I was tryin so hard not to post here anymore cus I know my opinions offended some that werent in the right frame of mind but for cryin out loud! Marco911 can you just drive off a fuckin bridge.
If its believed that closing the middle lane will save lives then do it and heres why....
In your world everyone should follow along like sheep at 100mph cus you can drive that fast and your Little Bo Fuckin Peep and if everyone is driving that fast its a safer world for you to be in. Correct?
NO not everyones car can handle that rate of speed on every road. Cars, roads and people are full of variables and not all can be accounted for, not even you can account for all the variables. Imagine a Nissan Micra tryin to keep up to you. As such a margin of error must be accounted for and some lee way put in place. Problem here is you have IDIOTS (yeah I said it again) like you who believe that they know all and can drive like the bloody Stig himself,you cant. Its not a closed road course with variables eliminated. So slow the fuck down take that exra minute to make the whole crossing and we all live a little longer.
Yeah I'm bein a dink again deal with it. I'm hangry.

But there already are artificial constraints on the LGB/SP Causeway: speed limits and a middle lane that changes its flow of traffic on set schedules. I'm not disputing the fact that shutting down the middle lane completely is utterly stupid. However, because the middle lane rotates it's flow of traffic based on actual need, it's usually pretty damn predictable to figure out what way is open at any given time of the day. As a result, you should be able to adjust your schedule accordingly. If you're going against the flow of traffic, leave a couple minutes earlier. Or if you're going with the flow, leave on time.

The point I here is that because it's organized, you can plan your required driving time accordingly. You can't plan a trip thinking will I or will I not get stuck behind a pair of trucks going up a hill on Hwy5 (or any other similar type of constraint).

Do you think we should close the middle lane during rush hour, which is when collisions and the fatality rates peak?

Wrong. Nice strawman argument. My argument is as follows:

1) Drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Reasonable and prudent does not necessarily mean following the speed limit. When traffic is moving much faster than the speed limit, it is safer to drive at the speed of traffic flow in your lane of travel. When there is adverse road conditions, it is safer to drive slower than the speed limit.

2) Drive in a manner that minimizes one's traffic footprint by allowing faster vehicles to pass. That means do not drive next to someone for extended lengths of time, or block the fast lane unless passing.

If the middle lane is closed on LGB, faster traffic can't pass, people will drive too close to each other, and you will see that rear end collisions will increase.


Does driving the speed limit guarantee, one won't be involved in a road collision or death? No it doesn't. Besides, there are a lot of studies that show that when the speed limit on highways are raised to the speed that traffic actually flows at, fatality rates decrease.

1) The speed limit isn't a constraint at all.
2) Middle lane closures due to the counter-traffic flow is acceptable. Middle lane closure due to the nanny state is not.

This assumes that people drive bust the speed limit to meet a schedule. Most people bust the speed limit because they drive at what they feel is a comfortable reasonable speed. Most times, it is.

A pair of trucks going up a hill is not a constraint. It is bad, inconsiderate driving by the truck driver attempting the make the pass.

now that is dangerous imo!

When I drive, everyone moves out of my way.

cummins or yota? :fullofwin:

what is considered reasonable and prudent on the bridge? on the main road? on a side street? your definition of reasonable and prudent is not the same as someone else's. you seem to have that problem solved by asking slower drivers to allow faster vehicles to past. but you ALSO state that when traffic is moving much faster than the speed limit, it is safer to drive at the speed of traffic flow. by this logic, the fastest driver on the road will always be the one who sets the pace and all slower drivers should follow him/her

if some idiot was going 100km down a road with a 50km speed limit, should the rest of traffic also follow at that speed because then it would be safer? or is that not considered reasonable and prudent?

in the end, the ultimate question is "what do YOU think the speed limit should be on every single road that exists?" because that is essentially what you are getting at, that whatever you feel is reasonable and prudent should also go for everyone else.

"people who drive slower than me are idiots, and people who drive faster than me are maniacs" - does that sound like you?

Wow this got totally off topic quickly. Read what you typed and read the title of the thread. :ahwow:

Wrong. Nice strawman argument. My argument is as follows:

1) Drive at a speed that is reasonable and prudent. Reasonable and prudent does not necessarily mean following the speed limit. When traffic is moving much faster than the speed limit, it is safer to drive at the speed of traffic flow in your lane of travel. When there is adverse road conditions, it is safer to drive slower than the speed limit.

Hows this for strawman then?
Reasonable and prudent is different for all level of drivers and all levels of cars hence the problem. Hence the solution put all drivers on public roads at the same level.
In your world everyone would drive a modern car with modern traction aids and follow along at what you deem reasonable and prudent. Hell in my world that would be the case too but not everyone is a stellar driver not everyone drives a stunning example of automotive engineering. Some people are idiots and some cars are shitboxes.

