Justice for an idiot driver

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

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.

How many times do I have to explain that the chance of hitting a hazard has two variables, position and time.

Let's look at your example, that 3 deer appear every 10 minutes on a 10 km stretch of road. I'm traveling at 100km/h so I'll see 3 deer.
You're traveling at 110km/h so you will see 2.7 deer (approximately). SO you are 10% less likley to see a deer.

Now what are the chances of hitting the deer? Well, let's say that the deer is in a postion to get hit for about 1 second. In that one second that teh deer is in my lane I'll have traveled 27.7m. In that same 1 second you have traveld 30.5m or about 10% further than an I have, so for that 1 second that the deer is in your lane and a hazard to you, you are 10% more likely to hit it.

It all averages out. You may see fewer deer, but the chances of intercepting them is greater, so the chance of either one of us hitting a deer is exactly the same.

Let me relate this to hockey so you can maybe finally understand this.

Jarome Iginla can score a goal on aveage about every 10 minutes.
Mathew Lombardi can score a goal on average about every 60 minutes.

This is equavalent to the ammount of distance you traverse in the 1 second that the deer is on the road.

Now lets equate that to the time you're on the road.

If Jarome Iginla plays hockey for 100 minutes and Mathew Lombardi plays hockey for 600 minutes, who scores more goals?


See, there is an inverse relationship between the two factors that influence wheterh or not you'll hit a deer, position and time.
When you decrease time, you increase you're rate of change of position by a proportionate ammount so the probability stays the same.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Jarome Iginla can score a goal on aveage about every 10 minutes.

SIGN THIS GUY!!

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

How many times do I have to explain that the chance of hitting a hazard has two variables, position and time.

Let's look at your example, that 3 deer appear every 10 minutes on a 10 km stretch of road. I'm traveling at 100km/h so I'll see 3 deer.
You're traveling at 110km/h so you will see 2.7 deer (approximately). SO you are 10% less likley to see a deer.

Now what are the chances of hitting the deer? Well, let's say that the deer is in a postion to get hit for about 1 second. In that one second that teh deer is in my lane I'll have traveled 27.7m. In that same 1 second you have traveld 30.5m or about 10% further than an I have, so for that 1 second that the deer is in your lane and a hazard to you, you are 10% more likely to hit it.

It all averages out. You may see fewer deer, but the chances of intercepting them is greater, so the chance of either one of us hitting a deer is exactly the same.

Let me relate this to hockey so you can maybe finally understand this.

Jarome Iginla can score a goal on aveage about every 10 minutes.
Mathew Lombardi can score a goal on average about every 60 minutes.

This is equavalent to the ammount of distance you traverse in the 1 second that the deer is on the road.

Now lets equate that to the time you're on the road.

If Jarome Iginla plays hockey for 100 minutes and Mathew Lombardi plays hockey for 600 minutes, who scores more goals?


See, there is an inverse relationship between the two factors that influence wheterh or not you'll hit a deer, position and time.
When you decrease time, you increase you're rate of change of position by a proportionate ammount so the probability stays the same.

OK, I'll except that. I think there are still arguments to be made but it's not really relevant or worth the time for either of us. I never really intended to argue this point with anybody because as I've said, I'm not so dumb as to claim that driving faster is safer and I also said it was a dumb argument when I first mentioned it. I just posted that in relation to chances of hitting deer increasing with increased speed. To be honest, I was quite bored and was just looking to jump in on a conversation. You've shown me that I was wrong, and I apologize that it took you so long to convince me. I see your point, thanks for explaining it to me.

But for argument's sake, you've now agreed that a slower driver would see more deer, and I believe you were assuming before that the sight of a deer would cause the driver to panic and crash. I disagreed with the crash part, but the sight of a deer does cause some safety concerns for drivers. Care to explain?

Just kidding, consider me humbled.

[vfrcowboy]

It was interesting reading the varying comments on speeding. If you research accident statistics, not just for Calgary but for almost any jurisdiction, speed is RARELY the cause of an accident. Since the introduction of photo radar, there has been little change in statistics, including accidents, other than the number of tickets issued, even though the volume of traffic has increased significantly the past 10 years.

