Justice for an idiot driver

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I once heard that (at least in Alberta) the speed limits are 10-15km/h below what the roads are actually designed for. The idea is that the speed limit keeps drivers within the safety limitations of a said road since most people are likely to drive between 0 and 15km/h over a speed limit regardless of enforcement. So even though they are "speeding" and have the psychological benefit of that, they are not technically moving at a dangerous speed for that road.(And is also a primary reason why police tend to spot people 9km/h before handing out tickets).

I can't verify the accuracy of this claim, but it makes a lot of sense.

Of course roads are designed to be safer than the posted speed (and you could likely drive a lot more than 10-15 over and still be "Safe"). It's called a safety factor and it's applied to anything that an engineer touches. Hell, by law elevators have to have a safety factor of something like at least 7.5 (that means when the elevator says it's safe for 10 people, the actual theoretical limit is 75 people).
That being said, the limits aren't random, and safety factors are there for several reasons:
1) People will speed
2) Not all cars handle the same way
3) Conditions change
So using that as an excuse to speed is stupid, because like any design, there are a lot of assumptions, and safety factors are there because assumptions can be wrong.

As for my position on speeding I'll say this:

When I drive my truck I usually do 10-15 kph over the speed limit, or generally with the flow of traffic.
When I'm on my bike, I'll pretty much cruise on the highway at 140kph.
Do I try to justify speeding by saying it's safer, or by saying that the guy going below the limit is more dangerous? No, because ultimately, both arguements are either incorrect or irrelvant. I speed because I'm impatient, or late, or just want to go fast. I know it's more dangerous, and I take that risk (and I suppose I impose that risk on others), but I don't try to justify it because I know there is no reasonable explination.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Of course roads are designed to be safer than the posted speed (and you could likely drive a lot more than 10-15 over and still be "Safe"). It's called a safety factor and it's applied to anything that an engineer touches. Hell, by law elevators have to have a safety factor of something like at least 7.5 (that means when the elevator says it's safe for 10 people, the actual theoretical limit is 75 people).
That being said, the limits aren't random, and safety factors are there for several reasons:
1) People will speed
2) Not all cars handle the same way
3) Conditions change
So using that as an excuse to speed is stupid, because like any design, there are a lot of assumptions, and safety factors are there because assumptions can be wrong.

As for my position on speeding I'll say this:

When I drive my truck I usually do 10-15 kph over the speed limit, or generally with the flow of traffic.
When I'm on my bike, I'll pretty much cruise on the highway at 140kph.
Do I try to justify speeding by saying it's safer, or by saying that the guy going below the limit is more dangerous? No, because ultimately, both arguements are either incorrect or irrelvant. I speed because I'm impatient, or late, or just want to go fast. I know it's more dangerous, and I take that risk (and I suppose I impose that risk on others), but I don't try to justify it because I know there is no reasonable explination.

Great post!

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by Jagger

Under any scenario that has been mentioned here the speeder is the most dangerous person in that situation period. I've taken numerous defensive driving courses with relation to my job and speed really does kill. There are no excuses for it and, to be perfectly honest, some of the comments here are downright scary if not altogether unexpected given what I see out there.

Cube Inmate has made, without doubt, the most sensible comments I've read on this thread.

I have finally figured out how to clearly articulate the point I was trying to make earlier. What you say in red is, in my opinion, wrong. What people who drive slowly think is that speed kills. Speed does not kill. Stupid drivers who push their cars and themselves TOO FAR with speed is what kills, not a guy who goes 20 or 30 over the limit on Deerfoot relatively safely.

I know it's semantics, but it is really quite important to make a distinction between safe and fast, because you can be both. To make my point, I ask you all to consider the following: slower is safer. Is that a true statement? To me, slow/fast and safe/unsafe are two independant variables. Think of a graph and you will understand what I mean. To this end, you may have the following possibilities:

safe and fast
safe and slow
unsafe and fast
unsafe and slow

My point in this whole thread is that most people do not consider the fact that slow drivers can be unsafe equally as fast drivers.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Good god. I got stuck behind a guy doing this while trying to get on the QEW when we were leaving Oakville Saturday night. So dangerous. Get through the sharpest part of the curve of the on ramp and hammer it people!! Its not rocket science!!

