dollars pay their salary. These "unofficial quotas" are the departments way of making sure cops are writing tickets they're supposed to be. There's no shortage of people breaking the law, trust me. We went on a blitz and wrote $1 million worth of tickets in one month between 6 of us once back when I was working. If a cop is just joyriding around in a car paid for by taxpayers, using gas paid for by taxpayers, and receiving a salary paid for by taxpayers, I damn well hope the powers that be ask a question or two when their figures don't compare with everyone elses.
dont shoot the messenger....Im just repeating what I was told |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Zed
believe that speed kills was the motto, or perhaps just the favourite saying, of the NHTSA for years; while they were putting out faulty comparison statistics of the autobahn and U.S highways, they were trying to prove that speed does kill and does cause accidents.
How much more likely to die is someone in an accident on the autobahn than the highways here and at what speeds were they travelling? I looked but couldn't find any info whatsoever.
So.....you're saying the statistics were "faulty", but also that you couldn't find any data? How do you know, then, that they're faulty.
The motto "speed kills" is perfectly valid. It isn't "speed will make you crash", it's "speed kills", meaning if you get into an accident, the current, single greatest determining factor of whether you live or whether you die is speed. Analyze it however you want, factor in anything else you want, but at this moment in time, in North America, the most common difference between living and dieing is rate of speed. Or more accurately, rate of closure at time of impact.
Well, keep looking. Because the info is out there. You said it yourself right below this paragraph: at 200+km/hr the worse the accident will be. You just said yourself that speed is a major factor in survival rates. You've admitted that. Now look at statistics, any relevent statistics, and you'll find that not only is it a major factor, it's the GREATEST SINGLE factor.
quote:
Obviously the faster you are travelling the worse the accident will be and at 200k+ it becomes really scary, but there are still many variables left that will determine whether or not you get into the accident and whether or not you'll live. It is the other variables, at least the ones that can be controlled, that have allowed Germans to travel significantly faster average speeds than elsewhere with the same amount of people dying.
Oh this wonderful argument. "There are other factors!!!!!!" No doubt. And? The discussion at hand isn't about trying to insert 4-pt hardnesses in vehicles or about making surround-sound airbags manditory, the discussion at hand is about speed. Naturally there are other factors, who dismissed other factors? Who says there are no other factors?
But you hit the nail on the head when you said "factors that can be controlled." Speed can be controlled, can it not? And as the GREATEST SINGLE factor in survivability in an accident, should we focus on that one?
You can argue however you want. Do you know what it sounds like to me? The arguments that were used in the 70's and 80's to try and dispell the "myth" that drinking and driving is bad. Thankfully, those arguments fell on deaf ears back then. My goal is to educate those willing to look at relevent information and apply the logic they already know (you just admitted speed makes accidents worse) in an attempt to help speed out the change in societal views towards speed.
quote:
Disregarding deaths per mile as "irrelevant" is absolutely ridiculous, I'd like to see any stat that is more relevant to the safety of highways and that proves my point that we could have higher speeds with no increase in deaths. The problem in many countries is a lack of training combined with poorer quality autos and roads. Canada could have extremely quick autobahn like highways, but at a hugely prohibitive cost.
How is "deaths per mile" a relevent statistic? You explain how that makes sense at all. "Collisions per mile" would be worth looking at. And I'll let you in on a secret, collisions per mile are nowhere near the same on the Autobahn as they are on US highways: there's virtually NONE on the Autobahn. But unfortunately, we aren't talking about "causes" of accidents, we're talking about fatalities. Which is why you need to look at fatalities per collision.
If I was claiming speed caused accidents, your statistic would be worthy of something. And I tell you what.......if you want to jack up the budget to afford to put 1 cop for every 200 km of highway, 4 lanes each way on every highway, full on and off ramps at every intersection, I would be all for jacking up the limit on highways. But you can't look at one statistic, the statistic this argument isn't even based on, and claim higher speed limits are better. What happened to these other factors you were preaching about? Deaths per mile being the same is a direct result of the decreased number of accidents per mile on the Autobahn, and the largest single factor on why there are less accidents on the autobahn is that the type of traffic on it is limited and strictly policed. No farm implements, no deer crossing, no joyriders, no one breaking the law, no one following too close, no one changing lanes erratically, no one driving 40km/hr in the fast lane, etc. Why is that the case? TONS of cops, strict punishments, and a LARGE infrastructure budget to make the road efficient.
