|
Well there have been well over 4,600 cars impounded already under the excessive speed law in BC so clearly people aren't getting the message.
I realize there are three sides to every story, but since excessive speed triggers an immediate impoundment, the only side that counts is the officer's. Let's assume everything that the visiting granny said is true.
She had every reason to believe the speed limit to be 100kph from previous visits and her view of the 70kph sign was obstructed. When she overtook the semis, she needed to accelerate to a speed that would let her pass the trucks before the passing lane ended. It's probably safe to assume that she was somewhat familiar with the fines for speeding, so she weighted that in on her decision to pass. After all, speeding is a risk the majority of drivers take every day.
Had she known that the penalty for 40kph over was an immediate impoundment, I'm guessing she would have still passed the trucks, albeit a little bit slower.
The trouble is, she was operating under the understanding that the speed limit was 100kph. Now before you say "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law", ask yourself: did the government effectively convey the speed limit? Knowing that the signs would be obstructed by the very vehicles someone is likely to pass, shouldn't the onus be on the government to install signs in such a way that they can't be missed? Especially with such drastic penalties.
Zulu, in your experience, do most head on collisions occur as a result of someone passing a slower moving vehicle on a straight, two laned section of highway with good visibility, or do more occur as a result of something else like distractions or underestimating the sharpness of the curve?
|