Justice for an idiot driver

[4X4]

Call me a speeder, but I only got 20 or 30 posts past my last post (~20th).

Sometimes it amazes me that this is a hockey forum. I wonder if I'm reading a quilting forum.

Are you people telling me that you are comfortable doing 100 on Deerfoot on a clear day? Honestly? And surpassing 100 is endangering yourself and your passengers, and your fellow roadmen? Honestly?

All I can say is grow a sack.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Call me a speeder, but I only got 20 or 30 posts past my last post (~20th).

Sometimes it amazes me that this is a hockey forum. I wonder if I'm reading a quilting forum.

Are you people telling me that you are comfortable doing 100 on Deerfoot on a clear day? Honestly? And surpassing 100 is endangering yourself and your passengers, and your fellow roadmen? Honestly?

All I can say is grow a sack.

I've got three kids so there's no problems with my sack, thanks.

I'm comfortable doing 100 down the Deerfoot on a clear day, sure. That's plenty fast enough for me on that road. If you want to drive your 4x4 super fast to prove what an impressive sack you have, then you go right ahead. No worries there. Just don't be an asshat about it too, like many you see out there. If you are then, yes, you are endangering your fellow roadmen.

[soulchoice]

Originally Posted by Jagger

I've got three kids so there's no problems with my sack, thanks.

I'm comfortable doing 100 down the Deerfoot on a clear day, sure. That's plenty fast enough for me on that road. If you want to drive your 4x4 super fast to prove what an impressive sack you have, then you go right ahead. No worries there. Just don't be an asshat about it too, like many you see out there. If you are then, yes, you are endangering your fellow roadmen.

I can respect your decision to drive 100. As long as people are not doing that speed in the left lane. I can be honest, I speed pretty much 90% of the time. Usually at least 20kms over any posted limit, except school or playground zones.

However, I am only in the left lane if I am going faster then the guys in the middle or right lane. Heck, even when doing say 130 or 140 on deerfoot and some dude comes behind me, I will always move over and let him pass. I see no reason to impede another driver from passing me, hence I move for them, no matter what speed i am going.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by soulchoice

However, I am only in the left lane if I am going faster then the guys in the middle or right lane. Heck, even when doing say 130 or 140 on deerfoot and some dude comes behind me, I will always move over and let him pass. I see no reason to impede another driver from passing me, hence I move for them, no matter what speed i am going.

Yep, me too without fail. It's the courteous thing to do.

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by 4X4

All I can say is grow a sack.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...623748453.html

ers

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

ohhh the argument that I said wasn't a very good one the first time I posted it? Other than that the argument has been strictly a technical one where I have had trouble convincing peopel that a driver who is not on the road poses no danger to anybody. Does that logic trouble you?

Hell, I even said this: driving faster is relatively more dangerous than driving slower,
I was just pointing out that speed isn't the only variable here and anybody with deep thinking ability will see that. I have posted an article on reaction time (people were concered about the young asshats reaction time), and brought up variable such as age and type of car for people to consider. Nowhere did I say that driving faster was safer. Specifically I responded about hitting deer, and said the less time you spend on the road, the less deer you will see. That is simply true. I have also said the less time you spend driving the less chance you have of being hit by dangerous drivers, which is also true.

Except I've shown in numverous posts that the points you make are in fact not true. I've shown that time on the road is not the only variable that you have to worry about when you're deciding if you're going to see more deer.

Yes, based on time you would have a 10% chance of a deer crossing your path.

But since deer on on the road for a finite period of time, and you are covering more ground in that time you're chance of encountering a hazard (say a deer) at any point on that road increases by the same ammount that you have decreased it due to your time on the road.

It all balances out, no matter how fast you drive, for the same stretch of road, your chances of encountering a hazard (such as a deer) are exactly the same.

An increase in speed, increases the chance that you'll encounter the spot where a hazard exists.

An increase in speed decreases the chance that a hazard will exist durring the time that you are on the road by the exact ammount that it is increased due to your speed.

I'm not sure how I can make that more clear!

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Call me a speeder, but I only got 20 or 30 posts past my last post (~20th).

Sometimes it amazes me that this is a hockey forum. I wonder if I'm reading a quilting forum.

Are you people telling me that you are comfortable doing 100 on Deerfoot on a clear day? Honestly? And surpassing 100 is endangering yourself and your passengers, and your fellow roadmen? Honestly?

All I can say is grow a sack.

Are you one of those ######bags who tailgates in a playground zone?

Oh and if anyone speeds in the playground zone on 58th ave, you really need to have your head checked.

[ken0042]

Ok, I think I see where there is a misunderstanding with the deer issue.

The problem is that a deer is a living, thinking, moving creature. So when it darts out into the road is based on what it decides is a good idea. Meaning to us as drivers it is something random. Let's take the random factor out of the equation.