I'm with you 100% on that though man, let's reduce traffic on the highways, increase police presence so you can't drive more than 2 hours without a cop on your side of the road, ban farmers from using them, etc. Go for.
However, if we get back to the topic at hand............when's the last time you heard of someone surviving an accident on the autobahn? 80's maybe? They have what...5 accidents a year? If that? 3 or 4 deaths per accident and 0 survivors?
If you can reduce the number of accidents on US highways to those same levels, then we can take a look at your "deaths per mile" stat (which I still don't know how accurate it would be given the high-density of Autobahn vs the low-density of most US highways), but at least then we can compare apples to apples: extremely restricted roads with a ton of policing. Not roads with 2 cops per state and half of them being undivided 2-way streets with combines on them reducing speeds to 30km/hr. WHo the fuck is going to die in a collision going 30km/hr?
Seriously dude, on what planet does this deaths per mile mean anything? Dig your head of out the sand.
quote:
Limits should be raised to a level of about 140 on primary and 120 on secondary highways. This is the speed that many people are already travelling and is a realistic and reasonable limit. All low speed limits are is a cash cow for cops. Higher limits would kill police revenue and the government would have to come up with at least some of that money and there is a lot of political resistance to the general idea of raising speed limits so I doubt it happening anytime soon.
So if you raised the limit to 140.....people would do 140 still? They wouldn't do 150 or 160? A cash cow for cops? How do you figure? Because police officers are catching people breaking the law?
You know what? Murder being so broad is just a way for the government to get cheap labour for making licence plates. We should confine the definition to only count intentional killing of another human with spoons. Otherwise it's a cash cow.
Seriously man, the fact that cops are catching people speeding doesn't make it a cash cow. If they intentionally lowered the limit somewhere to 40km/hr, put one sign with no warning sign, and put 8 cops at that exact point, I'd say it's a cash cow. But to say issuing tickets to people doing 20-30km/hr over the posted limit (which is the limit across the whole country) is a cash cow is retarded.
Once again...who's being punished? People who break the law. Don't break the law and you stop feeding the cash cow. Now, according to your argument, that would make the government lower the limit. That's how cash cows work afterall. So try it. Everyone drive 110km/hr in 110km/hr highways, let the cops catch NO ONE speeding on highways, and see if the limit gets dropped. If it does, I'll concede it's a cash cow. If it doesn't, you'll have to conceded that's not some arbitrarilly chosen number.
Besides, what's the greatest cause of accidents on Canadian highways aside from Wildlife and falling asleep at the wheel? Not cause of fatalities in collisions, the cause of collisions...
Give up? People driving too slow in the fast lane. If the different between 110km/hr and these people is so great that it causes more collisions than anything else, what do you think increasing the limit to 140 km/hr would do? Probably cause more accidents. And since the speeds are higher, there'd be more fatalities.
Good job genius, let's kill more people to eliminate the government's "cash cow". :S Suddenly comparing it to murder isn't such a stretch afterall, huh?
But I tell you what, let's do it your way. Let's jack up the speed limit, and see if "deaths per mile" on our highways increase, you seem to like that statistic. If they do, you cede you're an idiot and should've listened to "speed kills" all along.
Are you willing to risk those lives? Put them all on your head? All so you can get to Calgary 1 hour sooner? 1 hour is that important, eh? It justifies raising the limit even after you admitted speed makes collisions worse? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Vehicles have undergone significant improvements and refinements however speed limits have not evolved with them, and this is all I want. The average new car today that 20 years ago would have been one of the fastest and best handling vehicles on the road is still limited to the same speeds as an average shitbox was then (I'm not entirely sure about when the last increase was, I know each province is different but I can't remember a speed increase in my entire life, let alone my drving life).
