Be a left lane blocker and save lives
aunt_millie
up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
day. It's a great way to tell the speeders "stop breaking the law
and endangering my family."
Daniel Davis
<aunt millie> wrote in message
news:mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com...
You do realize that this won't change anyone's driving habits and might just
infuriate them causing road rage incidents? Eventually one of them will
snap and happen to be armed. Situations like that are already dangerously
common in Florida.
Daniel Davis
Aerospace Engineering major
University of Central Florida - Orlando
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Thomas Schäfer
In many European countries police would pull you out, after some
occasions your license would be cut. Or even immediately, if you
tell the cops that you intended to play Judge Dredd.
Some cops are especially looking for those wanna-be-teachers.
You know, it's a common prejudice here that US-people take the
law into their own hands. Not only in US, but all over the world.
Maybe, it's more than a simple prejudice...?
Thomas
robert Jones
I guess dou didn't get it the first time so let me post it agin for
you. Your actions are just as bad if not worse than those you wish top
protest. You too are a murderer and here is why:
Let me tell you a little stroy about what happens when people go out
of their way to block traffic.
It's was may 24 weekend here in Ontario. The highways are clogged with
cottagers heading north for the first long week end of the year.
Traffic is moving at slightly above the limit 105 to 110 Km/h A person
travelling north is is stuck behind a person such as yourself who
takes it upon themselves to arbitraily enforce the speed limit. The
lane blocker is either oblivious to the fact that they are travelling
slower than traffic in the right lane or doesn't care. Other dirvers
are now moving right to navigate the lane blocker. Car A moves right
but fails to adequetly check the blind spot cliping another northbound
vehicle. The impact cuts a tire on car b (Chevy Blazer Loaded with
camping gear and cottage stuff) hits the shoulder. The driver tries to
correct the Blazer but it's too late it's going off the road. It flips
once comming to rest in the trees next to the highway. The 2 front
seat passengers are badly injured the rear set occupant a small child
of 6 is killed by flying objects in the passenger compartment. (Lean
from this tie everything down and invest in a cargo screen) This
tragedy was totally avoidable. If the LLB had moved to the right
instead of beccoming a rolling road block this tragedy need never have
happened. The selfishness of the LLB killed a 6 year old girl and for
what? So his fragile ego wouldn't be bruised by some raging speed
demon keeping with the flow of traffic?
Beacuse of people like you there is one dead 6 year old girl
Beacuse of people like you there is one family who will never see
their girl grow up
Becasue of people like you I will forever have to live with the memory
of towing a wrecked Blazer out of the ditch with the blood of a 6 year
old's crushed skull still dripping from the rear door.
So take this personally you selfish windbag when I tell you that one
day you and Carl and Judy and POA will pay for your stupidity
hopefully at the hand of someone equally as stupid as you and it won't
matter what you tell the nice ambulance attendant about how you were
only driving 55...
Sam Adams
Maby because it is DANGEROUS ??
<aunt millie> wrote in message
news:mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com...
Garth Almgren
> This is illegal in some states... I wonder why ?
>
Illegal in 46 states, actually. <http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html>
Morally wrong (and dangerous) in all states, AFAICT. :)
> Maby because it is DANGEROUS ??
Yep!
More info on the topic here: <http://www.motorists.org/right/index.html>
>
> Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) wrote in message
> news:mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com...
>
>> Take it
>> up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
>> day.
Lovely, Judy. Now you're breaking two (reasonable) laws[*] to prevent
someone else from breaking one (unreasonable) law. Yeah, that makes
sense... <rolls eyes>
They really should take away your license before you hurt someone
besides yourself.
[*] From Colorado law:
I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
--------| And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
========| - Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
P.J. Hartman
It's also a great way to have your rear view mirror filled with the
grill of an 18-wheeler. No thanks.
Kevin Arouza
You are a joke.
I race cars and motorcycles on a racetrack regularly. I guarantee you
that I am more in control of my vehicle at 120mph than your unskilled
ass at 40mph. It is possible to do 100+ on a freeway given good
conditions especially in today's cars. So learn how to drive before
posting your ludicrous psycho babble.
In case you didn't know, slower traffic needs to stick to the right.
You are impeding the flow of traffic with your nazi techniques. You
need to smarten up and stop encouraging others to break the law with
you.
Christian Huebner
news:40992571.03061...@posting.google.com:
> aunt millie wrote in message
> news:<mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com>...
>> Send a message to those murderous speeders on our highways. Take it
>> up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
>> day. It's a great way to tell the speeders "stop breaking the law
>> and endangering my family."
>
> You are a joke.
Welcome to last year ;-)
> I race cars and motorcycles on a racetrack regularly. I guarantee you
> that I am more in control of my vehicle at 120mph than your unskilled
> ass at 40mph. It is possible to do 100+ on a freeway given good
> conditions especially in today's cars. So learn how to drive before
> posting your ludicrous psycho babble.
I doubt that would be a good idea - aunt millie needs to become old
enough to drive first.
> In case you didn't know, slower traffic needs to stick to the right.
> You are impeding the flow of traffic with your nazi techniques. You
> need to smarten up and stop encouraging others to break the law with
> you.
Do you think anyone in here except for 'her' alter egos takes
'her' seriously?
Ricardo
<v6s...@v6stang.com> wrote:
>> This is illegal in some states... I wonder why ?
>
>Illegal in 46 states, actually. <http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html>
I like to think of it as "at least 45", though, 'cos it's actually
legal in MI if there are more than two lanes each way (duh - what
WERE they thinking?).
>[*] From Colorado law:
>I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
>to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
>traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
>II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
>drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
>practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
Obviously, Judy Diarrhea and Scott Weisenheimer can't read. :{
--
ricardo, ex-euroslav vancouver bc canada
e-mail: remove spamfreezone to reply
for liability purposes: I *always* obey the law.
'89 grand am le, garaged; '91 mx6 gt
Ricardo
wrote:
>In case you didn't know, slower traffic needs to stick to the right.
>You are impeding the flow of traffic with your nazi techniques.
Calling Judy a "nazi" is insulting to real Nazis. "Real" Nazis
understood the Rechtsfahrgebot concept. Heck, it was "real" Nazis
who truly appreciated the joy of Autobahnen and high speed road
travel in general. :)
>You need to smarten up and stop encouraging others to break the law
>with you.