Lions Gate fatal crash - News Hour - Videos | Global BC

I'm just throwing this out there to give a current glimpse of the traffic patterns during the day.

Also, to clear up misconceptions on the speed limit on the bridge, I see two signs: one posted on the bridge heading into Vancouver at 60km/hr and another one coming off the bridge into West/North Van at 50km/hr.

On a somewhat related note, if we were all about saving the maximum number of lives, there were 45 suicide deaths from 1991-2007, which is probably far higher than the number of traffic fatalities.

12 pages long and lots of drama. Its apparent that people have their own style of driving that they consider "safe". Since "safe" is subjective to the person. Then can't we all just drive the way we think is "safe". We are all here commenting in this thread, it means that our perception of "safe" at least keeps us out of fatal accidents. Lets just keep it at that then? I don't want to hear news stories like this for awhile. Its depressing.

Otherwise, carry on.

I'm just getting this ready:

Let em jump they're holding up traffic lol

Most drivers are familiar with the streets they drive on. It is perfectly reasonable to think that they can come up with a reasonable and prudent speed to drive at taking conditions into account.

Driving at the speed of traffic flow is just that. There will be some moving slower, and some moving faster. Like most things in life, traffic speeds will follow a normal distribution. If you drive at the outliers of this distribution, either too fast, or too slow, you are at increased risk. If lanes are clear for faster traffic to pass, this decreases overall risk. If slower drivers think they are entitled to block faster traffic, this increases risk.

That would be an outlier. It would be safer to have a lane open for the 100 km/h drivers to pass then for them to come flying up behind a car doing 10 km/h below the speed limit.

I _accept_ that speed limits need to exist. I accept that there should be enforcement of the limit. I think the present penalties far exceed the nature of the offence and thus there should be selective enforcement. Perhaps those travelling above the 95th percentile range. If the limit is 50, and most cars are driving between 60 and 70, I think enforcement should start above 70. Currently, it's more about entrapment then anything else - enforcement at the bottom of hills or where the highway changes to a slower limit.

I don't have a problem with people who drive slower as long as they are not holding up traffic flow. There is PLENTY of space on the road, with enough cooperation people can easily drive in a way that lets faster traffic by. That is why Germany is such a pleasant place to drive. People accept that there will be faster traffic around and do not block drivers wanting to pass.

That solution of trying to have everyone drive at the same speed does not work. Why should I be forced to drive my 911 at the same speed as a logging truck or dump truck on the highway?

There is also driver psychology. A driver who feels that it is reasonable and prudent to be driving at 70 in a 50 will become infuriated if he is stuck behind drivers doing 45-50. Especially when they know they are blocked because of bad driving rather than constraints in infrastructure or from heavy traffic. Nothing more frustrating than seeing two people driving beside each other for an extended period with a clear road ahead. This leads to rash moves like unsafe passing, or tailgating.

The *real* solution is to reduce speed variances within lanes and drive in a manner that keeps the roads clear for faster traffic.

Damage looks similar and that has got to be going more then 80km/h

I drove it today. It's 60 on the bridge and the causeway... but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone - including the bus drivers - that does less than 80.

I'm still curious how fast this Mazda was going to lose control. Even if you close the middle lane, a car that is that out of control will end up in front of a bus in the next lane over. Go ahead and close the f'n lane, someone else will still end up dead. Waste of time. (just like this argument)

Both ;)

The truck looks like it's almost fully stopped. Can't imagine how much harder the 6 hit that bus when it's travelling the other direction at speed :\

You are a very VERY arrogant and disrespectful person. It's fine to express your own opinions of this matter, but DO NOT start name calling others especially the deceased. How would you like it if your son or daughter got in an accident like this, REGARDLESS of the fact they were speeding or not, and people call them "idiots" or say things such as "they deserve to die" and such. You had no idea what kind of person they were, dont judge them on this ONE MATTER. We all made mistakes, but we are all alive now meaning we didnt pay for it with our LIFE. The driver was like a little brother to me, i am still very very sad because of this accident, and i still will be even years after. I DO NOT appreciate you calling him names like that, I think it's very rude to do so. I DEMAND, STRONGLY DEMAND an apology from you, or I shall be visiting your company to have a little chat with your boss about this matter. Please, DO NOT disrespect the DECEASED, they may not mean anything to you, but they mean everything to us!!!

You mean

http://www.wpclipart.com/travel/US_R...keep_right.png

I would agree we should have more of those placed around our streets and police to enforce that
(you could have saved pages and pages of arguments and replies by just getting straight to the point instead of looking like a douche...)


sorry for your loss, you're very new around here, likely the first time you were on RS; it hurts to read comments but you'll have to realize that's how the online community is, especially so on this website... although it's actually been very tame compared to usual, since so many people knew the deceased; your best bet would be to just ignore the disrespectful comments, to poke at it would just be opening a can of worms; that's the internet for you

i think he is the boss :badpokerface: