Excessive speed and vehicle impoundments

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

I can remember a couple caused by drivers falling asleep, one guy on a bike running into the back of a truck turning off onto Shawnigan Lake Rd at the top of the hill...and there was the guy in the stolen car who killed 2 on bikes when he cut them off as he turned into the rest area. With the exception of the occasional drunk truck driver, all the rest were speed related crashes. Hitting rock faces was a common result...bikes and cars and going too fast when they passed and lost control trying to correct their mistakes. The rest were the result of speed too fast for conditions...that includes exceeding the limit in bad weather where the sensible drivers either did the limit or slowed down. So you can say that speed alone in all it's forms, was responsible...or should I correct myself and say drivers/riders who chose to speed, because the vehicle didn't do it by itself. I'm sure some posters here have seen the crashes and maybe even saw them crash or the actual crash sites where it was pretty obvious what happened.

It sounds like most of the drivers there have crashed while speeding because they combined that speed with some other form of stupid driving. Losing control on a curve should probably be recorded as "speeding too fast for conditions" and not simply "speeding" as I suspect it is the majority of the time, helping to skew the stats in an attempt to support the "speed kills" justification for further speed enforcement.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

[I]
I have never met anyone I ever stopped for speeding that told me they were speeding because they believed that the design characteristics of the road made it safe. I would have probably dropped from shock if anyone had said that and really meant it.

It's probably because they don't realize what is driving their decisions to do what they do. That and they're panicing too much from being pulled over that they come up with some lame "I'm late for my swingers club dinner". excuse.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

It sounds like most of the drivers there have crashed while speeding because they combined that speed with some other form of stupid driving. Losing control on a curve should probably be recorded as "speeding too fast for conditions" and not simply "speeding" as I suspect it is the majority of the time, helping to skew the stats in an attempt to support the "speed kills" justification for further speed enforcement.

In spite of being personally involved in the investigation process, being trained as an accident investigator, having personally investigated hundreds of crashes over 28 years, including many fatal crashes....I bow to your superior inside knowledge. Obviously you were going too fast for conditions unless you actually intended to crash...and yes I have investigated several of those too. Speed relative to conditions is reserved for crashes that usually involve weather, visibility, road conditions etc. In fact on the accident report form the MV6020, under contributing factors reason # 35 is exceeding speed limit, #36 is excessive speed and # 37 is "driving too fast for conditions" so the exact impact what type of speed had in the crash is determined by the investigator at the scene and becomes one of those skewed statistics. With your permission I have to say 'scuse me as I have to contact the coronors, the court system and the drivers who were charged/injured/killed and apologize for my incompetence and for misleading them.

[sebberry]

Well you'd have to be approaching excessive speed on a windy road for speed alone to cause you to hit the rock walls.

Still begs the question - why target the speed enforcement at the long straight approaches to the s-curves on the Malahat if the crashes are happening through the
s-curves? Just because I am safely travelling 110 in a long straight 80 zone doesn't mean I won't adjust my speed to one more suitable for the hilly/bendy bits.

[zulutango]

My experience here on fantasy island showed that when they raised the existing 80 to 90on Hwy 19a the result was that people now drove 10-20 k over the new limit of 90...same on Hwy 19 north of Sayward when they jumped it to 100 from 90...the speeds rose to 10-20 k over the new 100k limit.

[sebberry]

Isn't Hwy 19 between Nanaimo and Courtenay a 110km/hr zone?

I'm curious as to what the collision rate is along there.

[zulutango]

Hwy 19 is the new 4 lane from Victoria to the north part of Campbell River where it 2 lanes all the way to km zero at carrot park in Port Hardy. It varies from 70 on the Hat to 110 north of Parksville. Drops to 80/90 around Campbell River and then hits 90 north of town and 100 north of Sayward. The collision rates vary depending on where you are.

[skidmark]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Support Road safety through education, not speed enforcement.

The only quarrel I have with SENSE is that they seem long on criticism and short on education ideas...

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by skidmark

The only quarrel I have with SENSE is that they seem long on criticism and short on education ideas...

I can see where you think they might be lacking.

I think it's more about educating the public on how some of the government decisions are made than it is about driver education.

If you can reverse some of the brainwashing the public has gone through they might start to think about how actions other than simple speeding is causing far more problems. Safety through recognizing that speed isn't the be-all and end-all to road safety is key.

It's a bit of an odd concept of "education" but so is education through ticketing.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Hwy 19 is the new 4 lane from Victoria to the north part of Campbell River where it 2 lanes all the way to km zero at carrot park in Port Hardy. It varies from 70 on the Hat to 110 north of Parksville. Drops to 80/90 around Campbell River and then hits 90 north of town and 100 north of Sayward. The collision rates vary depending on where you are.

So is it safe to say that the higher posted sections (say 110km/hr) see more overall collisions than the 80-90km/hr sections?

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by skidmark

The only quarrel I have with SENSE is that they seem long on criticism and short on education ideas...

It's called "The NDP Approach".

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

It's called "The NDP Approach".

Except the NDP is pro taxation through photo radar.