Ultimately, it's not just a matter of law - after all, exceeding the
posted speed limit is usually breaking the law too. It's a matter of
being inconsiderate, passive-aggressive and plainly reckless with
that kinda flow obstructing behaviour. Case closed, as Judy likes to
say.
Ricardo
wrote:
[snip tragedy again]
Oh yeah, and one other thing that I forgot to mention before re
stuff like this, other than "it's also dangerous to pass on the
right":
It takes ONE, and only ONE LLB to cause these kinds of problems and
totally screw up the flow. Fact is, it's just not in the Canajun
psyche to obstruct and provoke others in a willful manner, but that
is completely and utterly beside the point. While only the tiniest
minority sees fit to behave like Judy, that's all it takes - ONE
asshole - to cause serious problems.
Paul
someone on the right, I make note of the LLB's tag number, call *HP (or
whatever the # in that state is) on the cell phone, and report them as
obstructing traffic?
Get back under your bridge, troll! Your hypocracy is noted.
--
Paul
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America, 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
References: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
<3D9B2964...@worldnet.att.net>
<3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
<3D9BB36B...@space.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.248.83.73
<aunt MORON> wrote in message
news:mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com...
Cory Dunkle
Daniel Davis
"Cory Dunkle" <cad...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PbidnU2g7pJ...@comcast.com...
> Why do you morons respond to this troll?
I can't speak for the others but I find her amusing..
Daniel
Ricardo
<cad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Why do you morons respond to this troll?
Three reasons:
1. "She's" entertaining, at least up to a point.
2. Other readers of this forum, e.g. raw newbies, may not realize
"she's" a troll and take "her" seriously.
3. I'm a cheapskate running Free Agent on a cruddy P75 (new computer
eventually :), which has no kill file feature.
aunt_millie
<plan...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
><aunt millie> wrote in message
>news:mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com...
>> Send a message to those murderous speeders on our highways. Take it
>> up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
>> day. It's a great way to tell the speeders "stop breaking the law
>> and endangering my family."
>
>You do realize that this won't change anyone's driving habits and might just
>infuriate them causing road rage incidents? Eventually one of them will
>snap and happen to be armed. Situations like that are already dangerously
>common in Florida.
>
WTF???? Do you also think we should let rapists do whatever they
want because if we try to stop them they'll get mad and do something
even worse???
aunt_millie
wrote:
>This is illegal in some states... I wonder why ?
>
>Maby because it is DANGEROUS ??
>
It's only illegal if you're doing less than the speed limit. That's a
fact.
aunt_millie
wrote:
>aunt millie wrote in message news:<mufeevsafrgeduopu...@4ax.com>...
>> Send a message to those murderous speeders on our highways. Take it
>> up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
>> day. It's a great way to tell the speeders "stop breaking the law
>> and endangering my family."
>
>
>You are a joke.
>
>I race cars and motorcycles on a racetrack regularly. I guarantee you
>that I am more in control of my vehicle at 120mph than your unskilled
>ass at 40mph. It is possible to do 100+ on a freeway given good
>conditions especially in today's cars. So learn how to drive before
>posting your ludicrous psycho babble.
>
What's to stop everybody from saying that?? Everybody can say the
laws don't apply to me cause i'm an expert driver. You have the
criminal mentality.
Sam Adams
American drivers are renowned for neither understanding nor appreciating the
importance of lane courtesy, i.e., slower traffic keep right and faster
traffic pass on the left. If you're in the left lane and slower vehicles are
in your way, give the other drivers a chance to find an opening in the right
lane. Don't climb onto their trunk; signal your intentions with 4 or 5
blinks of your left directional. A brief flash of the headlights may be
necessary to clarify your intentions. (See it!) If they refuse to move,
don't lose your temper. Write the lane blockers off as ignorant, incompetent
or inconsiderate and work your way around them as best you can. If traffic
is heavy, revert to the prior recommendation on speed.
Remember, just as current day speed limits have very little to do with
safety, lane courtesy has nothing to do with speed limits. If you're in the
left lane and someone wants to pass, move over and let them by. Leave
traffic law enforcement to the authorities.
Sam Adams
You may use the left lane (when there is more than one lane in your
direction) to pass. You may or may not be able to use the left lane when not
passing. A few states permit use of the left lane only for passing or
turning left. These have "yes" in the "keep right" column. Six states
require drivers to move right if they are blocking traffic in the left lane.
Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep
right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless
of the speed limit; see below). A few states either do not require vehicles
to keep right ("no"), or permit vehicles moving at the speed limit to drive
in the left lane regardless of traffic conditions ("<SL").
State "Keep Right" Laws State Keep Right? Law Comments
Alabama slower 32-5A-80(b)
Alaska <SL 13 AAC 002.50(b) Keep right if below speed limit.
Arizona slower 28-721(B)
Arkansas obstructing 27-51-301(b) Law prohibits obstructing traffic by
driving continuously in the left lane.
California slower VC 21654(a) "Notwithstanding the prima facie speed
limits"
Colorado slower 42-4-1001(2), 42-4-1103(3) Law also prohibits obstructing
the "reasonable" movement of traffic.
Connecticut slower 14-230(b) Passing on right on Interstate prohibited when
only two lanes, 14-233(4)
Delaware slower 21-4114(b)
Florida slower 316.081(2)
Georgia slower 40-6-40(b), 40-6-184(a)(2) If below speed limit in left
lane and blocking overtaking traffic, must move right.
Hawaii slower 291C-41(b)
Idaho slower 49-630(2)
Illinois slower 625 ILCS 5/11-701(b) HB 1574, not yet signed by the
Governor, says keep right except to pass.
Indiana slower 9-21-8-2(b)
Iowa slower 321.297(2)
Kansas slower 8-1514(b)
Kentucky yes 189.340(7) Only where the speed limit is 65
Louisiana slower R.S. 32:71 Must move right if blocking overtaking traffic.
Maine yes 29A-2052(6) Only where the speed limit is 65
Maryland <SL 21-301 If driving 10 MPH under speed limit, or slower than
speed of traffic if conditions require speed below limit.
Massachusetts yes 89-4B
Michigan weird 257.634 Except in heavy traffic or on freeways with three or
more lanes.
