Advocates for sensible road safety laws

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by meme405

Are you by any chance Bi-Polar, or are you truly just the worlds best disguised troll?

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by Gh0stRider

Speed Kills: Your Pocketbook video story on CTV News - YouTube

oh shit so are they actually gonna raise the speed limit or what?

In Victoria...they're talking about lowering speed to 40km/h.

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Gridlock

tolls, gasoline, the very attitude that the car is the source of all evil and possibly being punished for driving with the flow of traffic

In general:

Nanny state bullshit where some politician is deciding whats best for you.

What do tolls and gas prices have to do with a nanny state?

You want to drive fast, you're going to need better-made/better-maintained roads... that's what tolls are for.

Governments have no control over gas prices (at least in this corner of the world). I'm sure they wish they did.

You can't control those costs to your driving... you CAN control whether or not you get traffic fines, very easily.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Soundy

What do tolls and gas prices have to do with a nanny state?

You want to drive fast, you're going to need better-made/better-maintained roads... that's what tolls are for.

Governments have no control over gas prices (at least in this corner of the world). I'm sure they wish they did.

You can't control those costs to your driving... you CAN control whether or not you get traffic fines, very easily.

A good chunk of the gas price is tax so the government does have some control of the gas price. Also the road to Campbell River is excellent I don't know how much better you could make it.

[Geoc]

You can raise the speed limit to 200kph, and it still won't stop the c-lai's from driving 40kph in their lexuses

[coolname]

Originally Posted by Soundy

Regardless of whether or not the speed limits make sense (and let's get it out of the way right now: yes, I agree, they could stand to be raised in a lot of cases - happy now?), the fact remains, YOU KNOW WHAT THE LIMIT IS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE PENALTIES ARE FOR EXCEEDING IT, AND THUS YOU HAVE NO ROOM TO COMPLAIN IF YOU GET CAUGHT.

if you agree they should be higher why are you getting mad at people who who think the same?

[Soundy]

I'm not, I get frustrated at people who think the law shouldn't apply to them just because they disagree with it, WILFULLY break it, and then get all bent out of shape when they get smacked with the consequences they KNOW are coming.

[Rainei]

Jesus, no one is bitching about getting fines due to speeding. Everyone in this thread apart from you is arguing for higher limits, DUE TO THE FACT the majority of regularly law abiding citizens driving at a safe and reasonable speed are now CRAZED MANIACAL SPEED DEMONS due to our rather low speed limits.

Yes laws apply to everyone equally, but when 100% of people travelling along that stretch of Marine Dr. are breaking the law...... perhaps its time to find out why?

No one is bitching about getting fined, we're just bitching because we know that since MANY people do get caught for speeding and therefore is a significant revenue stream for ICBC/ the police, we believe that there is very little political incentive and therefore not much catalyst for an increase in speed limits. Hence "cash grab".

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by Rainei

No one is bitching about getting fined

You haven't been in the Police Forum lately, have you?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by Rainei

Jesus, no one is bitching about getting fines due to speeding.

[Rainei]

Ok fine, there are a few people bitching in the Police Forum.. so let me rephrase that. "Noone in THIS thread is bitching about fines.. etc." One dude saying that it's a cash grab does not amount to bitching about getting caught.

But please, let's discuss the main points in this thread, which is that speed limits should be higher, and not post some stupid image macro if you haven't got anything to say. Which I believe you usually do.

[Soundy]

[dark0821]

I just want to point out that I drive that stretch of marine drive twice from Monday to Friday every week. What really gets on my nerves is that when the limit goes from 80kph to 50 kph right before boundary in the Burnaby area. You have to BRAKE to "abid" the law, because it literally goes from a 80kph sigh to a 50kph sign in a distance of 50M.

I start to slow down before the last 80 limit sign, and my god here comes the honks and the fingers and the sudden pull to the right lane....

Am I the only one who wants to conserve their brake pads?

end rant =P

[Timpo]

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/possible-speed-...-b-c-1.1426671

[Traum]

Originally Posted by dark0821

I just want to point out that I drive that stretch of marine drive twice from Monday to Friday every week. What really gets on my nerves is that when the limit goes from 80kph to 50 kph right before boundary in the Burnaby area. You have to BRAKE to "abid" the law, because it literally goes from a 80kph sigh to a 50kph sign in a distance of 50M.

I start to slow down before the last 80 limit sign, and my god here comes the honks and the fingers and the sudden pull to the right lane....

Am I the only one who wants to conserve their brake pads?

end rant =P

I feel for you bro. I drive that stretch of Marine a lot as well, and I know exactly what you are talking about. Worse of all, cops sometimes set up speed traps soon after the 50kph sign, so you know that if you don't slow down, somethings there would be real consequences. But normally, the cops won't give you crap if you slow down to 60kph. So a 20kph change isn't too bad.

And honestly, I have no idea why drivers on that stretch of Marine always feels like they need to go at max speed and then slam on the brakes even though there is a red light right ahead. Hello? What's the point of flooring your gas when you need to slam on your brakes 2 seconds later?