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

So is it safe to say that the higher posted sections (say 110km/hr) see more overall collisions than the 80-90km/hr sections?

The 110kmh zones are on the divided Hwy with barricades, paved shoulders, runnoff areas, gentle grades and curves and lots of straight stretches. In spite of all that drivers manage to crash and at the speeds involved, they Are often fatals. I have investigated several myself and speed was the major factor involved.

On the 90 and 100k sections north of Campbell River the roads are the exact opposite...no centre barricades, no paved shoulders, no runnoff areas, steep hills, sharp corners and areas with lots of twisty corners. The crashes there also often involve speed and many tend to end up being severe because of the type of road and terrain involved. You can smuck a centre barricade and bounce back to safety, but go across the road and hit a rock face or oncoming car and you are very unlikely to survive.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

The 110kmh zones are on the divided Hwy with barricades, paved shoulders, runnoff areas, gentle grades and curves and lots of straight stretches. In spite of all that drivers manage to crash and at the speeds involved, they Are often fatals. I have investigated several myself and speed was the major factor involved.

I keep harping on this because I fail to see how speed alone causes a car to leave the road.

I'm not trying to make you a liar or be a prick, but please educate me as to how speed alone causes a collision on a straight road.

If I'm the only car around doing 140km/hr in the 110km/hr zone. Short of an animal walking into the road, how does my speed cause me to crash?



Also curious - where is there a higher rate of excessive speed (40 over)? Long straight sections of Malahat drive or the 110km/hr zones of Hwy 19?

[zulutango]

Speeding cars hitting animals on the 110k section from Cook Creek north was a major problem, second major cause of crashes. Speeding means you travel more distance and have less time to react to hazards, like animals, wood from unsecured loads ( major problem up island where pickups pile firewood with no tie downs ), tyre "gators" from trucks pushing the limit on retreads etc. Speed in itself is not a problem...like jumping out of a plane with no parachute is not a problem. The problem arrives when you run out of road in your car or run out of sky as you fall. Then, in both cases, it's too late to slow down.


As far as the Hat and Hyw 19 go for excessives...I've seen speeds in the 230-240k plus range in both areas. It all depends on the stupidity of the driver and the openess of traffic at that specific moment. Normally Hwy 19 carries less traffic as it gets lighter from Parksville north but sections of the Hat can be light of traffic at certain times. I remember a traffic count done on the old Hwy 19a between Courtenay and Campbell River before the new Hwy was opened. 19A carried more traffic than the 'Coke' did and that is why they built the new Hwy.

When Mt Washington is open you can burn your Radar LED displays out with speeds averaging 150 plus and up as the lemmings drive north in the morning and south when the lifts close. The idiots that don't crash coming down the hill are let loose on the 4 laner. The resulting crashes, specially in weather where they should be slowing down if they hada functioning brain cell, are usually spectacular and often fatal. See the number of roadside memorials from Parksville north in this "safe" section of Hwy. They belong to people who felt there was no problem is driving the way they chose and not what the signs said. I was involved in several of the fatal crash investigations myself.


I tagged one guy heading north down the Mill Bay hill late at night at just under 200k in the 80 as he ran a red light and just missed a car. I have tagged a sportbiker going up the Hat from the same area at 232 in afternoon traffic and have tagged speeds in excess of 250k just south and north of Courtenay during a holiday sunday afternoon. They are everywhere.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

I keep harping on this because I fail to see how speed alone causes a car to leave the road.

Are you REALLY that thick, or are you just

































Nevermind, rhetorical question.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

Speeding cars hitting animals on the 110k section from Cook Creek north was a major problem, second major cause of crashes. Speeding means you travel more distance and have less time to react to hazards, like animals, wood from unsecured loads ( major problem up island where pickups pile firewood with no tie downs ), tyre "gators" from trucks pushing the limit on retreads etc. Speed in itself is not a problem...like jumping out of a plane with no parachute is not a problem. The problem arrives when you run out of road in your car or run out of sky as you fall. Then, in both cases, it's too late to slow down.

Regardless of my travel speed, it's where the animal jumps out that is the problem. I could be doing the speed limit and have a deer jump out 10 feet in front of me and I wouldn't have a hope at avoiding it.

As for other obstacles in the road - all I can say is pay attention.

Originally Posted by zulutango

As far as the Hat and Hyw 19 go for excessives...I've seen speeds in the 230-240k plus range in both areas. It all depends on the stupidity of the driver and the openess of traffic at that specific moment. Normally Hwy 19 carries less traffic as it gets lighter from Parksville north but sections of the Hat can be light of traffic at certain times. I remember a traffic count done on the old Hwy 19a between Courtenay and Campbell River before the new Hwy was opened. 19A carried more traffic than the 'Coke' did and that is why they built the new Hwy.

Even I'm not advocating 200+

Originally Posted by zulutango

When Mt Washington is open you can burn your Radar LED displays out with speeds averaging 150 plus and up as the lemmings drive north in the morning and south when the lifts close. The idiots that don't crash coming down the hill are let loose on the 4 laner. The resulting crashes, specially in weather where they should be slowing down if they hada functioning brain cell, are usually spectacular and often fatal. See the number of roadside memorials from Parksville north in this "safe" section of Hwy. They belong to people who felt there was no problem is driving the way they chose and not what the signs said. I was involved in several of the fatal crash investigations myself.