Minnesota slower 169.18(10)
Mississippi slower 63-3-603(d)
Missouri slower 304.015(3) 304.151 prohibits "obstruct[ing] the regular
flow of traffic on...any state highway"
Montana slower 61-8-321(2)
Nebraska slower 60-6,131(2)
Nevada slow 484.373 Move right if "imped[ing] ... movement of traffic"
New Hampshire slower 265:16
New Jersey yes 39:4-88
New Mexico slower 66-7-308(B)
New York slower V&TL 1120
North Carolina <SL 20-146(b),(e) Keep right if below speed limit.
North Dakota slower
Ohio slower 4511.25
Oklahoma slower 47-11-301
Oregon slower 811.315
Pennsylvania usually 75-3313(d), 75-3301(b) May also use left lane to
allow traffic to merge or "when traveling at a speed greater than the
traffic flow".
Rhode Island slower 31-15-2
South Carolina slower 56-5-1810(b)
South Dakota no 32-26-1 "Slow moving vehicles" keep right
Tennessee slower 55-8-115(b)
Texas slower 545.051(b) DOT may post "left lane for passing only", 544.011
Utah slower 41-6-53(2), 41-6-55(2) Must move right to let faster traffic
pass.
Vermont slower 23-1031(b)
Virginia slower 46.2-804(1) 46.2-842.1 requires vehicles in the left lane
to yield to faster traffic
Washington usually 46.61.100(2) May also use left lane to allow traffic to
merge or "when traveling at a speed greater than the traffic flow".
West Virginia slower 17C-7-1(b)
Wisconsin slower 346.05(3)
Wyoming slower 31-5-201(b) Law excepts "one-way streets".
The Uniform Vehicle Code states:
Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of
traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall
be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...
Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal"
speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is
going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50,
allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and
Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and
reasonable" movement of traffic.
Ricardo
>It's only illegal if you're doing less than the speed limit. That's a
>fact.
Tell that to the judge.
As a side note, too many judges will interpret the law that way so
as DELIBERATELY not to set a legal precedent that someone doing the
speed limit must yield to a speeder - even if the law is fairly
clear that that is in fact the case. Aren't judges supposed to be
impartial adjudicators?
Garth Almgren
It's also an incorrect fact. The practice is both illegal and dangerous.
The speed limit has _nothing_ to do with it. Again, from your own state law:
I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
Do you see anything in there about a speed limit? Anything at all? No?
How odd...
Ricardo
wrote:
>State "keep right" laws
[SNIIIIIIIIP]
>http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html
We know. You coulda just posted the url. :)
Thomas Schäfer
> WTF???? Do you also think we should let rapists do whatever they
> want because if we try to stop them they'll get mad and do something
> even worse???
Your comparison is unsuitable.
_You_ would do something even worse.
To drive faster than indicated is an offense.
To intentionally block someone is a _crime_.
To rape is a severe crime.
To intentionally shoot (& kill) a rapist is a _very_severe_ crime.
(All for Germany)
Allthough your intentions may be good,
you should really think about your measures.
Thomas
John David Galt
>> Why do you morons respond to this troll?
Daniel Davis wrote:
> I can't speak for the others but I find her amusing..
I'm with Cory. "aunt/Pride/Judy" stopped being funny after about two posts.
And most of the regulars here would never see his/her/its posts if people we
haven't killfiled wouldn't make them visible by replying.
Paul
<aunt MORON> wrote in message
> WTF???? Do you also think we should let rapists do whatever they
> want because if we try to stop them they'll get mad and do something
> even worse???
You're sick.
<<<***P L O N K***>>>
Paul
"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3EE83107...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
> I'm with Cory. "aunt/Pride/Judy" stopped being funny after about two
posts.
> And most of the regulars here would never see his/her/its posts if people
we
> haven't killfiled wouldn't make them visible by replying.
I'm afraid I have to now agree. Her equating speeders to rapists was just
going too far.
Off to the killfile, aunt MORON. Untill you re-incarnate again.....
--
Paul
Nate Nagel
> <aunt millie> wrote
>
> > Send a message to those murderous speeders on our highways. Take it
> > up to exactly the spped limit and just sit their in the left lane all
> > day. It's a great way to tell the speeders "stop breaking the law
> > and endangering my family."
>
> occasions your license would be cut. Or even immediately, if you
> tell the cops that you intended to play Judge Dredd.
> Some cops are especially looking for those wanna-be-teachers.
>
> You know, it's a common prejudice here that US-people take the
> law into their own hands. Not only in US, but all over the world.
> Maybe, it's more than a simple prejudice...?
>
> Thomas
I think it's a little more complicated than that. Basically what it
boils down to is people are often completely ignorant of the law, and
make up their own "rules" as they go along. And then they get pissed
off when everyone else doesn't play by their rules... hey, sounds
like US foreign policy. Hmm...
nate
(just a little cynical today)
aunt_millie
sovietja...@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca (Ricardo) wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:00:57 -0600, aunt millie wrote:
>
>>It's only illegal if you're doing less than the speed limit. That's a
>>fact.
>
>Tell that to the judge.
>
>As a side note, too many judges will interpret the law that way so
>as DELIBERATELY not to set a legal precedent that someone doing the
>speed limit must yield to a speeder - even if the law is fairly
>clear that that is in fact the case. Aren't judges supposed to be
>impartial adjudicators?
Judges understand that the law in this case is crazy. There is no
legitimate reason for anyone to pass an LLB doing the speed limit.
Judges see the deadly consequences of speeding every day and they say
" damned if i'm gonna convict an LLB who's simply making the highways
safer for everyone."
aunt_millie
wrote:
>
>Remember, just as current day speed limits have very little to do with
>safety, lane courtesy has nothing to do with speed limits. If you're in the
>left lane and someone wants to pass, move over and let them by. Leave
>traffic law enforcement to the authorities.
>
HAHAHA. Speed limits (if they're enforced) have everything to do
with safety. And lane courtesy has everything to do with speed
limits. As long as i'm going exactly the speed limit i'll sit in the
left lane all day. Case closed.
Ricardo
>Judges understand that the law in this case is crazy. There is no
>legitimate reason for anyone to pass an LLB doing the speed limit.
>Judges see the deadly consequences of speeding every day and they say
>" damned if i'm gonna convict an LLB who's simply making the highways
>safer for everyone."
Or is it 'cos they just wanna play Judge Judy? Hmmm...