Somebody suggested potholes. Good, because they move around a lot less than our deer do. Basically like so many other road hazzards, they are based on number per km, so increasing speed does not decrease the number of potholes you encounter.

And to clarify what others have been trying to say- I don't think any body is trying to make the case that doing 120 in a 100 zone is safer than doing the speed limit. I think what is in dispute is whether it is safer to do 120 or 80 in said 100 zone.

Edit- and let's cut the name calling, OK. It's one thing to call some random person you saw on the street an "asshat." It's quite another to disrespect your fellow posters.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Jagger

I've got three kids so there's no problems with my sack, thanks.

I'm comfortable doing 100 down the Deerfoot on a clear day, sure. That's plenty fast enough for me on that road. If you want to drive your 4x4 super fast to prove what an impressive sack you have, then you go right ahead. No worries there. Just don't be an asshat about it too, like many you see out there. If you are then, yes, you are endangering your fellow roadmen.

Wow. I was a little mean last night.

Yeah, my post was aimed at the posters that were saying that anything over 100 is dangerous. I mean, come on. You can't handle 110? What happens when the limit turns to 110 after beddington tr?

It's just to funny to read some of these posters that sound like they're 60 y/o ladies.

And no, I don't need to 'drive my 4x4 super fast to prove my sack size'. I keep pace with traffic. Sometimes traffic is going 20 over the limit, sometimes 20 under.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Bovine fecal matter.


Speed limits are designed to accomidate the lowest common denominator.

100 on Deerfoot on a nice day is like walking.
Ditto for 80 on Glenmore, Sarcee, Stoney Tr, Crowchild...

Not true at all my friend. My wife is a civil engineer that specializes in transportation and I can assure you that the curvature of the road, the sight lines, change in elevation, all of it - is based on what the speed limit of the road is going to be. The scary part is that the safety of the road (i.e. the driver's ability to react to a dangerous situation) is greatly reduced the more you go over that limit... there really isn't a lot of safety factor built in.

Using your example, I very much doubt that Deerfoot was designed for a speed limit of 140kph and then the city decided to put up a 100kph speed limit.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I don't have anything to say to SeeGeeWhy, except for the same reason people go 10 under the speed limit in summer, is the reason I go 10 over. Because I feel like it, and it's safer. For me, driving safer means going faster to avoid people who drive too slowly.

I could argue about this topic all day, because I think that slow drivers are more dangerous than they think they are. I am fully supportive of the police issuing tickets for people driving under the speed limit as well as over.

I treat the speed limit as a guide, not a limit. Welcome to Calgary, welcome to Deerfoot Trail. If you don't like speeding then don't take that road. Or at the very least get OUT of the left lane.

Slow drivers always think they are safer and more skilled than fast drivers, when that just isn't the case.

REDVAN, My main point is that a road built for public transport isn't meant for hobby driving, which is how your description of your driving came across to me as - "I drive fast because I like it" (ad lib).

You really don't know if the road is empty and all it takes is a split second for something to change and then you, or what/who ever you hit - is done.

If you really love driving fast, there is a place for it. You can go way faster there than you can on any public road, in controlled conditions, and have way more fun doing it. You could even find a career in it if you are that passionate about it. You won't find any of those things going 10 over the speed limit on Mcleod Trail.

Like I said in my response to 4X4 - the posted speed limit is a design point for that road based on statistical data of the reaction time of the average person. Of course different people will be able to handle a certain road at faster speeds, which makes it a bit of a "guide" but you would be surprised to see just how narrow that deviation from the average is. A 10kph difference either way is probably not much, but getting outside of that changes things drastically both with the performance of the vehicle (i.e. stopping distances) and the performance of the driver (i.e. reaction times).

Trust me, the most dangerous thing you can do is to have a cavalier attitude on a public road. I really do urge you to try out going to the race track and getting into racing in a controlled environment - you'll probably love it!

[SeeGeeWhy]

Also, the left lane convention that may posters are bringing up is a myth in city driving - that passing rule is for highways only. All lanes are equal within the city.

[Cube Inmate]

I'm sure I'm one of the ones that was being referred to as a sackless granny or whatever. That's fair, since I called others asshats.

I'm not saying I can't handle anything higher than the posted speed limit. I'm not saying it scares me when I see the speedo jump one notch too high. I'm simply saying that physics, statistics, and human skills are all factors that make it irrefutably more dangerous to travel faster than slower.

If you want to speed...fine, but don't be an asshat about it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

For those that say that the roads are designed only for the posted speed limited, that is not the case. Speeds are adjusted all the time on highways, up and down depending on circumstances. It comes down to common sense and common courtesy. I think speed is relative to the other vehicles around you. If most of the vehciles are traveling over the speed limit, it is safer for traffic to travel close to the same rate of speed. You dont want some guy doing 30k under or 30k over what everyone else is doing. And it all depends on the road conditions.

