Topic: New Law in TO

[Giant Dwarf]

The point is that speed limits exist. They are present. They are understood by drivers to exist and be present. As a result, drivers have certain expectations of the behaviours of other drivers around them. When some asshat blows past at 50k over, this is outside the norm of expected road behaviour: the speed differential is too great, the reactions of BOTH parties not fast enough, and people get killed.

But do keep in mind, much of the 400-series highways around the GTA wouldn't have a 50km/h speed differential for someone travelling at 50 above the limit.  Nearly all the traffic (even large trucks as just noted by Airbalancer) is traveling at 120+.  A large portion of the traffic in the left lane is traveling at 130-135.  That's only a 15km/h differential for someone traveling at the oh-so-terrifying 150.

The speed limits on the multi-lane highways are woefully out-of-date.  As rightfully as you say "if you want to travel that fast, go to Germany", I can say if the highways are too fast for you, stay on the secondary streets.  Arrogant?  Perhaps, but a stupid move at 100 km/h is still a stupid move, and the consequences are likely to be as dire as an incident at 150 km/h.  Cars ARE safer now.  They do handle better.  They do stop much shorter.  They do protect their occupants better.  Improvements have been made to everything but the speed limits. 

But I digress from the real issue here:  a law with many, scary faults and inclusions and the chaos waiting to happen by giving too much arbitrary power to officers for what is (as stated earlier) nothing more than a law for electioneering, cash generation and to solve a problem that's not nearly as dangerous as countless other problems on the highways.   

[Snowman]

The point is that speed limits exist. They are present. They are understood by drivers to exist and be present. As a result, drivers have certain expectations of the behaviours of other drivers around them. When some asshat blows past at 50k over, this is outside the norm of expected road behaviour: the speed differential is too great, the reactions of BOTH parties not fast enough, and people get killed.

But do keep in mind, much of the 400-series highways around the GTA wouldn't have a 50km/h speed differential for someone travelling at 50 above the limit.  Nearly all the traffic (even large trucks as just noted by Airbalancer) is traveling at 120+.  A large portion of the traffic in the left lane is traveling at 130-135.  That's only a 15km/h differential for someone traveling at the oh-so-terrifying 150.

The speed limits on the multi-lane highways are woefully out-of-date.  As rightfully as you say "if you want to travel that fast, go to Germany", I can say if the highways are too fast for you, stay on the secondary streets.  Arrogant?  Perhaps, but a stupid move at 100 km/h is still a stupid move, and the consequences are likely to be as dire as an incident at 150 km/h.  Cars ARE safer now.  They do handle better.  They do stop much shorter.  They do protect their occupants better.  Improvements have been made to everything but the speed limits. 

But I digress from the real issue here:  a law with many, scary faults and inclusions and the chaos waiting to happen by giving too much arbitrary power to officers for what is (as stated earlier) nothing more than a law for electioneering, cash generation and to solve a problem that's not nearly as dangerous as countless other problems on the highways.   

 

[tpl]

I agree as well GD  except

"...  Cars ARE safer now.  They do handle better.  They do stop much shorter.  They do protect their occupants better.  Improvements have been made to everything but the speed limits. "

No improvements have been made to the drivers or more the point, the driver training. Driving at 150 IS different from driving at, say, 80-100. There is  less time available to process information and act on it and the forces acting on the driver if one attempts a violent manoeuvre are much higher.  It is a fact that most drivers focus too closely in front of their vehicle and just don't look far enough ahead... this really matters at high speed .

[wing]

last night I'm parked at the side of the road, 4-ways on and some guy comes up behind me sits there for a bit then pulls around.  Yeah not paying attention much?

[Turbo Bob]

Tell that to the families of the ladies that were killed on the weekend

happens.  It's infantile to take the position that roads can somehow be 100% safe.  Overall the death rate on our roads is quite low and totally acceptable.  Same for our crime rate.  You can't remove all risk from society and it's idiotic to think along those lines.