Garth Almgren
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:11:57 -0700, "Sam Adams" <fcla...@yahoo.con>
> wrote:
>
>>Remember, just as current day speed limits have very little to do with
>>safety, lane courtesy has nothing to do with speed limits. If you're in the
>>left lane and someone wants to pass, move over and let them by. Leave
>>traffic law enforcement to the authorities.
>>
Well said, Sam.
>
> HAHAHA. Speed limits (if they're enforced) have everything to do
> with safety.
Wrong. IF the limits are set properly, they do. As it stands today, they
have very little to do with safety.
> And lane courtesy has everything to do with speed
> limits.
Incorrect. Lane courtesy should exist regardless of speed limits.
> As long as i'm going exactly the speed limit i'll sit in the
> left lane all day.
Wrong yet again. Not only would you be showing no courtesy and making
the roads more dangerous for everyone, you'd be breaking *two* of
Colorado's laws:
I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
--
robert Jones
> On 11 Jun 2003 09:59:13 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
> [snip tragedy again]
>
> Oh yeah, and one other thing that I forgot to mention before re
> stuff like this, other than "it's also dangerous to pass on the
> right":
Yes it is very dangerous to pass on the right and it's led to more
than one accident I had to clean up. As you say it takes only one. I
did I think forget to mention the person passing who clipped the
Blazer was actually charged with unsafe lane change.
>
> It takes ONE, and only ONE LLB to cause these kinds of problems and
> totally screw up the flow. Fact is, it's just not in the Canajun
> psyche to obstruct and provoke others in a willful manner, but that
> is completely and utterly beside the point. While only the tiniest
> minority sees fit to behave like Judy, that's all it takes - ONE
> asshole - to cause serious problems.
I guess maybe in BC it's differnt but here in Ontario there are a
minority who try to take it upon themselves to enforce speed limits.
All it does is cause gridlock and traffic jams. However the last time
some dolt tried what aunt moron suggested they were prompty ticketed.
Ontario has also recently passed a law to ticket people "impeding the
flow of traffic" in the left lane.
aunt millie
> Around 6/12/2003 9:40 AM, Aunt millie spake thusly:
>
>
> > As long as i'm going exactly the speed limit i'll sit in the
> > left lane all day.
>
> Wrong yet again. Not only would you be showing no courtesy and making
> the roads more dangerous for everyone, you'd be breaking *two* of
> Colorado's laws:
>
> I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
> to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
> traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
> II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
> drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
> practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
And what the F does "normal and reasonalbe" mean? Surely it doesn't
mean above the legal limit, you ignoramus.
Ricardo
wrote:
>Yes it is very dangerous to pass on the right and it's led to more
>than one accident I had to clean up. As you say it takes only one. I
>did I think forget to mention the person passing who clipped the
>Blazer was actually charged with unsafe lane change.
Well that's something at least, although "criminal negligence" might
be a little closer to the mark. Not just for the guy who passed on
the right, but especially for the LLB.
>I guess maybe in BC it's differnt
Doubtful. Lane courtesy is a real luck o' the draw thing here. If
you ride the Vancouver SkyTrain and watch Highway 1 as the track
passes over it, you'll usually see heavy traffic (in the daytime),
but with an immediately recognizable Bernoulli flow (slowest cars on
right). By Murphy's Law, this smooth flow only seems to occur when
I'm not on the highway... well, actually, that's not true, but
sometimes it seems that way. To a degree, the problem of
discourteous drivers is alleviated by this region's sheer lack of
roads relative to the overall volume of traffic. So if more than the
tiniest minority saw fit to drive discourteously, the whole Fraser
Valley would quickly come to a standstill. Things are bad enough as
it is, but with the roads so close to saturation point, people are
just forced to learn to drive better. I'm sure that if we had more
roads, even sloppier driving habits would prevail than we already
have to endure.
Often it's possible to drive 50, 100km or even more and never see a
true LLB if traffic is light. But like I said, it only takes one,
and the whole flow gets bogged down.
To be objective, though, BC does have its fair share of lousy
drivers; however, Darwin is pretty good at dealing with them.
>but here in Ontario there are a minority who try to take it upon
>themselves to enforce speed limits.
That minority is everywhere. But they are precisely that: a tiny
minority. Since it only takes one asshole though, that minority is
immediately noticeable.
Besides, it would be suicidal to try that stunt on the 401 during
free flow, so things can't be that bad over there. The only time
I've been on that highway is on a bus, but even so, traffic seems to
flow very smoothly at usually ca. 120-140km/h when conditions
permit. Some people go a bit quicker. Sitting at the speed limit or
speed limit plus a few klix on the left lane would be suicide (not
to mention homicide).
>All it does is cause gridlock and traffic jams. However the last time
>some dolt tried what aunt moron suggested they were prompty ticketed.
>Ontario has also recently passed a law to ticket people "impeding the
>flow of traffic" in the left lane.
I think that law was already in place, but like Michigan, had an
exemption for 6+ lane roadways? Anyway, BC also demands that "slower
than normal" traffic defer to the right (MVA §150(2)), but I don't
think this is regularly enforced. A lot of the time, it's self
enforcing, since with no lane courtesy, no one would be going
*anywhere at all*.
Ricardo
wrote:
>And what the F does "normal and reasonalbe" mean? Surely it doesn't
>mean above the legal limit, you ignoramus.
If most people are over the limit, it's "normal". If there isn't an
(unusual) occurrence of accidents, it's "reasonalbe" (sic).
I think most judges would be happy to interpret the law that way, in
the true spirit of its original intentions, except that few have the
cojones to be "The One"(tm) to set the legal precedent that someone
driving at the stupidly low revenue limit must yield to a "speeder".
It's (almost) as simple as that. You have no rebuttal. Case closed.
Garth Almgren
> Garth Almgren <v6s...@v6stang.com> wrote in message news:<onidndPcnve...@kallback.com>...
>
>>Around 6/12/2003 9:40 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea) spake thusly:
>>
>>>As long as i'm going exactly the speed limit i'll sit in the
>>>left lane all day.
>>
>>Wrong yet again. Not only would you be showing no courtesy and making
>>the roads more dangerous for everyone, you'd be breaking *two* of
>>Colorado's laws:
>>
>>I. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed so as
>>to impede or block the normal and reasonable forward movement of
>>traffic. §42-4-1103(1)
>>II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall
>>drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
>>practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. §42-4-1001(2)
>
>
> And what the F does "normal and reasonalbe" mean?