Again, not to nitpick, but that sounds more like speeding too fast for conditions. If you're going to play laser tag, it might as well be done in poor weather.

Originally Posted by zulutango

I tagged one guy heading north down the Mill Bay hill late at night at just under 200k in the 80 as he ran a red light and just missed a car.

A responsible "speeder" would slow down to the speed limit for intersections and other more complicated sections of road. Again, I think 200 is a bit crazy up there, but losing your car for 120km/hr? Come on.

Originally Posted by zulutango

I have tagged a sportbiker going up the Hat from the same area at 232 in afternoon traffic and have tagged speeds in excess of 250k just south and north of Courtenay during a holiday sunday afternoon. They are everywhere.

Even in my "utopia" of a driving world, nobody would be permitted to do 232 in and out of slower traffic. I recognize that when you get too many vehicles travelling at too many different speeds from one another, the chance for conflict increases. The studies have shown that when you set the speed limits properly, you reduce the speed differentials between vehicles. You can still pick off the 232km/hr bikers

[gars]

to put it into perspective, it's very easy to look at a deer jumping out, and assuming you're not able too avoid it. But the difference between going 100km/h, and 140km/h is a lot.

I calculated with a Civic, and looked at the stopping distance (which is about 130ft going from 60mph)

Going 100km/h, you can stop in about 42m.
Going 140km/h, you can stop in about 83m.

Going 80km/h, you can stop in about 27m
Going 120km/h, you can stop in about 60m.

[zulutango]

All those people who hit the elk and deer on the Hwy also thought they were driving safely and could see and stop in time. They didn't see and they couldn't stop. That's the real world. The increased distance they travelled due to the higher speed, the increased distance for reaction time due to the higher speed and the actual stopping distance due to the higher speed all played a part. Double your speed and quadruple the distance it takes to stop.


Using a 2 second reaction time factor to calculate distance covered at a set speed :
110k= 60 mps, 120k = 66mps, 130k = 72mps, 140k = 76mps and 150k (excessive speed) = 83 mps. Now add in the additional braking distances and you see what happens.

[Soundy]

^^Add to all that, your tires are FAR more likely to loose grip when you swerve at 140 vs. 100. Once again, simple physics (although I'm not going to do the math - Physics 12 is 25 years behind me).

Even without surprise obstacles popping up, even a slight twitch of the wheel at high speeds can cause a loss of traction and... disaster. A slight bump or dip in the road that would just be absorbed at 100 could cause a loss of control at 140, even on a perfectly straight and (apparently) flat road.

[sebberry]

Nobody has ever hit an animal while doing the speed limit on a freeway?

[focus]

^^now youre getting it!lol

[zulutango]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Nobody has ever hit an animal while doing the speed limit on a freeway?

I'm not going to repeat the speed/distance stuff again...but the faster you go the greater chance you will not be able to see and avoid the animal in time. The ones I investigated showed speeds above the posted limit and in some cases no braking at all until after they hit the animal. That said to me that they didn't even see it until too late.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

I'm not going to repeat the speed/distance stuff again...but the faster you go the greater chance you will not be able to see and avoid the animal in time. The ones I investigated showed speeds above the posted limit and in some cases no braking at all until after they hit the animal. That said to me that they didn't even see it until too late.

You don't need to repeat it again, I understand it.

I came within 6 inches of hitting a dog a while back while doing the speed limit. If the dog was any closer I would have hit it. In fact the only reason why I didn't hit it is because I saw the ball he was chasing first and covered the brake. See, I did learn something at YD back in the day.

[mac25]

...this is going no where. sebberry says, bla bal bla, raise it people will be ok. then zulutango says, bla bla bla, if you raise the limit people will drive even faster.

i agree with both. if you raise the limit people will be fine and they will do even higher speeds.

lets imagine a magical world with a highway with no limit at all... oh wait there is such a place. the autobahn running in europe and "...Germany's autobahn is relatively safe. Studies have shown the rate of fatal accidents is no higher in stretches without speed limits than in speed-restricted areas." http://www.ehow.com/facts_4914306_facts-autobahn.html

"...Crashes along the Autobahn account for only 10% of Germany's national traffic fatalities. Actually, the fatality rate on the United States interstate system is higher than that on the German Autobahn."

http://maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/fun...r/autobahn.htm


so speed really isn't what you two are arguing about. the issue is only about people who shouldn't be on the road and those people will always make bad decisions and hurt them selves and unfortunately others. the only speed limit that would work with no fatalities or injuries would be a 30km cap and that is just absurd.

in short we should use the money collected from stupid drivers to build there own darwinion road of self extinction and abolish speed limits to those who drive responsibly. thus relieving traffic by increased car flow due to the decrease of overall vehicles on the highway network.

^i ment this to be a bit humorous, so take it with a grain of salt =D