You should watch that Top Gear where they compare old and new cars.....I think you'll find they haven't changed that much. Oh sure, you're chance of surviving a collision has gone up......but has the risk of being in a collision gone down? I think you'll find it hasn't. I think, in fact, you'll find it's gone up. Curtousy in driving has gone out the window, road rage is higher than it ever was, and as a result, you'll find your chance of being in a collision, despite ABS, better tires, etc is about the same as it ever was. And since the point of not increasing speed is to avoid increasing your chance of dieing not your chance of being in a collision, it doesn't really make sense to raise it, despite advances in technology.
quote:
You are forgetting or not seeing what I think is the key in this whole debate. Isn't the time it takes to get somewhere vital to the whole existence of the automobile? The quicker the commute the better, it's an essential part of all travel. The fewer stopovers the better on the plane, and the less time on the road the better in an automobile. Why don't we ban all cars, or make the limits 30kmh, that way no one will die? Time is money as they say, and we live in a world obsessed with money. I would much rather travel at a higher speed, with at worst a slightly higher risk of dying because as many crashes as there may be, driving a vehicle is still a very safe thing.
You might prefer that. But the government needs to consider what EVERYONE wants. If you'd like to double your chance of dieing in order to halve your commute time, I'd say you have some issues. :S Although oddly enough, you'd double your chance of dieing to reduce your commute time by maybe 20%, since your risk of dieing increases exponentially whereas travel time doesn't.
What's the point of cars? Faster and more reliable than horses, and more comfortable. Next time you're going 110km/hr and cursing the speed limit, just consider how long that trip would've taken you by horse.
Is the car of today new technology over the car of yesterday? I don't think it is. It's still a hunk of metal driven by an internal combustion engine on wheels. Planes, as you mentioned, are a new technology. And they can go MUCH faster. But even they have "speed limits". A pilot can go and buy a fighter jet that will do Mach 1.4, but he can't exceed Mach .99. Worse still, ATC will probably restrict him to somewhere closer to Mach .88 or Mach .89. And yet, planes are sooo much more safer than cars, and we still restrict them.
But do you know why planes have less restrictions than cars? Strict licencing. Let's make a car licence cost $8,000 too, I bet you'll see accidents decrease. Have them require a strict medical, I bet you'll see accidents decrease. Have pilots be forced to follow the laws or lose their licence initially for a year, subsequently for several years, and a 3rd time forever, and you'll see accidents decrease.
You keep comparing apples and oranges and acting like those comparisons make sense. Ok sure, I compared murder and speeding which is worse, but the point it illustrated was valid, and it wasn't a comparison to justify changing something. Start comparing apples to apples and you'll see just how assinine your suggestions are.
quote:
Do you really believe that the speed limits here are set to the right level?
And space shuttles would make terrible cars, one out of ten blows up the first time you drive it :p
Yes, I do believe speed limits are set to the right level. Fuel efficiency gets worse in any car I've ever seen beyind 120km/hr, and suirvivability increases. Additionally, speed increases beyond 110km/hr but still within any semplance of reason make such a small impact on the travel times for the average driver, that the risk of increased fatalities doesn't justify it.
Yeah, 1 in 10 shuttles explode, but hey, let's add twice the boosters (which are the components that keep exploding) so we can get into space in half the time! Sure, we'd have 1 in 4 shuttles exploding after, but we'd get to space faster! it'd be worth it. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
But do you know why planes have less restrictions than cars? Strict licencing. Let's make a car licence cost $8,000 too, I bet you'll see accidents decrease. Have them require a strict medical, I bet you'll see accidents decrease. Have pilots be forced to follow the laws or lose their licence initially for a year, subsequently for several years, and a 3rd time forever, and you'll see accidents decrease.
You see.. and thats where i think is the thing that starts all the problems and is the biggest factor in causing accidents.