Well, since you're insane you probably won't be able to understand it,
but it usually means the normal speed of traffic, as chosen by the vast
majority of people that are actually driving on that road. You know, the
speed where you're LEAST likely to be involved in a collision.
> Surely it doesn't
> mean above the legal limit.
Wrong again. Do you see *ANY* mention of a speed limit in the law I
quoted? On the contrary, it means at *ANY* speed, limit or no; Above,
below, or spot on, it doesn't matter. You are breaking two laws by
LLB'ing in Colorado. You could be doing 90 MPH, but if someone wants to
go 120, you legally _have_ to let them by. Keep right except to pass -
It's the law, so do the RIGHT thing.
--
~/Garth
Garth Almgren
> It's (almost) as simple as that. You have no rebuttal. Case closed.
>
Don't even go there... :)
--
~/Garth
robert Jones
> On 12 Jun 2003 12:53:25 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
> >Yes it is very dangerous to pass on the right and it's led to more
> >than one accident I had to clean up. As you say it takes only one. I
> >did I think forget to mention the person passing who clipped the
> >Blazer was actually charged with unsafe lane change.
>
> Well that's something at least, although "criminal negligence" might
> be a little closer to the mark. Not just for the guy who passed on
> the right, but especially for the LLB.
I guess the cop took his side I don't know. I also don't know if the
LLB was ever brought to justice. He wasn't there when I got there with
the flatbed.
>
> >I guess maybe in BC it's differnt
>
> Doubtful. Lane courtesy is a real luck o' the draw thing here. If
> you ride the Vancouver SkyTrain and watch Highway 1 as the track
> passes over it, you'll usually see heavy traffic (in the daytime),
> but with an immediately recognizable Bernoulli flow (slowest cars on
> right). By Murphy's Law, this smooth flow only seems to occur when
> I'm not on the highway... well, actually, that's not true, but
> sometimes it seems that way. To a degree, the problem of
> discourteous drivers is alleviated by this region's sheer lack of
> roads relative to the overall volume of traffic. So if more than the
> tiniest minority saw fit to drive discourteously, the whole Fraser
> Valley would quickly come to a standstill. Things are bad enough as
> it is, but with the roads so close to saturation point, people are
> just forced to learn to drive better. I'm sure that if we had more
> roads, even sloppier driving habits would prevail than we already
> have to endure.
I can't see BC drivers being all that sloppy though? You would think
the lack of roads combined with mountain passes and snow would have
taught people to drive better.
>
> Often it's possible to drive 50, 100km or even more and never see a
> true LLB if traffic is light. But like I said, it only takes one,
> and the whole flow gets bogged down.
Depends on the road here. Roads to cottage country seem to be where
you find both the agressive LLB and the hell bent wreckless. A bad
combination in my book and a sure fire combination for tradgedy.
>
> To be objective, though, BC does have its fair share of lousy
> drivers; however, Darwin is pretty good at dealing with them.
I figure mountain roads proably make a quick work of the lousy
drivers.
>
> >but here in Ontario there are a minority who try to take it upon
> >themselves to enforce speed limits.
>
> That minority is everywhere. But they are precisely that: a tiny
> minority. Since it only takes one asshole though, that minority is
> immediately noticeable.
>
> Besides, it would be suicidal to try that stunt on the 401 during
> free flow, so things can't be that bad over there.
Ever try Missisauga to Oshawa on a friday night during snow? I used to
drive that route every Friday when I worked as a delivery driver. What
a nightmare. We had a couple of people (teachers I belive) who decided
to protest Ontario's low speed limits by running side by side at
100km/h from I belive it was Trenton to Toronto. It wasn't long before
they were pulled over and charged with obstructing traffic. Your right
though once out in the open on the 401 anything under 120 is suicide.
Even the rigs run 120 -130km/h
>
> >All it does is cause gridlock and traffic jams. However the last time
> >some dolt tried what aunt moron suggested they were prompty ticketed.
> >Ontario has also recently passed a law to ticket people "impeding the
> >flow of traffic" in the left lane.
>
> I think that law was already in place, but like Michigan, had an
> exemption for 6+ lane roadways? Anyway, BC also demands that "slower
> than normal" traffic defer to the right (MVA §150(2)), but I don't
> think this is regularly enforced. A lot of the time, it's self
> enforcing, since with no lane courtesy, no one would be going
> *anywhere at all*.
I haven't seen it enforced here yet either but then I think it's a
step in the right direction. Just needs ruthless enforcemnt for a
couple of months.
Ricardo
wrote:
>I guess the cop took his side I don't know. I also don't know if the
>LLB was ever brought to justice. He wasn't there when I got there with
>the flatbed.
That's always the problem with LLBs: they're less likely to be
caught up in all the mayhem they're capable of causing.
>I can't see BC drivers being all that sloppy though? You would think
>the lack of roads combined with mountain passes and snow would have
>taught people to drive better.
>[...]
>I figure mountain roads proably make a quick work of the lousy
>drivers.
Yep, we have our fair share of bad drivers but Darwin's good at
looking after them. :}
>Ever try Missisauga to Oshawa on a friday night during snow?
Not sure I'd want to either. Btw, what's snow? ;)
>I used to drive that route every Friday when I worked as a delivery
>driver. What a nightmare. We had a couple of people (teachers I belive)
>who decided to protest Ontario's low speed limits by running side by
>side at 100km/h from I belive it was Trenton to Toronto. It wasn't long
>before they were pulled over and charged with obstructing traffic.
Those clowns are notorious because I hear that particular story all
the time.
>Your right though once out in the open on the 401 anything under 120 is
>suicide.
I can't remember whether it's mostly two or three lanes each way,
but I can't see any problem with driving slowly *in the proper
lane*. A Citroën 2CV is barely capable of 100 tops, and that's with
the largest available engine displacement.
>Even the rigs run 120 -130km/h
Just wait until Canada adopts the European speed limiters (90km/h
for large trucks) and tachographs...
>I haven't seen it enforced here yet either but then I think it's a
>step in the right direction. Just needs ruthless enforcemnt for a
>couple of months.
Ruthless enforcement, period.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
You can 'sit' in which ever lane you want. There are already so many
drunks
driving too slowly in the left lane with no clue as to what they are
doing
that we'll never notice you.