I don't think anyone realistically hopes to achieve 100% road safety, but rather mitigate the risk of driving by targetting a high-risk behaviour. 50km/h over the limit is excessive under any circumstance; there really isn't any excuse for it.
 

It's this sort of generalisation that is stupid.  I never race, perform stunts, drink drive etc. but I did used to have a great 40+ mile journey to work in the morning, at 6am where I could easily hit 110mph maybe four times on a clear (no other traffic), sunny, dry, straight dual lane road with no junctions on it. Now I believe that to be a safe speed for the conditions, although it is 40mph over the legal limit which is a serious offence in the UK.

I did nearly get caught once when I came around a sweeping downhill bend (still a very safe road) at well over 100mph only to find a police camera van parked up on the central reservation, I think I surprised him though as it was very early in the morning, he was probably dropping his bacon sandwich whilst trying to focus on the car!
 

However I do agree that 50kph over any limit is "usually" stupid, but the speed limit system should be more like the French way where better conditions give higher limits (rain and fog lower the speed limit), unfortunately most of the British general public would be too stupid to be able to understand it.

So while the generalization is stupid, you also agree that 50 k over is "usually" stupid? Please clarify.

When I say usually, I meant rarely do you come across road and weather conditions that permit high safe speeds, but they do come about. It wasn't a generalisation just pointing out reality.

The point is that speed limits exist. They are present. They are understood by drivers to exist and be present. As a result, drivers have certain expectations of the behaviours of other drivers around them. When some asshat blows past at 50k over, this is outside the norm of expected road behaviour: the speed differential is too great, the reactions of BOTH parties not fast enough, and people get killed. Afterwards, buddy's lawyer will have the impudence to suggest it's a gosh-darned tragedy for BOTH families.

If people want to drive 50k over, move to Germany where drivers on the autobahn EXPECT huge speed differentials. Or, in your case, move to France. Or lobby the government to change things to your liking.

Which bit of my text didn't you understand? I made it clear that the road is a dual lane highway with no junctions and no other traffic?  The bit that it is safe to go over 100mph is very straight with excellent visibility, no traffic at that time in the morning.  At the end it has a long sweeping bend that gives you enough time to come to a complete stop if you saw anything. So what is your problem?  I'll drive how I like where I like, you move to France.  

I am always amazed at the rationalizations (and arrogance) that people put forward to justify high risk behaviour (clear roads, supremely advanced motor coordination, god-like powers of perceptual processing speed, "cars are so good these days," etc.). They fail to understand or appreciate that they actually don't exist in isolation and that the impact of their actions is not limited to themselves.

Again, which bit of my text didn't you understand?   I know that in the UK other drivers and pedestrians are not going to be expecting cars to be coming past at over 100mph, that's why I only drive that fast when there is zero risk, I don't actually want to crash you know.  And on the motorway it's a different story as most people travel at 80+mph so the differential is much less.  I normally drive at about 80-90mph on the motorway, again depending on conditions.

Also, I never claimed "supremely advanced motor coordination, god-like powers of perceptual processing", what I said was I believed that to be a safe speed for the car, conditions, lack of traffic etc. at that point in time.  Nobody died.

I am always amazed at the arrogant and judgmental attitude people take when judging other people's driving, having no knowledge of the person, their skills, their car, or the conditions of the road and the surrounding environment.  

[safristi]

...regression to the MEAN...spirited................. maybe Katie

[50362]

What else is new, we're  a nation bad drivers because getting a drivers license in Canada is to easy. It's a formality. Just last week I'm heading across Hwy 88, a person comes off the 400 and is about to merge in front of me doing 40k in the merge lane. Then they run out of lane, do a jerk of the steering wheel in front of me and then back into the merge lane and finally onto the gravel shoulder ( I hate gravel shoulders). I pass and THEY give me the hi beams. NO turn signal, not up to speed to merge onto highway, didn't check blind spot or mirror, and I'm in the wrong!? What was I suppose to do come to a complete stop on Hwy 88 so this person can merge infront of me.