While one could argue speed is a factor, only one vehicle needs to be moving, and marginally at that for speed to be a factor. We have been led to believe that speed kills, but the majority of traffic doing 120 on the Deerfoot does not kill. Pay attention, it is the drivers going 90km/hr that cause the frustrations in the other drivers and people take risks that they otherwise wouldn't to keep traffic moving. One only has to look at rushhour on northbound Deerfooot to question whether speed is a problem or poor drivers. With nothing slowing up traffic ahead, the speed in the left lane, where there are no exits, is stop and go, up to maybe 30km/hr at times. This is a sign of poor driving skills.

There is a reason that so many jurisdictions have gone away from speed enforcement and focused on the true causes of accidents - both Washington and Montana are perfect examples. Speed is the #1 enforced violation and I do not believe it makes the top 5 list of accident causes. Safety or revenue? Don't believe me? The proof is publicly available.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by vfrcowboy

It was interesting reading the varying comments on speeding. If you research accident statistics, not just for Calgary but for almost any jurisdiction, speed is RARELY the cause of an accident. Since the introduction of photo radar, there has been little change in statistics, including accidents, other than the number of tickets issued, even though the volume of traffic has increased significantly the past 10 years.

While one could argue speed is a factor, only one vehicle needs to be moving, and marginally at that for speed to be a factor. We have been led to believe that speed kills, but the majority of traffic doing 120 on the Deerfoot does not kill. Pay attention, it is the drivers going 90km/hr that cause the frustrations in the other drivers and people take risks that they otherwise wouldn't to keep traffic moving. One only has to look at rushhour on northbound Deerfooot to question whether speed is a problem or poor drivers. With nothing slowing up traffic ahead, the speed in the left lane, where there are no exits, is stop and go, up to maybe 30km/hr at times. This is a sign of poor driving skills.

There is a reason that so many jurisdictions have gone away from speed enforcement and focused on the true causes of accidents - both Washington and Montana are perfect examples. Speed is the #1 enforced violation and I do not believe it makes the top 5 list of accident causes. Safety or revenue? Don't believe me? The proof is publicly available.

The truth is you just like to crank up that VFR.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

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.

And fast drivers like yourself think you're more skilled than the rest of us drivers who do the posted limits? Excuse me while I put on my hip waders.

And please don't give me this " If you don't like speeding then don't take that road", bullcrap! I'm sick of Deerfoot drivers who show blatant disregard for posted speed limits. Sooner or later you will get caught. And I hope it's sooner.

No wonder insurace rates for your age group are so high.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

But those of us who have newer vehicles and are able to drive faster on the roads should be allowed to do so without fearing the wrath of the other drivers, especially when it's safe for us to do so. That is what I do, I drive how fast I want to drive, and as long as it's safe the slower drivers shoulnd't be bothered by it.

P.S. Yes I am a speed junkie, that is a good way of putting it!

So we should just toss out the posted speed limits because it's doesn't suit your needs?

FYI drivers going faster than the posted limits create hazards for the rest of doing the posted limits. It's no different than the drivers who drive under the limit.

[metallicat]

What is the speed limit on the Deerfoot? Even if there are people going 90k, going 130 doesn't help matters at all. Not only that, but driving at those speeds and then braking all the time is bad for your car and fuel economy.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Dion

No wonder insurace rates for your age group are so high.

I take that personally. I have been driving for about 8 years with no accidents, no claims, and no tickets. Tell me again why it's fair that MY insurance rates are so high?

And good God this thread is a couple months old do we still need to start attacking me again? Just let it die. People are very touchy when others don't do things how they want, so just let the other drivers do their own thing.

[metallicat]

nm

[Dion]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I take that personally. I have been driving for about 8 years with no accidents, no claims, and no tickets. Tell me again why it's fair that MY insurance rates are so high?

Maybe you have been lucky enough to not get caught speeding. Remember you said you like to speed and feel you should be able to drive at whatever speed you want. You're no better than the ones who are caught multiple times.

And good God this thread is a couple months old do we still need to start attacking me again? Just let it die. People are very touchy when others don't do things how they want, so just let the other drivers do their own thing.

Let drivers do their own thing?

The actions of drivers affect others in case you didn't know.

Drivers who drink and drive ending killing themselves or others.

Drivers who speed are a danger to others on the road.

Should I go on?

[Red]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here is driving skills. The young asshats that speed think that the older and slower drivers don't know how to drive, but they fail to realize that those old people were young at one point too and they too thought they knew everything.

Young people that speed are dangerous because in a case of emergency they wouldn't know what to do like the older, more experienced drivers do. Exceptions are there, but in general that's true. Of course no young person will agree with me on this until they hit 35 and see 20 year old asshats doing stupid thing after stupid thing.

[Dion]

http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=269

All forms of speeding are dangerous. Speed is one of the major factors contributing to crashes. The speed at which a driver chooses to travel on the road affects both the risk of a crash occurring and the severity of resulting injuries.

Research by the Centre for Automotive Safety Research shows that on 60km/h urban roads the risk of a crash doubles when travelling just 5km/h above the speed limit.

Greater demands are placed on drivers travelling at higher speeds, because the time to respond to changing conditions on the road ahead is significantly less. Therefore the ability to react to actions of other drivers or unexpected hazards is reduced and greater distance is required to stop.

Put simply, as your speed increases, so does your risk of crashing and being seriously injured or killed or worse, injuring or killing someone else. There are no excuses for speeding.

[DementedReality]

my beef lately hasnt been speeders, its been those people who drive with their foot on the break!

whats up with that? i understand taking your foot off the gas to slow down going down a hill, but damn USE YOUR GEARS. Especially when there is no car in front of you, why does your foot need to STAY on the break?

Damn that was frustrating.

I think the problem with slow and tenative drivers is that it causes road rage for those who have to wait for the tenative driver to get the nerve up to change lanes or merge. know what i mean?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Dion

http://www.mac.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=269

There's an old solution, Dion.

Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by DementedReality

whats up with that? i understand taking your foot off the gas to slow down going down a hill, but damn USE YOUR GEARS. Especially when there is no car in front of you, why does your foot need to STAY on the break?

Maybe because not everyone drives a stick?

[V]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

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.

The Coaldale 500 can't take 110km/h traffic??? I'm not sure I've ever seen a vehicle doing less than 130 on that road.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by V

The Coaldale 500 can't take 110km/h traffic??? I'm not sure I've ever seen a vehicle doing less than 130 on that road.

Designed for and what actually happens are two different things.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Dion

And fast drivers like yourself think you're more skilled than the rest of us drivers who do the posted limits? Excuse me while I put on my hip waders.

And please don't give me this " If you don't like speeding then don't take that road", bullcrap! I'm sick of Deerfoot drivers who show blatant disregard for posted speed limits. Sooner or later you will get caught. And I hope it's sooner.

No wonder insurace rates for your age group are so high.

Hip waders, eh? Are you sure you're not looking for your Depends, you 90 year old lady? Sorry, I'll try to refrain from getting personal, but Dion, every post you make in any of these types of threads is just a line-towing, law abiding sheep-man post. It's really starting to alarm me how little you question any rule set before you, but how much you question your fellow man.

Redvan speeds here and there, and you are 'hoping that the law catches up with him'. Puke. Get real. Stay off Deerfoot, man. Get the hell out of the left lane Mr. Holier Than Thou. I'm the one keeping pace with Redvan, going 5, 10, 40 over the limit depending on the road conditions, and if you're too unskilled, or your car simply isn't capable of handling us redneck road coyboys' speed, stay the hell out of the way and take the whining to the lawn bowling club.

[4X4]

ps, sorry I'm so mean this morning, I didn't get any action last night. As for the insurance comment, how do you know how old Redvan or anyone here is? And how is it relevant to the discussion at hand? My insurance was high when I was <25, just like yours was and Redvans and everyone else on the board. It's because of inexperience, that's all. Now because people that are 16, 22, 44 & 88 all realize that at 99KPH the world is safe, but at 101KPH the world is not suddenly in "danger".