However if you 'block' traffic, that's a charge of aggressive driving
and
will cost you far more than the 10 over ticket that a 'speeder' might
get.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
send spam to: mailto:postm...@mouse-potato.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
robert Jones
> On 13 Jun 2003 13:06:44 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
> >I guess the cop took his side I don't know. I also don't know if the
> >LLB was ever brought to justice. He wasn't there when I got there with
> >the flatbed.
>
> That's always the problem with LLBs: they're less likely to be
> caught up in all the mayhem they're capable of causing.
I also find that the majority of LLB's just don't seem to understand
what they are doing. There is a small percentage however that seem to
take great pride in being stuck in the wrong lane and causing chaos.
it's less than .5 percent but they are there for whatever reason.
>
> >I can't see BC drivers being all that sloppy though? You would think
> >the lack of roads combined with mountain passes and snow would have
> >taught people to drive better.
> >[...]
> >I figure mountain roads proably make a quick work of the lousy
> >drivers.
>
> Yep, we have our fair share of bad drivers but Darwin's good at
> looking after them. :}
I figured that. I was out there in the late 70's and some of those
mountain roads were spectacular but there was no room for mistakes.
>
> >Ever try Missisauga to Oshawa on a friday night during snow?
>
> Not sure I'd want to either. Btw, what's snow? ;)
I forgot you guys don't get much snow out there :) Here in teh nothern
parts of Ontario we get 10 months of winter and 4 months of crappy dog
sledding :)
>
> >I used to drive that route every Friday when I worked as a delivery
> >driver. What a nightmare. We had a couple of people (teachers I belive)
> >who decided to protest Ontario's low speed limits by running side by
> >side at 100km/h from I belive it was Trenton to Toronto. It wasn't long
> >before they were pulled over and charged with obstructing traffic.
>
> Those clowns are notorious because I hear that particular story all
> the time.
It was the one and only time somebody was ticketed for going to0 slow
on the 401. The traffic snarl behind these two mental midgets was 7
miles long after 20 min.
> >Your right though once out in the open on the 401 anything under 120 is
> >suicide.
>
> I can't remember whether it's mostly two or three lanes each way,
After Oshawa it's 2 lanes each way excpet for a small section through
Kingston.
> but I can't see any problem with driving slowly *in the proper
> lane*. A Citroën 2CV is barely capable of 100 tops, and that's with
> the largest available engine displacement.
I don't think there are too many 2CV's here but if you were goign to
drive one of them on the 401 I'd hope the driver had life insurance
and his will was written 120 in the right lane is the norm with
traffic in the left routinely runnig faster. Even the cops that sit in
Prescott don't haul you over for 120k usually it's 130 or brtter that
gets you stopped. Or if your being a traffic twerp.
>
> >Even the rigs run 120 -130km/h
>
> Just wait until Canada adopts the European speed limiters (90km/h
> for large trucks) and tachographs...
We had limiters in the delivery trucks but they were set for 120Km.
There was this annoying buzzer that would sound if you tried to beat
120. Tattle box used to record everything too. From how fast you were
going to how many times you stopped or shut off the engine. I hear the
new ones can even tell you how much brake pressure is being used and
how fast you take corners. Ultimately it'll be the insurance
comapanies that force the Euro spec limiters. I thik it may aready be
on some DalmerBenz/Chryco built trucks.
Besides I think it can be dangerous for other road users if big rigs
and large trucks are running too fast. A lot of drivers professionals
included just don't understand the physics of stopping say a double
loaded logging truck. Just yesterday I had to pick up a Honda accord
that got hit by a truck load of steel cable. The car driver merged
onto the highway at approx 60km/h and pulled out infront of a rig
running 90-100kmph (posted limit on that section)he never checked his
blind spot. There was about 45 feet of black marks from the rig and
alot of plastic parts from at the impact zone. At least the guy in the
Accord wasn't too badly injured just shaken up but had it not been
rush hour and traffic heavy it could have been a lot worse.
>
> >I haven't seen it enforced here yet either but then I think it's a
> >step in the right direction. Just needs ruthless enforcemnt for a
> >couple of months.
>
> Ruthless enforcement, period.
True along with most of the other regulations like using signals,
proper merging procedures, vehicle safety standards ect ect. Our
regulations in Ontario are for the most part pretty good. They are
tightening up on the commercial carriers getting the junk off the road
ect ect but their idea of enforcement still seems to be one guy in a
Crown Vic with a radar gun.
Ricardo
wrote:
>I also find that the majority of LLB's just don't seem to understand
>what they are doing. There is a small percentage however that seem to
>take great pride in being stuck in the wrong lane and causing chaos.
>it's less than .5 percent but they are there for whatever reason.
The situation is worsened if people just try to pass on the right,
rather than dislodge the logjam with their high beams.
>> Yep, we have our fair share of bad drivers but Darwin's good at
>> looking after them. :}
>
>I figured that. I was out there in the late 70's and some of those
>mountain roads were spectacular but there was no room for mistakes.
The Sea-2-Sky continues to claim dozens of victims.
>> >Ever try Missisauga to Oshawa on a friday night during snow?
>>
>> Not sure I'd want to either. Btw, what's snow? ;)
>
>I forgot you guys don't get much snow out there :)
In a normal year, Vancouver typically manages somewhere around 0mm,
maybe a little more every once in a while. :)
>Here in teh nothern parts of Ontario we get 10 months of winter and
>4 months of crappy dog sledding :)
To quote a friend of mine: "oooh, brrrr, I know North Bay winters".
>It was the one and only time somebody was ticketed for going to0 slow
>on the 401.
Of course there are two separate laws: one for driving too slow
(you'd hafta be crawling to be booked for that) and one that covers
failing to stay right/obstructing traffic (MVA §150(2)).
>I don't think there are too many 2CV's here but if you were goign to
>drive one of them on the 401 I'd hope the driver had life insurance
>and his will was written 120 in the right lane is the norm with
>traffic in the left routinely runnig faster.
In the right lane, though, the slowpoke has the right of way. That's
the way it has to be. I suspect Ontario has the same laws as here
with regards to traffic incapable of 60km/h being barred from the
freeway. This sets a de facto minimum speed of 60km/h. The German
Autobahn only bars vehicles incapable of 40km/h. Expecting hazmat
trucks, loggers, hay carts, what have you, etc. etc. yada yada yada
to be running below 100km/h on the right is only normal. Faster
drivers have to be on the lookout for:
(a) such slowpokes on the right;
(b) faster traffic approaching from behind on the left if they
intend to pull out to overtake.