Anyway, I don't have time to read all the postings but I'll bet this 50 over = seizure gets reduced to 30 over gets your property seized?  I'm sure the 'not withstanding 'clause is in the legislation. Like I say in my quotes, one step closer to a police state.  Remember Canadians, we do NOT have property rights in Canada. Thanks Mr. Trudeau. Everything you own is a PRIVILAGE.  

What about the right to challenge the seizure of your car? the ticket? the officer? that's what a democracy is. Thats crap. So if you win in court is the state going to compensate you for the tow, impound, fines, lost wages because you couldn't get to work. ? HA! not likely. I never drive that fast but if I lost my car for a week...I have another one....or I'll rent one. We are like a nation of school kids, a few people screw up and everybody gets disciplined. Pathetic.  

The past nine years I travel through 5 towns to get to work. In that 9 years I've seen speed limits actually reduced! 60 to 50 80 to 60. Are we all going to be safer when were finally dictated to driving 40 k everywhere? As long as cars exist people will die in them. Plain and simple!

What will happen when some prominant person or there family member gets there car seized? Then we will se a double standard in action, lots of that in this country.

Has anyone brought up the prospect of this new law being open to abuse? The kid who want to get back at the parents drives over 50k and the parents lose the car. Your pulled over for doing 25 over and you give the cop a hard time and he says "we could make that 50 over if you like"? who's to say. As stupid a it sounds carry a tape recorder in your car or video camera.  

It would be funny if Mr. McGinty's kid did 50 over and the car got seized for a week.

Thanks, that was my rant for the month.

[airbalancer]

 "Just last week I'm heading across Hwy 88, a person comes off the 400 and is about to merge in front of me doing 40k in the merge lane. Then they run out of lane, do a jerk of the steering wheel in front of me and then back into the merge lane and finally onto the gravel shoulder ( I hate gravel shoulders). I pass and THEY give me the hi beams. NO turn signal, not up to speed to merge onto highway, didn't check blind spot or mirror, and I'm in the wrong!?"
I would say you screwed up, you should never put yourself in the position to be driving on the shoulder
1st rule- watch out for the other guy

[Turbo Bob]

...regression to the MEAN...spirited................. maybe Katie

I'm just sick of arguing with the high and mighty.

[AVToller]

"Just last week I'm heading across Hwy 88, a person comes off the 400 and is about to merge in front of me doing 40k in the merge lane. Then they run out of lane, do a jerk of the steering wheel in front of me and then back into the merge lane and finally onto the gravel shoulder ( I hate gravel shoulders). I pass and THEY give me the hi beams. NO turn signal, not up to speed to merge onto highway, didn't check blind spot or mirror, and I'm in the wrong!?"
I would say you screwed up, you should never put yourself in the position to be driving on the shoulder
1st rule- watch out for the other guy

To me, this suggests that the current speed limits are too HIGH for the present driving skill levels.    Watch out indeed!

[safristi]

 ...

[Giant Dwarf]

I agree as well GD  except

"...  Cars ARE safer now.  They do handle better.  They do stop much shorter.  They do protect their occupants better.  Improvements have been made to everything but the speed limits. "

No improvements have been made to the drivers or more the point, the driver training. Driving at 150 IS different from driving at, say, 80-100. There is  less time available to process information and act on it and the forces acting on the driver if one attempts a violent manoeuvre are much higher.  It is a fact that most drivers focus too closely in front of their vehicle and just don't look far enough ahead... this really matters at high speed .

Well, technically there is more driver education now than a generation ago.  Plus, graduated licensing in theory, is forcing new drivers to be more careful.  (sigh)... okay, I'm grasping at straws here. 

***

AVT, touche -- good point about the example given.

