I clearly stated that I'm talking about when you have sufficient distance from other drivers (to which I'll add or intersections where you're unable to see if there's other drivers). Nowhere did I say that high speeds are safe all the time, what I said was almost exactly the opposite.
And this happens where in the mountains?
I heard what you said, the problem is even on the baldass prairies we have repeated exaples of accidents happening where speed is a factor.
Ans to those who flamed me about assumed speed, yes, I agree you should assess not assume the speed of the vehicle approaching, but that doesn't absolve a speeder in the event of an accident.
Ans to those who flamed me about assumed speed, yes, I agree you should assess not assume the speed of the vehicle approaching, but that doesn't absolve a speeder in the event of an accident.
Pretty sure it does, you can't make an unsafe turn or cross a marked intersection where you have a traffic control device and the through traffic does not unless it's safe to proceed. That's why people are at fault turning on a yellow or red to clear an intersection and the other driver running a red light t-bones them.
If they can prove the driver was speeding, it will end up 50/50. I've seen it, a particularly vicious crash where a halfton was going ~ 130 and t-boned a car on the transcanada. Had he been going the limit he would have avoided the crash. The cops have to put the effort into the investigation though, and unless someone is hurt bad or killed they rarely do.
This whole thread kinda has my goat, I ride a bike and here all the time how we are such a hazard, particularly because of how fast we apparently go, now I'm reading all the arguments that speed is just fine.
I get what everyone's trying to say, and for the most part I get it. I get on the gas from time to time as well, but I know that if I'm breaking the rules I better be on the lookout. It's not at all fair to blame other drivers when I'm the one acting outside of the rules.
There's a responsible way to be irresponsible?
The Following User Says Thank You to speede5 For This Useful Post:
Pretty sure SebC doesn't even drive, seem to recall him mentioning that in some other thread.
Anyways, have experienced this law before.
Got nailed twice in B.C. about a month before the impound rule started (September 2010)?
Once driving up to the Cariboo area in a flat stretch and got bored (yes it was stupid) and just stepped on it. Probably was going around 160, saw the cop far in distance just before he saw me and started to slow down, but got clocked going 147 in the 100 zone.
Was super nice about it and got a speeding fine instead of excessive speeding. Situations like this, is why the impound rule is a good idea - keeps you from being stupid on purpose for no reason.
However, also experienced hte other side of the coin maybe two days later coming back to Calgary.
Between 3 Valley Gap and Revelstoke, you can recall it's a windy stretch with nowhere to pass. Got caught behind a slow motorhome hauling an Accord and a couple other strugglers. Finally got the dotted line going up the hill just before Revelstoke and pulled out to pass. Cop happened to be coming around the corner going the opposite way and clocked 135 in the 90 zone.
Got a $500 ticket for that one and again would have been impounded had it been two weeks later...frustrating though because was simply accelerating quickly in order to make that pass as safe and quick as possible. 90 limit on the TCH through most of B.C. is assinine anyway but thats another story.
Agree though that your impounding should happen AFTER a trial/hearing and guilt is established, not immediately on a cop's say-so. 99% of them probably won't abuse that power, but the fact that the possibility exists is a problem.
__________________
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
I heard what you said, the problem is even on the baldass prairies we have repeated exaples of accidents happening where speed is a factor.
I'm sure there are places in the mountains where it is possible to safely exceed the speed limit - particularly if it's a short burst.
As far as the bald prairies go, speed is often factor, but it's usually something else that's the actual cause of an accident. That's the difference between unsafe speeding and safe speeding. There are a number of people who speed every day and very few of them are crashing. If you were to limit the sample to people who maintain an adequate stopping distance, slow down when getting through traffic (so if you're going 140 and passing somone going 90, you actually slow down such as to not approach at 50), slow down prior to enter corners, are sober, not tired, and are paying attention to the road, I think you'd find that speeding is much less of a factor than it is in a general sample.
I know I've been argueing about speed and I'm not swaying, but as to the topic, the impound rule is total crap imo. IIRC, it was to target street racing, completely irresponsible driving which has been killing innocent people on city streets for years. I have no problem with that. Hefty fines should be enough for all of the scenarios we are discussing. Tack on a dangerous driving charge if 40K over which means a mandatory court appearance (in SK anyway). Nothing is proved by impounding this guys vehicle.
I know I've been argueing about speed and I'm not swaying, but as to the topic, the impound rule is total crap imo. IIRC, it was to target street racing, completely irresponsible driving which has been killing innocent people on city streets for years.
I don't keep stats on it, but I certainly hear about more deaths (especially multiple) on highways due to excessive speeding/losing control/bad passing rather than street racing inside the city.
I don't keep stats on it, but I certainly hear about more deaths (especially multiple) on highways due to excessive speeding/losing control/bad passing rather than street racing inside the city.
Sure, but isn't street racing the target of the law? I know there's argueably an element of sociopathic behavior in excessive speeding, but it's not the same as what the law was intended to curtail. I guess I'm swaying to the speeders side now, but bad decisions in some of the described situations are hardly on par with a couple of jackwads deciding it's cool to race on a saturday night in downtown vancouver. Although I don't think 40K over on the highway is super duper safe, it's not near as dangerous as 40K over in a city setting.
I understand the reasoning behind the law but with the system of roads they have they need to introduce something similar to what Oregon has (I think Troutman mentioned this). If you have more then five vehicles behind you can be ticketed for holding up traffic. The biggest beef I have driving in BC is cars in the front of the pack always seem to accelerate in passing areas not allowing many vehicles to pass. The passing lanes already seem to be few and far. Drivers just need to understand they should keep right unless they are passing (which is also a ticket-able offence in some states).
This reminds me of the story a couple years ago, were the twenty high end sports cars were going like 200k+ in the lower mainland and had a bunch of people call in,The cops impounded the vehicles but cause the kids parents were hooked up politically and the cops had no real evidence they all got there vehicles back and with only a couple fines for not having there "N" posted and no insurance on a couple.