Anyone who cannot handle these basic principles and understand
fundamental mirror discipline does not belong on the highways,
period. Most Provinces' new driver training schemes are approaching
Euro standards, which is a good thing, although sadly they have also
imported some of the futile no-good-for-safety feel-good
bureaucratic meddling that comes with a lot of things European.
>Even the cops that sit in Prescott don't haul you over for 120k
There's no need, when the 85th percentile is 125+! :{
>usually it's 130 or brtter that gets you stopped.
Getting a ticket for 130 on the 401 is pure and simple wallet rape,
period, and the Opp knows it (but I guess they have quotas too).
Even some of the hotdoggers running 150+ know what they're doing,
and those roads are designed for it, and any tickets they get should
really be prima facie, but that concept is alien to revenue starved
Canajun legislatures. Even in the U.S. it isn't really implemented
in its true spirit, 'cos that'd be too unprofitable.
In extremis, I think it could be a safety feature to remove all
speed limits for non-commercial light vehicles on most of the 400
series highways, not to mention parts of Hwys 1, 5 and 99 here in
BC, but for political reasons, the probability of that occurring is
just about 0.00.
>We had limiters in the delivery trucks but they were set for 120Km.
>There was this annoying buzzer that would sound if you tried to beat
>120.
Yeah, that's not a "limiter" as such but the concept is similar. I
doubt the buzzers actually prevent you from exceeding the preset
speed; they just annoy the hell outta you. :}
>Tattle box used to record everything too. From how fast you were
>going to how many times you stopped or shut off the engine. I hear the
>new ones can even tell you how much brake pressure is being used and
>how fast you take corners. Ultimately it'll be the insurance
>comapanies that force the Euro spec limiters. I thik it may aready be
>on some DalmerBenz/Chryco built trucks.
>
>Besides I think it can be dangerous for other road users if big rigs
>and large trucks are running too fast. A lot of drivers professionals
>included just don't understand the physics of stopping say a double
>loaded logging truck.
That is probably true although I think a skilled driver with proper
training - and that encompasses just about all commercial licence
holders - can probably handle a rig at 120-130 and is aware of the
inherent handling hazards involved with such a vehicle. Mandatory
absolute speed governors are not a safety feature and have actually
caused an increase in trucker fatalities in most countries where
they have been implemented. Tell the families of these victims (e.g.
those who fell asleep at the wheel 'cos cruising at 85-90kph on a
rural freeway is somnolently boring) what a wonderful "safety"
feature those governors are.
>Just yesterday I had to pick up a Honda accord
>that got hit by a truck load of steel cable. The car driver merged
>onto the highway at approx 60km/h and pulled out infront of a rig
>running 90-100kmph (posted limit on that section)he never checked his
>blind spot.
Ahh, so not really a "speed related accident" then. Speed was not
really the issue, rather driver error was.
>> >I haven't seen it enforced here yet either but then I think it's a
>> >step in the right direction. Just needs ruthless enforcemnt for a
>> >couple of months.
>>
>> Ruthless enforcement, period.
>
>True along with most of the other regulations like using signals,
Most people do that, even if a bit late sometimes (grrrr).
>proper merging procedures,
The majority can manage this ok too, 'cos their lives depend on it.
:} It doesn't take Einsteinian ingenuity to merge into 45-50mph
freeway traffic anyway, which is usually what one can manage here
during the day on much of Highway #1 close to the inner city core.
>vehicle safety standards ect ect.
Stop the ricers annoying people with their "toy foggy lites"!
Actually, Suv drivers seem to be every bit as bad in this regard, to
say the least.
>Our regulations in Ontario are for the most part pretty good. They are
>tightening up on the commercial carriers getting the junk off the road
>ect ect but their idea of enforcement still seems to be one guy in a
>Crown Vic with a radar gun.
Well it is amazing how the oh so severely cash and resource strapped
Opp can afford LiDAR guns. Did a well known in$urer "donate" them?
robert Jones
> On 17 Jun 2003 09:42:23 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
> >I also find that the majority of LLB's just don't seem to understand
> >what they are doing. There is a small percentage however that seem to
> >take great pride in being stuck in the wrong lane and causing chaos.
> >it's less than .5 percent but they are there for whatever reason.
>
> The situation is worsened if people just try to pass on the right,
> rather than dislodge the logjam with their high beams.
>
I have seen in some cases the LLB get all bent out of shape when
someone does that. I don't know why people just can't figure it out.
Keep right except to pass. It seems so simple.
>
> The Sea-2-Sky continues to claim dozens of victims.
I figured as much.
>
> In a normal year, Vancouver typically manages somewhere around 0mm,
> maybe a little more every once in a while. :)
We just got buried this year. Lake effect was brutal.
>
> >Here in teh nothern parts of Ontario we get 10 months of winter and
> >4 months of crappy dog sledding :)
>
> To quote a friend of mine: "oooh, brrrr, I know North Bay winters".
We came through one of the coldest on record this past winter.
Temperatures didn't peak above -30 for a couple of weeks.
> >I don't think there are too many 2CV's here but if you were goign to
> >drive one of them on the 401 I'd hope the driver had life insurance
> >and his will was written 120 in the right lane is the norm with
> >traffic in the left routinely runnig faster.
>
> In the right lane, though, the slowpoke has the right of way. That's
> the way it has to be. I suspect Ontario has the same laws as here
> with regards to traffic incapable of 60km/h being barred from the
> freeway. This sets a de facto minimum speed of 60km/h. The German
> Autobahn only bars vehicles incapable of 40km/h. Expecting hazmat
> trucks, loggers, hay carts, what have you, etc. etc. yada yada yada
> to be running below 100km/h on the right is only normal. Faster
> drivers have to be on the lookout for:
>
> (a) such slowpokes on the right;
> (b) faster traffic approaching from behind on the left if they
> intend to pull out to overtake.
>
> Anyone who cannot handle these basic principles and understand
> fundamental mirror discipline does not belong on the highways,
> period. Most Provinces' new driver training schemes are approaching
> Euro standards, which is a good thing, although sadly they have also
> imported some of the futile no-good-for-safety feel-good
> bureaucratic meddling that comes with a lot of things European.