I was in Collingwood over the weekend, and one guy was telling me the cops won't pull anyone over on the QEW anymore. There is so much traffic on there it is just too dangerous for the cops to get out on the side of the road to write a ticket.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I have finally figured out how to clearly articulate the point I was trying to make earlier. What you say in red is, in my opinion, wrong. What people who drive slowly think is that speed kills. Speed does not kill. Stupid drivers who push their cars and themselves TOO FAR with speed is what kills, not a guy who goes 20 or 30 over the limit on Deerfoot relatively safely.

I know it's semantics, but it is really quite important to make a distinction between safe and fast, because you can be both. To make my point, I ask you all to consider the following: slower is safer. Is that a true statement? To me, slow/fast and safe/unsafe are two independant variables. Think of a graph and you will understand what I mean. To this end, you may have the following possibilities:

safe and fast
safe and slow
unsafe and fast
unsafe and slow

My point in this whole thread is that most people do not consider the fact that slow drivers can be unsafe equally as fast drivers.

Alright, let's take two drivers of exact driving skill and put them both on a road.
One is doing the speed limit and the other is doing 20 over in the left lane. The road is not overly croweded so both drivers are free to carry on at their prefered speed. Now two deer dart from the woods and stop in each lane 100meters in front of the two drivers. Driver 1 takes 99m to stop and the deer prances off to the bushes safely.
Driver 2, due to his higher speed, takes 120 meters to stop, hits the deer, swirves off the road and into a ravine. The Deer is remarkable unhurt but driver 2 is dead.

In this case the only factor was speed. The fact of the matter is that the faster you are going, the greater risk you are at.
When you're going faster, your reaction time shrinks, and the potential damage you can sustain in a crash is increased dramatically. Yes, you can be unsafe at any speed, but all things being equal greater speed = greater risk.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Yes, you can be unsafe at any speed, but all things being equal greater speed = greater risk.

Unless driver 2 has a brake upgrade, therefore stopping in under 90m's.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Great post!

Agreed...

Originally Posted by arsenal

Unless driver 2 has a brake upgrade, therefore stopping in under 90m's.

Ha. What if driver 1 has better brakes alltogether, and can actually stop in 80.... .

Good post, Shantz.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Unless driver 2 has a brake upgrade, therefore stopping in under 90m's.

They would crush his car under suspicion to race.

[ken0042]

Although I cannot disagree with the fact that two people with equal cars; the guy going slower will stop sooner.

However the cumulative effect could be worse. For example with the speeder- he is the only one who has to brake when encountering speed limit traffic. Whereas with the guy going under the speed limit; everybody who encounters him has to brake and/or manoevre (sp?) to not hit him.

Obviously both people present different circumstances; and any example which glorifies the one will villify the other. Bottom line is to stick to the flow of traffic.

[Cube Inmate]

Speed doesn't kill...rapid acceleration kills.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Speed doesn't kill...rapid acceleration kills.

Hmmm.....speed/acceration joke.....Dilbert Avatar.....I suspect you may be a fellow engineer.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Alright, let's take two drivers of exact driving skill and put them both on a road.
One is doing the speed limit and the other is doing 20 over in the left lane. The road is not overly croweded so both drivers are free to carry on at their prefered speed. Now two deer dart from the woods and stop in each lane 100meters in front of the two drivers. Driver 1 takes 99m to stop and the deer prances off to the bushes safely.
Driver 2, due to his higher speed, takes 120 meters to stop, hits the deer, swirves off the road and into a ravine. The Deer is remarkable unhurt but driver 2 is dead.

In this case the only factor was speed. The fact of the matter is that the faster you are going, the greater risk you are at.
When you're going faster, your reaction time shrinks, and the potential damage you can sustain in a crash is increased dramatically. Yes, you can be unsafe at any speed, but all things being equal greater speed = greater risk.

Ok, well, what if the same 2 drivers meet each other at point A. They each have to drive another 20 kms. The fast driver is off the road a couple minutes before the slow driver is, so he is exposed to the potential danger of deer on the road for a shorter amount of time, now who's safer? On a 10 minute drive, if you increase your speed by 10% you spend 10% less time at the mercy of the other "asshats" on the road. This is a bad argument, but so is the one posted above.

[Cube Inmate]

I used to be. I don't know what I am now, aside from "annoying."