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by dark0821

I just want to point out that I drive that stretch of marine drive twice from Monday to Friday every week. What really gets on my nerves is that when the limit goes from 80kph to 50 kph right before boundary in the Burnaby area. You have to BRAKE to "abid" the law, because it literally goes from a 80kph sigh to a 50kph sign in a distance of 50M.

I start to slow down before the last 80 limit sign, and my god here comes the honks and the fingers and the sudden pull to the right lane....

Am I the only one who wants to conserve their brake pads?

end rant =P

If it's the spot I'm thinking of, that's because it's the boundary between two different cities. Each jurisdiction sets their own speed limits, I believe.

[Traum]

I think dark0821 is talking about Marine Way & Glenlyon Parkway. To the east of Glenlyon, it's still 80kph. But west of Glenlyon, it very quickly changes down to 50kph. All of that should still be in Burnaby (since they are all to the east of Boundary).

[dark0821]

here is what i meant,

lol sorry for the crappy-ass MS paint LOL

[Lomac]

Yeah, that's the spot I was thinking. I'm pretty sure that's due to the two cities (Burnaby and Vancouver) not entirely seeing eye to eye on speed limits on the road. As I mentioned, different jurisdictions set their own limits that they feel is appropriate for the area. It's like 32nd ave. In Surrey, it's 60km/h. However, as soon as you cross into Langley at 194th (or so), it drops down to 50km/h, even though there's no noticeable reason for the drop in speed.

Not saying it's an excusable reason; just that that's probably the reasoning why there's the change.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Thought this article was relevant since it shows enforcement to have an adverse effect on safety while being a money grab.

Study finds red light cameras cause accidents - WatchdogWire - Florida

Study finds red light cameras cause accidents

They generate revenue nothing more
February 16, 2013
by Dr. Richard Swier



in
Share

13


Barbara Langland-Orban, PhD, John T. Large, PhD, Etienne E. Pracht, PhD from the University of South Florida (USF) conducted a study on red light cameras in 2008. They updated their study in 2011. Langland-Orban, et. al. found that red light cameras (RLC) increase the number of accidents at intersections by 28%.

The 2008 study found:

“Rather than improving motorist safety, red-light cameras significantly increase crashes and are a ticket to higher auto insurance premiums, researchers at the University of South Florida College of Public Health conclude. The effective remedy to red-light running uses engineering solutions to improve intersection safety, which is particularly important to Florida’s elderly drivers, the researchers recommend.

Instead, they increase crashes and injuries as drivers attempt to abruptly stop at camera intersections. If used in Florida, cameras could potentially create even worse outcomes due to the state’s high percent of elderly who are more likely to be injured or killed when a crash occurs.”

“The rigorous studies clearly show red-light cameras don’t work,” said lead author Barbara Langland-Orban, professor and chair of health policy and management at the USF College of Public Health.

The 2011 study update states:

“It is important for the public at large and federal, state, and local officials to understand that motor vehicle safety is advanced through evidence-based methods. Attempts to generate revenue through traffic citations are directly contrary to public safety since infractions are increased by improper roadway engineering, creating hazards and expense for the public.”

The 2011 study update indicates that the media is complicit in promoting the positives of red light cameras and ignoring negatives. The 2011 study update noted:

“One journal reporter, who requested anonymity, revealed that the media can be a source of misinformation on RLCs. She disclosed that special interests that profit from cameras have threatened to reduce or withdraw their advertising revenues if the news is not reported that RLCs provide a safety benefit. The reporter explained that with such threats, journalistic ethics permit an editor to report the advertiser’s perspective if also disclosing the contrary assessment that RLCs pose a safety threat, leaving readers to form their own conclusion. However, she explained that not all editors abide by this principle, which is compounded by the many controversies surrounding RLCs. For example, a Florida newspaper reported that their local poll found support for RLCs. The second half of the article mentioned some of the concerns about RLCs, which included using them to generate revenue, failing to save lives, failing to significantly reduce crashes, and increasing rear-end crashes (Thalji, 2010).”

Cities and counties install red light cameras as a “hidden tax” on motorists. RLCs are a new revenue stream for government and those companies that produce RLCs according to the study:

Comprehensive studies from North Carolina, Virginia, and Ontario have all reported cameras are significantly associated with increases in crashes, as well as crashes involving injuries. The study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council also found that cameras were linked to increased crash costs.

Some studies that conclude cameras reduced crashes or injuries contained major “research design flaws,” such as incomplete data or inadequate analyses, and were conducted by researchers with links to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The IIHS, funded by automobile insurance companies, is the leading advocate for red-light cameras.

The Florida legislature is considering HB 4011 which would repeal the use of red light cameras in the state.

[Rich Sandor]

Bad drivers are bad drivers no matter the speed limits are - they will find a way to crash at any speed.

It's unfortunately that we have to cater to the lowest common denominator.. but this is the reality.

The only way to mitigate this is to implement mandatory training for all drivers, including existing ones, and not just an exam where they can put on a show for the examiner for 35 minutes, and then drive like an idiot the rest of their lives.