Just to stir up some sh!t
10-07-2009, 12:27 AM
#31
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Crazy Canuck;6965036]
I do believe though that Ontario's speed laws (on 400 series highways) have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation. /QUOTE]
If cops spent as much time fighting real crime as they do hiding behind poles and trees with radar guns we'd have safer schools, neighborhoods and just maybe less guns on the street which might lead to less gang violence.
I do believe though that Ontario's speed laws (on 400 series highways) have nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue generation. /QUOTE]
If cops spent as much time fighting real crime as they do hiding behind poles and trees with radar guns we'd have safer schools, neighborhoods and just maybe less guns on the street which might lead to less gang violence.
10-07-2009, 01:39 AM
#32
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What blows my mind is that if the goverment / police were so intent on us not speeding then why do they knowingly allow us to break the law first then punish us after the act as opposed to preventing us from breaking the law to begin with? You don't tempt people with herion, let them get addicted then tell them how bad it is to get hooked on drugs.
Imagine this scenario: a car accelerates up a hill, reaches the top still accelerating then as the driver proceeds down the hill manages to exceed the speed limit by 10 - 15 kms/hr (enough to get ticketed) when suddenly someone darts out onto the street part way down the hill and the driver hits them. There's a radar cop hiding behind a tree at the bottom of the hill.
A second scenario: a mid day school zone where the speed limit may drop from 50 to 40 during a specific time. A driver subconsciously speeds into the zone and hits a child crossing the street. It clearly wasn't the driver intent to consciously speed through a school zone in the middle of the day with the intention of hitting someone and there again is an officer near the end of the marked zone hiding behind a pole with his cruiser clearly out of sight. Could anything have been done in hindsight to prevent these 2 situations from happening?
I fully understand that the driver is at fault for speeding and if polled I would be assured that 90% of speeders do not intentionally speed so we have to assume that the drivers are not acting maliciously but subconsciously. Now where I have a problem is why is the driver allowed to commit a crime unintentionally to begin with if there is a police officer there on duty to "prevent" speeding in that area.
It seems that the sole purpose of the police officers was not to "police" the areas but to endorse speeders then after the crimes have been committed to serve the citations which in these particular cases would have been too late and ineffective.
The Solution:
Allow licensed driver to possess radar detectors. In all cases where there is a radar trap drivers are allowed to speed (until stopped), sometimes subconsciously, and a radar detector would have helped slow the driver down well in advance sometimes miles back which would have been more effective at controlling speeds whereas a radar cop in a school zone during the day has literally no effect on dangerous speeders approaching the area but only after it's too late and the driver has been allowed to go blasting through the zone. Furthermore, I believe that having a radar detector will not give us a license to speed but help the 90% of us be more aware of our speed. We do not intend to speed. The remaining 10% are the intentional speeders that possess radar detectors regardless and in those cases it will help control their speed as well.
If an authoritative individual can step in and make sense of this I would gladly listen.
Imagine this scenario: a car accelerates up a hill, reaches the top still accelerating then as the driver proceeds down the hill manages to exceed the speed limit by 10 - 15 kms/hr (enough to get ticketed) when suddenly someone darts out onto the street part way down the hill and the driver hits them. There's a radar cop hiding behind a tree at the bottom of the hill.
A second scenario: a mid day school zone where the speed limit may drop from 50 to 40 during a specific time. A driver subconsciously speeds into the zone and hits a child crossing the street. It clearly wasn't the driver intent to consciously speed through a school zone in the middle of the day with the intention of hitting someone and there again is an officer near the end of the marked zone hiding behind a pole with his cruiser clearly out of sight. Could anything have been done in hindsight to prevent these 2 situations from happening?
I fully understand that the driver is at fault for speeding and if polled I would be assured that 90% of speeders do not intentionally speed so we have to assume that the drivers are not acting maliciously but subconsciously. Now where I have a problem is why is the driver allowed to commit a crime unintentionally to begin with if there is a police officer there on duty to "prevent" speeding in that area.
It seems that the sole purpose of the police officers was not to "police" the areas but to endorse speeders then after the crimes have been committed to serve the citations which in these particular cases would have been too late and ineffective.
The Solution:
Allow licensed driver to possess radar detectors. In all cases where there is a radar trap drivers are allowed to speed (until stopped), sometimes subconsciously, and a radar detector would have helped slow the driver down well in advance sometimes miles back which would have been more effective at controlling speeds whereas a radar cop in a school zone during the day has literally no effect on dangerous speeders approaching the area but only after it's too late and the driver has been allowed to go blasting through the zone. Furthermore, I believe that having a radar detector will not give us a license to speed but help the 90% of us be more aware of our speed. We do not intend to speed. The remaining 10% are the intentional speeders that possess radar detectors regardless and in those cases it will help control their speed as well.
If an authoritative individual can step in and make sense of this I would gladly listen.
10-07-2009, 10:03 AM
#33
Race Director
A good website: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html
Canadian common sense
This recent Canadian report (Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia) has a clear view of the role of speed limits and speed enforcement. (home page) (actual report)
We'd rate this as a "must read", and it includes such straight forward common sense items as:
The text on the 85th percentile is especially interesting and completely contrary to our speed limit policy here in Ontario.
Much road engineering and speed limit design refers to the "85th percentile of vehicle speed". What does it mean and why is it important? Refer to figure 1 below.
For any road situation there will be a spread of vehicle speeds. This spread of speeds is indicated by the green line. There's an average speed of vehicles and some travel faster and some slower. The 50th percentile speed is the speed which 50% of vehicles are not exceeding. (equally it's the speed which 50% of vehicles ARE exceeding).
The 85th percentile speed is the speed which 85% of the vehicles are not exceeding. The blue "accumulated frequency" curve shows how at each higher speed point the number of vehicles not exceeding that speed point increases.
Plenty of research has shown that the safest group of vehicles are travelling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. Research shows that crash risk alters with speed and this is shown by the red crash risk curve. At the 85th to 90th percentiles we tend to find drivers with above average skill and competence, and this is why their crash risk is the lowest. Above the 90th percentile we tend to find drivers exceeding safe limits and their accident risk increases as a consequence. Note that the "average" driver at the 50% percentile has a greater crash risk than the 85th percentile driver. Below the 30th percentile crash risk is significantly increased and these speeds tend to be used by less skilled and competent drivers.
This leads to engineering recommendations that speed limits should normally be set at around the 85th or 90th percentile speed of traffic under good conditions. There may well be some of the very safest drivers somewhat above the 90th percentile, but historically in the UK there has been Police discretion and an "enforcement margin" to avoid penalising these safe drivers. But how things have changed.
Does crash risk really increase for driver at and below average speed?
You should not need research to know that this view is true. Consider, for example, the crash risk of a car in lane 3 of a busy motorway. At extremely high speeds or low speeds it should be quite obvious that crash risk is elevated. There is ample scientific research to support the view too.
Safe speed has looked into the relationship between crash risk and travelling speed in some detail. We've realised that the curve shape of crash risk applies to an averaged population of vehicles and an averaged population of road conditions. The instantaneous crash risk for an individual vehicle is somewhat different. The speed contributes nothing to crash risk within a range of safe speeds. At the top end the crash risk rises sharply as the safe speed for the situation is exceeded. At the bottom end the curve splits. A position in the traffic flow will give an elevated crash risk at low speeds, but a position out of the main flow of traffic gives a reduced crash risk at low speeds. This gives us a "bath tub" curve.
When you add a lot of different bath tub curves (as you would when defining the risk attached to a population of drivers) you tend to create the smooth curves seen in the research into speed and crash risk.
Some research claims that accident risk simply increases with speed. The faster you go the greater the risk of crashing. Simply considering two situations will clearly demonstrate that this view is false.
Doddery old fool at 30 mph on a UK "A" road suitable for 60 mph. Of course he has an elevated crash risk. He does not know what he is doing. That's why he's doing 30 mph with a queue of increasingly frustrated traffic behind.
A single vehicle in lane 3 of a busy motorway. It's obvious that as the speed is reduced below 55 mph the crash risk will increase.
And the best part:
Will things ever change? Not while the police and the justice system are at the trough that is speeding revenue.
Canadian common sense
This recent Canadian report (Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia) has a clear view of the role of speed limits and speed enforcement. (home page) (actual report)
We'd rate this as a "must read", and it includes such straight forward common sense items as:
This recent Canadian report (Review and Analysis of Posted Speed Limits and Speed Limit Setting Practices in British Columbia) has a clear view of the role of speed limits and speed enforcement. (home page) (actual report)
We'd rate this as a "must read", and it includes such straight forward common sense items as:
- The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions.
- Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists.
- The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.
We'd rate this as a "must read", and it includes such straight forward common sense items as:
- The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions.
- Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists.
- The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.
Much road engineering and speed limit design refers to the "85th percentile of vehicle speed". What does it mean and why is it important? Refer to figure 1 below.
For any road situation there will be a spread of vehicle speeds. This spread of speeds is indicated by the green line. There's an average speed of vehicles and some travel faster and some slower. The 50th percentile speed is the speed which 50% of vehicles are not exceeding. (equally it's the speed which 50% of vehicles ARE exceeding).
The 85th percentile speed is the speed which 85% of the vehicles are not exceeding. The blue "accumulated frequency" curve shows how at each higher speed point the number of vehicles not exceeding that speed point increases.
Plenty of research has shown that the safest group of vehicles are travelling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. Research shows that crash risk alters with speed and this is shown by the red crash risk curve. At the 85th to 90th percentiles we tend to find drivers with above average skill and competence, and this is why their crash risk is the lowest. Above the 90th percentile we tend to find drivers exceeding safe limits and their accident risk increases as a consequence. Note that the "average" driver at the 50% percentile has a greater crash risk than the 85th percentile driver. Below the 30th percentile crash risk is significantly increased and these speeds tend to be used by less skilled and competent drivers.