Oh yeah...I forgot that in addition to acceleration, there's
-Burning up in a fiery pool of gasoline,
-Losing your outer protective layer (skin) to road burn, and
-Having your vital organs punctured by sharp projectiles

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ok, well, what if the same 2 drivers meet each other at point A. They each have to drive another 20 kms. The fast driver is off the road a couple minutes before the slow driver is, so he is exposed to the potential danger of deer on the road for a shorter amount of time, now who's safer? On a 10 minute drive, if you increase your speed by 10% you spend 10% less time at the mercy of the other "asshats" on the road. This is a bad argument, but so is the one posted above.

Your argument isn't in the same class as BBS's. Yours is in the same class as saying that you're safer flying if you always bring a bomb in your luggage. After all, the chances of there being TWO bombs on board the plane are almost non-existent~!

Edit: "In the same class as..." meaning fallacious.

[FlameCity]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ok, well, what if the same 2 drivers meet each other at point A. They each have to drive another 20 kms. The fast driver is off the road a couple minutes before the slow driver is, so he is exposed to the potential danger of deer on the road for a shorter amount of time, now who's safer? On a 10 minute drive, if you increase your speed by 10% you spend 10% less time at the mercy of the other "asshats" on the road. This is a bad argument, but so is the one posted above.

Actually I don’t think that that would be true. From what I’ve seen on the road typically those drivers that are speeding and weaving in traffic get caught at the same lights, stop signs, etc. . . that the drivers doing the speed limit do (unless of course you are talking strictly about deerfoot . . . in which case the catch up to the same traffic jams) so really they’re on the road for the same amount of time.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ok, well, what if the same 2 drivers meet each other at point A. They each have to drive another 20 kms. The fast driver is off the road a couple minutes before the slow driver is, so he is exposed to the potential danger of deer on the road for a shorter amount of time, now who's safer? On a 10 minute drive, if you increase your speed by 10% you spend 10% less time at the mercy of the other "asshats" on the road. This is a bad argument, but so is the one posted above.

First of all, your math is wrong.
It's more like 9% less time on the road.

Either way, saying that an example of how reaction time/stopping distance is changed, and hence the risk involved, is akin to the old "If I drive really fast I'm not on the road as long" arguement is just plain goofy.

The arguement I presented (while being convoluted and somewhat rediculous in premis) illustrates that going faster is more dangerous based on concepts that any reasonable person should see are ALWAYS altered by speed, namely reaction time and stopping distance.

What you presented is a nice falacy, that time instead of distance are the factors that determines the likelyhood of an event on the road such as a deer crossing the road, that even you accept as false.

[Burninator]

Well everyone seems to agree that keeping up with traffic is the safest and driving too slow or too fast in relation to traffic is dangerous. When I say safest and dangerous I am referring to prevention/causing accidents in this case. But if you had to choose one over the other it is safer for your physically well being to be travelling too slow. I say that because theoretically the slower you go the less damaging the impact of a collision will be. So even if you think the slow/fast argument is a 50/50 split, you are not looking at the whole picture.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Your argument isn't in the same class as BBS's. Yours is in the same class as saying that you're safer flying if you always bring a bomb in your luggage. After all, the chances of there being TWO bombs on board the plane are almost non-existent~!

No, that's not similar to what I was saying. A similar plane analogy would be like me saying you are safer from airplane accidents if you spend less time on airplanes.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by lifer

No, that's not similar to what I was saying. A similar plane analogy would be like me saying you are safer from airplane accidents if you spend less time on airplanes.

You need to add, by flying faster, to make that analogy work.
...
You would be less likely to get into a plane crash if the plane flew faster, that way you would spend less time in a plane.

[Jagger]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I have finally figured out how to clearly articulate the point I was trying to make earlier. What you say in red is, in my opinion, wrong. What people who drive slowly think is that speed kills. Speed does not kill.

Have you ever taken a defensive driving course? You can articulate it however you like but excessive speed does kill. It's a proven fact however you like to jutify it for yourself. I don't consider somebody going at the speed limit to be a slow driver either. How on earth can they be? To be perfectly honest I do occasionally speed on the highway (120 or so) until I come to my senses and slow down to the posted speed limit or close to it. I think most people just like to flout rules. If it was 120 on the Deerfoot you would probably drive 130 to 140. Am i wrong?

You, and other speeders out there, may not agree with this but here you go:

http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/speed.html