What is wrong with people??

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

it was yellow.. I wouldn't know whether those are recommended or not.. regardless, I would never go that fast in that area again

That's just great. You're calling me a moron and you don't know what a yellow sign is?

Now I know why you can't grasp the point I am trying to make.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

That's just great. You're calling me a moron and you don't know what a yellow sign is?

Now I know why you can't grasp the point I am trying to make.

Does it matter whether I knew at the time that the yellow meant recommended for larger trucks/vehicles? There isn't harm in thinking a yellow sign meant you cannot go faster than the number that is on it. It isn't like I thought the sign meant 30 over the limit.

I get the point you are trying to make, I just don't agree with it. Aside from highways, the streets of Vancouver have so many lights/pedestrian crosswalks that you wouldn't be able to drive for a lengthy period of time without hitting those lights anyways.

Just out of curiosity, it says you are located in Victoria. Have you ever resided in Vancouver?

[zulutango]

"You're also overlooking the fact that raising the speed limit by x amount does not automatically equate to drivers travelling at x+10.":


Not my experience. 80k zone raised to 90...the normal 90's jumped to 100-110. 90k zone raised to 100 and normal 100 jumped to 110 to 120. Hwy 19 on VI from 1991 to 2008. Raise the limit and people will still drive the same margin of whatever they choose above the new limit.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by zulutango

"You're also overlooking the fact that raising the speed limit by x amount does not automatically equate to drivers travelling at x+10.":


Not my experience. 80k zone raised to 90...the normal 90's jumped to 100-110. 90k zone raised to 100 and normal 100 jumped to 110 to 120. Hwy 19 on VI from 1991 to 2008. Raise the limit and people will still drive the same margin of whatever they choose above the new limit.

Thank you.

zulutango knows first hand with regards to traffic authority/and speed limits etc..... but then again, there are also people who argue with doctors, dentists, lawyers, and others about their respective professions...

[sebberry]

The Ministry of Transportation has a proactive history of managing speed. During 1996 a Phase I review of speed limits was undertaken on major highway corridors. As a result, speed limits were raised from 90 km/h to 100 km/h on approximately 2,000 kilometers of road. During 1997, Phase II reviews were conducted. As a result, speed limits were raised from 90 km/h to 100 km/h on approximately 1,870 kilometers of Provincial highway. A before and after analysis conducted in 1999 suggested that average speeds increased by 3.2 km/h to 4 km/h on segments were speed limits were raised.

So despite speed limits being raised by 10kph, average speeds only rose by an average of 3.2 to 4kph, not 10kph as assumed would be the case here.

The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8 for the Phase I sites and in Table 9 for the Phase II sites. Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised. The Phase II sites experienced an 8.6 percent reduction in total crashes. Both reductions are
statistically significant.

So while speed did increase at the test sites, collisions decreased. Impossible according to some people here.

P22 of this document: http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

Thank you.

zulutango knows first hand with regards to traffic authority/and speed limits etc..... but then again, there are also people who argue with doctors, dentists, lawyers, and others about their respective professions...

You probably don't want to bring the "the doctor is always right" argument up with me.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

Just out of curiosity, it says you are located in Victoria. Have you ever resided in Vancouver?

No, why?

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You probably don't want to bring the "the doctor is always right" argument up with me.

....I'm thinking "any" argument.......

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You probably don't want to bring the "the doctor is always right" argument up with me.

I won't because they aren't, but it was only a figure of speech.

Originally Posted by sebberry

No, why?

Because what works in some cities/municipalities/townships, may not work for others.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

Because what works in some cities/municipalities/townships, may not work for others.

But don't you think that in areas of greater congestion it becomes even more important to drive primarily according to immediate traffic conditions instead of the speed limit sign that was erected 20 years ago?

Don't get me wrong, the posted limit helps the driver to determine what sort of road they're on (if they're incapable of looking out the window and making that judgement themselves), but the vehicles around me have a much more immediate effect on my safety than the speed limit.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

But don't you think that in areas of greater congestion it becomes even more important to drive primarily according to immediate traffic conditions instead of the speed limit sign that was erected 20 years ago?

Don't get me wrong, the posted limit helps the driver to determine what sort of road they're on (if they're incapable of looking out the window and making that judgement themselves), but the vehicles around me have a much more immediate effect on my safety than the speed limit.

Are we talking primarily city driving or highways? With Highways, I don't have that much exp with bc I don't really drive on them much.. especially not during rushhour... as for city driving though, I do think 50 (really 60 bc that is what most ppl drive at) is quite reasonable for all the stop and go.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by sebberry

You probably don't want to bring the "the doctor is always right" argument up with me.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by zulutango

"You're also overlooking the fact that raising the speed limit by x amount does not automatically equate to drivers travelling at x+10.":


Not my experience. 80k zone raised to 90...the normal 90's jumped to 100-110. 90k zone raised to 100 and normal 100 jumped to 110 to 120. Hwy 19 on VI from 1991 to 2008. Raise the limit and people will still drive the same margin of whatever they choose above the new limit.

That was pretty much my experience, too, with the highways I learned to drive on, in the Cariboo. In my rather infrequent visits back there over the last couple decades, I've noticed a number of highways that have gone from 80 to 90, and 90 to 100 (and even 110 in one case), and regardless of what the posted limit is or was, traffic has always maintained the same average margin over it.

[AzNightmare]

Originally Posted by BlueG2

sebberry,

I cannot describe in words how much of a moron you are. I hope for your sake, you are just being devil's advocate, and don't truly believe in the things you are saying. Yes, you could technically add "stupidity" to any of those driving variables, but how the hell are you going to measure that? "you have a ticket for stupidity, now take this IQ test for verification". ummm ok.. Speed is attributed to the degree of damage as a result of an accident. period. No one here "pro speeding" can even deny that. So like I said earlier, 4 effing pages ago, you speed you get a ticket. You don't like it? Tough. You have a choice whether you a)want to drive b)stay within the legal limits c)speed and risk getting a ticket.

Unless a cop is having a bad day, you won't get a ticket for going 10km over the limit in the city. Even on highways, you won't get a ticket for going 10-15 over. So those who have gotten tickets, most likely were going 15+, which IMO deserve it. I have never gotten a ticket going 60km in the city, even with a cop behind me. The times I have gotten tickets were going 70ish on marine drive and 80 on 6 road. both well deserved and I was lucky the RCMP member didn't give me an excessive ticket when I was doing 80 in what was technically a 30km on the bend on 6 road.

If the limits were raised from 50 to 60 in the city, then people will be pushing 70. likewise with Highways... People always try to push boundaries/rules.. It is human nature.

While I agree with almost everything you've posted, not the very last bit though.

I personally drive 60, because that's what I'm comfortable with.
And I drive 80-100 on hwy/bridges because that's what I'm comfortable with.
Some bridges (like Oak bridge) are only 60km/h, and I still drive 80-100 if it's all clear in the middle of the night.
I don't drive just to push "X"+10km/h.

I don't think you should mix in people that try to push boundaries, challenging authority,
vs. people that just feel comfortable "obeying" the law. (Peace of mind that cops won't bother you.)

[TouringTeg]

Interesting read. I find the blitz on the Malahat kind of funny. For me, it just tells me I need to drive slow over the Malahat but I know I will be fine over the limit everywhere else on my drive from Victoria to Duncan and back.

I did the Malahat drive last Wednesday north bound at 5pm and then south bound at 10pm. On the way north, 3 PC had 3 different cars pulled over in different spots. On the way southbound, a PC had it's yellow directional lights on at the bottom of the 4 lane hill as you start the drive. Clearly there would be plenty of police on the hat even at 10pm.

I was riding my sport bike with another sport bike rider who I did not know. We were both purposely going the speed limit even on the 4 lane section where everyone speeds. Sure enough there is a black Dodge Magnum wagon sitting in the dark with a gun and then around the corner police are stepping out. They already had one bike pulled over and pulled over myself and the other rider. We were both confused as to why we were pulled over. Sure enough no ticket for either of us. Seems they just wanted to make their presence known and check for alcohol, current license etc.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by AzNightmare

While I agree with almost everything you've posted, not the very last bit though.

I personally drive 60, because that's what I'm comfortable with.
And I drive 80-100 on hwy/bridges because that's what I'm comfortable with.
Some bridges (like Oak bridge) are only 60km/h, and I still drive 80-100 if it's all clear in the middle of the night.
I don't drive just to push "X"+10km/h.

I don't think you should mix in people that try to push boundaries, challenging authority,
vs. people that just feel comfortable "obeying" the law. (Peace of mind that cops won't bother you.)

There are probably many people like you, but there are many people like the ones that push +10 as well.. as per experiences by zulu and soundy

[sebberry]

Just ask yourself this: Does speed enforcement improve driver competency? If not, you have bigger issues to worry about on the road.

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Just ask yourself this: Does speed enforcement improve driver competency? If not, you have bigger issues to worry about on the road.

We will see if your theory is right. BC has one of the stricter rules in terms of attaining your unrestrcted driver's licence, are they not? So, we will see if things get better in the future...

[Simnut]

Originally Posted by sebberry

Just ask yourself this: Does speed enforcement improve driver competency? If not, you have bigger issues to worry about on the road.

"Perhaps" not, but it might slow down the incompetent driver! I, as the other driver on the road would really appreciate that...

[Spidey]

speed can be "enforced" but accidents happen regardless of driver competency

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by Simnut

"Perhaps" not, but it might slow down the incompetent driver! I, as the other driver on the road would really appreciate that...

So why should you, as a competent driver, be forced into driving at an unreasonably low speed just to accommodate the incompetent ones?

[Spidey]

Originally Posted by sebberry

So why should you, as a competent driver, be forced into driving at an unreasonably low speed just to accommodate the incompetent ones?

I don't think it is unreasonable. Could it be safely increased? Maybe. But where do you people have to be so fast, so soon, so often, where the current speed limit prevents you from sleeping at night?

[zulutango]

[QUOTE=sebberry;7526315]Just ask yourself this: Does speed enforcement improve driver competency?


It may not make the driver more competent but it helps reduce the consequences when they are not.

[sebberry]

I don't think it's about needing to be somewhere quickly, but more about being able to travel at a reasonable speed for the road.

[sebberry]

Originally Posted by zulutango

It may not make the driver more competent but it helps reduce the consequences when they are not.

Why are we making excuses for poor drivers then?

It's like the new 30kph speed limit on E. Hastings. Even VPD has said that speed isn't a cause of vehicle-pedestrian interactions there but city council is stuck on the idea that "speed kills".

Perhaps reducing the limit there will reduce collisions, but again - why penalize the driver by restricting their speed to accommodate pedestrians who don't look before crossing the road or who are zoned out on whatever recreational substance of the day.