This leads to engineering recommendations that speed limits should normally be set at around the 85th or 90th percentile speed of traffic under good conditions. There may well be some of the very safest drivers somewhat above the 90th percentile, but historically in the UK there has been Police discretion and an "enforcement margin" to avoid penalising these safe drivers. But how things have changed.
Does crash risk really increase for driver at and below average speed?
You should not need research to know that this view is true. Consider, for example, the crash risk of a car in lane 3 of a busy motorway. At extremely high speeds or low speeds it should be quite obvious that crash risk is elevated. There is ample scientific research to support the view too.
Safe speed has looked into the relationship between crash risk and travelling speed in some detail. We've realised that the curve shape of crash risk applies to an averaged population of vehicles and an averaged population of road conditions. The instantaneous crash risk for an individual vehicle is somewhat different. The speed contributes nothing to crash risk within a range of safe speeds. At the top end the crash risk rises sharply as the safe speed for the situation is exceeded. At the bottom end the curve splits. A position in the traffic flow will give an elevated crash risk at low speeds, but a position out of the main flow of traffic gives a reduced crash risk at low speeds. This gives us a "bath tub" curve.
When you add a lot of different bath tub curves (as you would when defining the risk attached to a population of drivers) you tend to create the smooth curves seen in the research into speed and crash risk.
Some research claims that accident risk simply increases with speed. The faster you go the greater the risk of crashing. Simply considering two situations will clearly demonstrate that this view is false.
Doddery old fool at 30 mph on a UK "A" road suitable for 60 mph. Of course he has an elevated crash risk. He does not know what he is doing. That's why he's doing 30 mph with a queue of increasingly frustrated traffic behind.
A single vehicle in lane 3 of a busy motorway. It's obvious that as the speed is reduced below 55 mph the crash risk will increase.
And the best part:
How should speed limits be set, and by who?
It should be obvious from all the above that speed limits should be set by skilled traffic engineers giving due consideration to 85th percentile speeds and local conditions.
Speed limits do little to modify the speed of traffic, and should never be used to attempt to modify the speed of traffic. The idea of lowering a speed limit and enforcing it by camera which is so common these days is a case of falling into the "speed limit trap". It's a dangerous mistake because it shifts vital responsibility away from drivers. (click here)
Speed limit setting should never be carried out by local councillors who lack skills in traffic engineering. It is quite absurd to think that safety can be improved with arbitrary (as opposed to properly engineered) speed limit reductions.
It should be obvious from all the above that speed limits should be set by skilled traffic engineers giving due consideration to 85th percentile speeds and local conditions.
Speed limits do little to modify the speed of traffic, and should never be used to attempt to modify the speed of traffic. The idea of lowering a speed limit and enforcing it by camera which is so common these days is a case of falling into the "speed limit trap". It's a dangerous mistake because it shifts vital responsibility away from drivers. (click here)
Speed limit setting should never be carried out by local councillors who lack skills in traffic engineering. It is quite absurd to think that safety can be improved with arbitrary (as opposed to properly engineered) speed limit reductions.
10-07-2009, 02:54 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
Happily I haven't had many tickets, but every time I have been pulled over I was issued a ticket.
The one warning I did receive .... driving home from work about 10 pm (long day from a 6:00 am start) w/b on the QEW just past the Gardner, not many cars on the road, I was doing 25-30 over just wanting to get home (not in the "p"). An unmarked cruiser pulled up beside me and the officer inside motioned to slow it down, he followed me for a bit to be sure I did and then took off. That's all that was required ... to me that was great - a good example of discretion on his part, desired outcome accomplished from his perspective (I slowed down and was more careful in the future) and joe average (moi) was saved a ticket. If ticketing wasn't really a cash grab we should be seeing more of this approach.
The one warning I did receive .... driving home from work about 10 pm (long day from a 6:00 am start) w/b on the QEW just past the Gardner, not many cars on the road, I was doing 25-30 over just wanting to get home (not in the "p"). An unmarked cruiser pulled up beside me and the officer inside motioned to slow it down, he followed me for a bit to be sure I did and then took off. That's all that was required ... to me that was great - a good example of discretion on his part, desired outcome accomplished from his perspective (I slowed down and was more careful in the future) and joe average (moi) was saved a ticket. If ticketing wasn't really a cash grab we should be seeing more of this approach.
10-07-2009, 05:27 PM
#35
Team Owner
Good point Peter ....
I forgot completely I have gotten off with Warnings .... other drivers who flash there headlights warning me of upcoming radar.
I consider it a ticket I easily could have gotten and really do slow down .. and it has the same effect as Peters comment .... was effective without taxing me ...
I forgot completely I have gotten off with Warnings .... other drivers who flash there headlights warning me of upcoming radar.
I consider it a ticket I easily could have gotten and really do slow down .. and it has the same effect as Peters comment .... was effective without taxing me ...