You are right! If we did make the training stricter and harder, licencing more expensive and the laws more harsh (or stricter enforced). we would have less accidents. I came to Canada and i laughed at the "getting a licence" process... to me it was and is ridiculous. Back at home we had to go through series of courses (which i described already earlier in this thread). Then we had a series of tests... like the practical test on the driving range that is designed to teach and test people on how to park/turn/back up And you cant be off by much while doing a test like that (you have to have your passenger or driver wheel on this lince at all times... there might be a tolerance of 4-5 inches. Well anyway.. take a look what it can look like:
 [img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/94/naukajazdy2yk2.th.jpg]
[img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2416/nauka4vm7.th.jpg]
[img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8066/nauka3he8.th.jpg]
Today as i was entering superstore parking lot.. through the ENTRANCE that is designed only to ENTER, and where it says ENTRANCE, there was this asian lady trying to EXIT and blocking the traffic on calgary trail.. After that! as i was WALKING (i was a pedestrian) towards the building.. there is this lady that is taking the turn wide in the perking lot and she just about drove into me (the turn she took was so wide she wouldhave ended up on the oposite traffic side - if it was a normal street.. and she did it cuz she had no idea how to turn)
Look at all that all junk thats driving on the streets today! shit thats sometimes over 30 years old, rusted through... probably hasnt had a maintance check in like 15 years. Thats another thing we should take a look at. Another example how we should compare cars to planes. In my home country.. you buy a car from a dealer brand new.. you have 3 years... then you go for a maintance check to prove to the government the car is good to drive... after first 3 years.. you have to repeat that every 2..... and over here we have nothing like that! The govetrnment doesnt give a shit about the condition of the vehicles on the streets. They just have the out of province inspection and the one that you have to get done if the car got into an accident and has been fixed. We also have the inspection that the insurance wants to have done if the car is over 15 years... But its for the INSURANCE, not the REGISTRATION. Something the government should look into. (i think they should implement this eventhough we would probably have to pay for these inspections) |
|
|
| Prudz_lude |
quote:
Originally posted by prophetes1
You see.. and thats where i think is the thing that starts all the problems and is the biggest factor in causing accidents.
You are right! If we did make the training stricter and harder, licencing more expensive and the laws more harsh (or stricter enforced). we would have less accidents. I came to Canada and i laughed at the "getting a licence" process... to me it was and is ridiculous. Back at home we had to go through series of courses (which i described already earlier in this thread). Then we had a series of tests... like the practical test on the driving range that is designed to teach and test people on how to park/turn/back up And you cant be off by much while doing a test like that (you have to have your passenger or driver wheel on this lince at all times... there might be a tolerance of 4-5 inches. Well anyway.. take a look what it can look like:
[img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/94/naukajazdy2yk2.th.jpg]
[img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/2416/nauka4vm7.th.jpg]
[img=http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8066/nauka3he8.th.jpg]
Today as i was entering superstore parking lot.. through the ENTRANCE that is designed only to ENTER, and where it says ENTRANCE, there was this asian lady trying to EXIT and blocking the traffic on calgary trail.. After that! as i was WALKING (i was a pedestrian) towards the building.. there is this lady that is taking the turn wide in the perking lot and she just about drove into me (the turn she took was so wide she wouldhave ended up on the oposite traffic side - if it was a normal street.. and she did it cuz she had no idea how to turn)
Look at all that all junk thats driving on the streets today! shit thats sometimes over 30 years old, rusted through... probably hasnt had a maintance check in like 15 years. Thats another thing we should take a look at. Another example how we should compare cars to planes. In my home country.. you buy a car from a dealer brand new.. you have 3 years... then you go for a maintance check to prove to the government the car is good to drive... after first 3 years.. you have to repeat that every 2..... and over here we have nothing like that! The govetrnment doesnt give a shit about the condition of the vehicles on the streets. They just have the out of province inspection and the one that you have to get done if the car got into an accident and has been fixed. We also have the inspection that the insurance wants to have done if the car is over 15 years... But its for the INSURANCE, not the REGISTRATION. Something the government should look into. (i think they should implement this eventhough we would probably have to pay for these inspections)
I do not agree. The reason so many cars are 30 plus years old is because young people have trouble affording insurance on well running cars. Im just turning 21 in september and i drive my 93 vtec prelude with just theft and basic liability and my rates are 260 as is. How could i afford any higher when i can barely afford a fourteen year old honda???? My insurance is finally dropping over 100 because GDL is finished in 40 days and i get a ten dollar drop or whatever in september but you cannot afford to drive and thats simply because of private insurance. |
|
|
| prophetes1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
I do not agree. The reason so many cars are 30 plus years old is because young people have trouble affording insurance on well running cars. Im just turning 21 in september and i drive my 93 vtec prelude with just theft and basic liability and my rates are 260 as is. How could i afford any higher when i can barely afford a fourteen year old honda???? My insurance is finally dropping over 100 because GDL is finished in 40 days and i get a ten dollar drop or whatever in september but you cannot afford to drive and thats simply because of private insurance.