Having said that, the faster you drive....the harder it is to stop. So the people that say those driving faster are more dangerous, this may be the case if they do not compinsate for the stopping distances.

Again...common sense and common courtesy would solve a lot of problems.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Except I've shown in numverous posts that the points you make are in fact not true. I've shown that time on the road is not the only variable that you have to worry about when you're deciding if you're going to see more deer.

Yes, based on time you would have a 10% chance of a deer crossing your path.

But since deer on on the road for a finite period of time, and you are covering more ground in that time you're chance of encountering a hazard (say a deer) at any point on that road increases by the same ammount that you have decreased it due to your time on the road.

It all balances out, no matter how fast you drive, for the same stretch of road, your chances of encountering a hazard (such as a deer) are exactly the same.

An increase in speed, increases the chance that you'll encounter the spot where a hazard exists.

An increase in speed decreases the chance that a hazard will exist durring the time that you are on the road by the exact ammount that it is increased due to your speed.

I'm not sure how I can make that more clear!

i guess you can't. You haven't so far. Tell me this, if you were driving from Banff to Golden at 100km/h are you likely to see more or less deer than somebody who drives the same stretch of road at (a silly example) 10 km/h? I have a hunch that the slow person would see more deer, even though you travel the same distance. If you disagree with that, well, I don't know what else to say. The speed difference we have been talking about is not 90km/h, so it wouldn't be that drastic of a difference (obviously) but why would the general trend not hold? I have presented this argument a couple times ( as the 2.7 vs 3 deer on a stretch of road) and you have not responded to it.

I'm not stupid enough to say that speeding is safer or anything like that, it obviously isn't, and I know that we are having a stupid argument right now that really has little to do with the intended topic here. I have been wrong in the past, so if you could bring yourself to explain to me using the sepecifics of the example above how the point in question is wrong, I will accept that.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by MacDougalbry

minivan (the arch enemy of the bob and weave driver

That is not true because I see many minivans weaving all over the place. And speeding like crazy. But I have to say SUVs are the worst speeders for sure.

[GrrlGoalie33]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If most of the vehciles are traveling over the speed limit, it is safer for traffic to travel close to the same rate of speed. You dont want some guy doing 30k under or 30k over what everyone else is doing. And it all depends on the road conditions.

Maybe most of the drivers are comfortable doing 30k over the speedlimit, but I would much rather have someone doing the speedlimit (even if it slows traffic), if they are not comfortable doing 30k over. They are much more dangerous doing a speed that they can't handle than slowing some of the traffic.

And lets not forget that going over the posted speedlimit is illegal. It is irrational to get mad at ANY driver for not speeding - as long as they are going near the speedlimit.

I also heard from an old cop friend of mine that it's illegal to go more than 10km/hr under the speedlimit under ideal conditions - they are just as dangerous as the people speeding.

The perception that slower drivers are more dangerous is absurd...it is two wrongs that don't make a right. The person doing 10k under the speedlimit is no more atfault than the vehicle that feels the need to jump out of that lane and into another lane dangerously. Remember - no one forces you to make any decision. You are always in charge, you just made a bad choice in this instance...

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

For those that say that the roads are designed only for the posted speed limited, that is not the case. Speeds are adjusted all the time on highways, up and down depending on circumstances

They were saying roads were designed for a speed limit, with a safety factor used as well. There is a margin that a speed limit can lie within. However, on some roads, there is in fact a set limit since the design does not allow higher speed.

An example of this is Highway 3 between Lethbridge and Coaldale. Many residents complain that this isn't 110km/h like the other 4 lane divided highways in the area. The main reason for it are the approaches/intersections and distance between EB/WB lanes. That road can't handle 110km/h traffic, so the limit is 100.

[Barnes]

Deer are not static. They feed near highway ditches at dusk. They move in herds and there movements are affected by many factors including food supply, predator proximity, water proximity, time of year, and other environmental factors. It is impossible to say whether one person would see more or less animals.

If the car traveling 100km/h passes a herd of 8 animals at castle mountain and spooks them back into the woods, the car traveling 10 km/h then passes the same spot and sees no animals because the continued further into the valley to graze and both cars see no deer all the way to Golden, what of your theory?

You make too many assumptions. What happens at a given point is variable over time. Because they are traveling at different rates they reach a point at different times. The time difference allows for a number of things to happen.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

They were saying roads were designed for a speed limit, with a safety factor used as well. There is a margin that a speed limit can lie within. However, on some roads, there is in fact a set limit since the design does not allow higher speed.

An example of this is Highway 3 between Lethbridge and Coaldale. Many residents complain that this isn't 110km/h like the other 4 lane divided highways in the area. The main reason for it are the approaches/intersections and distance between EB/WB lanes. That road can't handle 110km/h traffic, so the limit is 100.

What are you talking about the distance between the EB/WB lanes? Before I jump all over this I want to be sure that you are sayin there isn't enough room between the two lanes. Is that what you are saying?