[Morteus]

The problem is with the amount of new unskilled drivers in Ontario (primarily the GTA) you need to drive extra defensively and be ready for anything. Let's presume you cruising along in the left lane at 160KM hour in your highly capable sports car and then someone merges onto the open highway without looking and shoots across all 3 lanes directly into your path going 60KM hr. You can't avoid them and crash and your passenger dies. Who's to blame? The slow merger? Partially, but you would bear responsibility as well for driving under the presumption
that although you are speeding you are doing so "in a safe manner under safe conditions". It's much too subjective a call to make. What if the guy behind you is driving the same car with the same amount of experience however he hasn't had a brake job in 4 years? Is he driving as safely as you? He would say yes, would you like to bet your life that he is correct? All people who drive that fast are doing is willingly/unknowingly accepting the risks that come with speeding. Rarely though do the consequences effect only them.
(have you seen the 401 traffic after a single car accident?? Pack a lunch!)

Cops seizing cars without due process....I don't agree with that. You could execute someone in front of a room full of judges and still you would be granted a trail before serving a sentence. Not so with 50Km over the limit though.

Morteus

[50362]

Cops seizing cars without due process....I don't agree with that. You could execute someone in front of a room full of judges and still you would be granted a trail before serving a sentence. Not so with 50Km over the limit though.

Morteus

Exactly. That is not democracy that's a dictatorship. We Canadians should be pissed about this new law because it  affects everyone of us who drives. Mark my words, this law will be amended and we will see 30+=seizure. Guaranteed! as usual we bury our heads in the sand and say, "Oh well, there the police and polititions".

So I'll ask this question. Is there any other country in the world who seizes cars if the speed limit is exceeded?

[WagonMan]

"Just last week I'm heading across Hwy 88, a person comes off the 400 and is about to merge in front of me doing 40k in the merge lane. Then they run out of lane, do a jerk of the steering wheel in front of me and then back into the merge lane and finally onto the gravel shoulder ( I hate gravel shoulders). I pass and THEY give me the hi beams. NO turn signal, not up to speed to merge onto highway, didn't check blind spot or mirror, and I'm in the wrong!?"
I would say you screwed up, you should never put yourself in the position to be driving on the shoulder
1st rule- watch out for the other guy

I think he meant the other guy ended up on the gravel shoulder.

[tpl]

Cops seizing cars without due process....I don't agree with that. You could execute someone in front of a room full of judges and still you would be granted a trail before serving a sentence. Not so with 50Km over the limit though.

Morteus

Exactly. That is not democracy that's a dictatorship. We Canadians should be pissed about this new law because it  affects everyone of us who drives. Mark my words, this law will be amended and we will see 30+=seizure. Guaranteed! as usual we bury our heads in the sand and say, "Oh well, there the police and polititions".

So I'll ask this question. Is there any other country in the world who seizes cars if the speed limit is exceeded?

probably in some 3rd world countries but thats because the police will shoot you and then steal the car.   

[airbalancer]

"Just last week I'm heading across Hwy 88, a person comes off the 400 and is about to merge in front of me doing 40k in the merge lane. Then they run out of lane, do a jerk of the steering wheel in front of me and then back into the merge lane and finally onto the gravel shoulder ( I hate gravel shoulders). I pass and THEY give me the hi beams. NO turn signal, not up to speed to merge onto highway, didn't check blind spot or mirror, and I'm in the wrong!?"
I would say you screwed up, you should never put yourself in the position to be driving on the shoulder
1st rule- watch out for the other guy

I think he meant the other guy ended up on the gravel shoulder.

You are probably right , I am wrong again
Still it just sound wrong

[duck]

Yesterday, I was going east on the 401 (Mississauga area)  doing about 130 when an Audi whizzed by at   180 to 200.   

He was moving like a bullet. 

[inco]

A. He was trying to avoid a Westerner who got in his way?
B. Unintended acceleration issues still.
C. He was driving his wife's car and was wanting it impounded?

[vz64]

I noticed that number of 150+ km/h zippers is greatly reduced on 407 (westbound, between 403 junction and Appleby exit). My new self-imposed speed limiter is set to 145. Yesterday, on empty stretch of 407 a lonely Z4 zipped by me, the fellow was going at least 220... Hmm, he was extremely lucky not to get nailed as he passed through a speed trap area; every few days I see there a cop, a speeder, and a tow-track......