Well you see.. i am 21 and i have a 2004 eclipse.. and i have same coverage as you do.. cuz i also cant afford full coverage.. and my rate is 175/montrh.
In Poland the gas is EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and income is EXTREMELY LOW. Sooooo.... Imagine that you are making $700 / month, and you have to support your entire family from that, AND the gas is $2/liter.... People over there can make it (they also do the inspections and pay for them)... why cant you over here?
PLUS! im 95% sure that if you have just PLPD and fire and theft.. it doesnt matter what car you are driving... the rate is still the same. It changes from car to car if you have colision... cuz then the insurance company knows that if you get into an accident, and it is your fault... they will also have to pay for your vehicle's damage, so they want to know what car you are driving. SOOOOO.. If you have just PLPD and fire/theft, and since they are the same for every car... there should be no reason why young people wouldnt be able to afford insurance on a newer car.. since they are affording it now... and its the same no matter what car they have. (provinding they have only PLPD & fire/theft.)
Could some1 please tell me if i am right about the insurance thingy.. PLPD being the same for every car for the particular driver? Im pretty sure that is what i heard from the broker...
Besides! if you are turning 21... and you just have fir/theft and PLPD, and your rate is $260/month... that means that either A.)Your insurance company is rippin you off, or B.) You have an accident on your record.. or a lot of tickets... and you deserve a high rate cuz you are a bad driver. |
|
|
| midnite |
quote:
Originally posted by ehos
I find young people misjudge the speed of their vehicle. They often misjudge how well they can drive due to their lack of experience and testosterone.
Then when they smash up their cars, they get defensive and make excuses about 'bad drivers'. Or try to rationalize speed as something 'good' and righteous, when in reality it's speed that accounts for most accidents (next to drunk driving of course, which is mostly again, kids).
This is also true, the first few years of learning to drive I pushed the limits a lot to find out where they were and how to control them.
I'm in that middle zone now where I have matured and stopped speeding everywhere. :p |
|
|
| 300zxhunter |
| :thumbup: Im still in that dumb driving zone :lol: :holy: :lol: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Prudz_lude
I do not agree. The reason so many cars are 30 plus years old is because young people have trouble affording insurance on well running cars. Im just turning 21 in september and i drive my 93 vtec prelude with just theft and basic liability and my rates are 260 as is. How could i afford any higher when i can barely afford a fourteen year old honda???? My insurance is finally dropping over 100 because GDL is finished in 40 days and i get a ten dollar drop or whatever in september but you cannot afford to drive and thats simply because of private insurance.
But.........in the places that are being used as "evidence" in these deabates, those cars wouldn't be allowed to leave a garage. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Flex
dont shoot the messenger....Im just repeating what I was told
Don't think of it as shooting.......think of it as "educating".
Seriously, everyone complains about cops and come budget time the public never steps up and says "Hey, law enforcement needs more money". So we need to be careful with our spending. If we have cops out there who show up for work, get in their car, drive to some secluded road and have a nap, I want them to get caught and fired. And the best way to do that is to ask questions when police officers aren't writing e | | | |