Totally agree however traffic is generally moving at 120 in the right
lanes for alot of the 401. Other 400 series highways are as you say
slower traffic on the right.
>
> >Even the cops that sit in Prescott don't haul you over for 120k
>
> There's no need, when the 85th percentile is 125+! :{
If they did ticket for 120 they would have lines back to Cornwall. :)
>
> >usually it's 130 or brtter that gets you stopped.
>
> Getting a ticket for 130 on the 401 is pure and simple wallet rape,
> period, and the Opp knows it (but I guess they have quotas too).
Couple that to a radar detector ban and you know plain and simple it's
not about road safety.
> Even some of the hotdoggers running 150+ know what they're doing,
> and those roads are designed for it, and any tickets they get should
> really be prima facie, but that concept is alien to revenue starved
> Canajun legislatures. Even in the U.S. it isn't really implemented
> in its true spirit, 'cos that'd be too unprofitable.
I think some of it has to be attributed to the slower is better
mentality as well. For years people have been brainwashed that the
speed limit is safe and exceeding it deadly. It's this brainwashing
that prevents people from accepting the 85 precentile rule. Couple
that to cash strapped governments and you get options like photo radar
and Lidar with radar detector bans.
What really seals the deal though is wathcing the OPP stake out a
particular interchange on the 417 for about 6 weeks they on and off
again posted an officer there with a cruiser and radar gun. Speeds up
to 120km/h were ignored while those exceeding were whacked. Then comes
the "zero tolerance" enforcement blitz on the seventh week and bam
anything over 105 was ticket. It's that kind of blantent revenue
generation that just boils me.
>
> In extremis, I think it could be a safety feature to remove all
> speed limits for non-commercial light vehicles on most of the 400
> series highways, not to mention parts of Hwys 1, 5 and 99 here in
> BC, but for political reasons, the probability of that occurring is
> just about 0.00.
It's less than zero here. All it would take would be one ungoverned
truck on say the 7 to wipe out a family or something and the screaming
from the "safety industry" would be deafening.
>
> >We had limiters in the delivery trucks but they were set for 120Km.
> >There was this annoying buzzer that would sound if you tried to beat
> >120.
>
> Yeah, that's not a "limiter" as such but the concept is similar. I
> doubt the buzzers actually prevent you from exceeding the preset
> speed; they just annoy the hell outta you. :}
Nope light would come on buzzer would sound and you could put your
right foot through the firewall but it wouldn't go any faster. Those
were the old days though. The new ones are all computers. The flat
deck I drive now has neither unless you count the engine controls for
the engine.
>
> >Tattle box used to record everything too. From how fast you were
> >going to how many times you stopped or shut off the engine. I hear the
> >new ones can even tell you how much brake pressure is being used and
> >how fast you take corners. Ultimately it'll be the insurance
> >comapanies that force the Euro spec limiters. I thik it may aready be
> >on some DalmerBenz/Chryco built trucks.
> >
> >Besides I think it can be dangerous for other road users if big rigs
> >and large trucks are running too fast. A lot of drivers professionals
> >included just don't understand the physics of stopping say a double
> >loaded logging truck.
>
> That is probably true although I think a skilled driver with proper
> training - and that encompasses just about all commercial licence
> holders - can probably handle a rig at 120-130 and is aware of the
> inherent handling hazards involved with such a vehicle.
No doubt in my mind. Most pros have alot to loose if they have even a
small mishap. I have been told by some of the guys at the local truck
stop that you can pretty much kiss you job goodby if you get into any
kind of accident. Same as me if I racked up a bunch of tickets or had
a whack of accidents with the the company truck I'd expect to get
canned.
> >Just yesterday I had to pick up a Honda accord
> >that got hit by a truck load of steel cable. The car driver merged
> >onto the highway at approx 60km/h and pulled out infront of a rig
> >running 90-100kmph (posted limit on that section)he never checked his
> >blind spot.
>
> Ahh, so not really a "speed related accident" then. Speed was not
> really the issue, rather driver error was.
Nope not speed on rig's part but it does show how alot of people just
don't get it when driving. It could have been alot worse.
> >True along with most of the other regulations like using signals,
>
> Most people do that, even if a bit late sometimes (grrrr).
True but at times I feel like i'm the only one who ordered signals on
his car ;)
>
> >proper merging procedures,
>
> The majority can manage this ok too, 'cos their lives depend on it.
> :} It doesn't take Einsteinian ingenuity to merge into 45-50mph
> freeway traffic anyway, which is usually what one can manage here
> during the day on much of Highway #1 close to the inner city core.
>
Well generally people here are pretty good but there are a few who
will come to the end of the acceleration lane and stop. I've picked a
few of them up :)
> >vehicle safety standards ect ect.
>
> Stop the ricers annoying people with their "toy foggy lites"!
> Actually, Suv drivers seem to be every bit as bad in this regard, to
> say the least.
Some actually come factory with annoying lights. It's partly to blame
on the DOT in the US. Lots of cars sold here have DOT spec lights. Add
to that Junior Honda with the Candian Tire stick on fog light and home
made HID lamps and you asking for a rolling glare machine. Add to that
the guys who insist on getting the last 50 miles out of their 74
pickup with the fenders flapping in breeze and hood held on with
bungee cords.
I got called to pick one of these things up not too long ago. A chunk
of this guys frame came off and whent through a windsheild. When I
went to hook up this truck it started to buckle from the stress of
being winched onto the flat bed. There was just nothing left of this
truck. Needless to say the OPP took the plates and this guy didn't get
his truck back.
>
> >Our regulations in Ontario are for the most part pretty good. They are
> >tightening up on the commercial carriers getting the junk off the road
> >ect ect but their idea of enforcement still seems to be one guy in a
> >Crown Vic with a radar gun.
>
> Well it is amazing how the oh so severely cash and resource strapped
> Opp can afford LiDAR guns. Did a well known in$urer "donate" them?
As a matter of fact yes. I think it might have been State Farm but I
can't remember.
As a matter of interest the insurance companies say they want more
control over insurance in Ontario. How much more do they want? I
already have to have insurance forcing me to buy from them or not
drive. Then they'll tell me how much coverage they are willing to
extend what I'll pay for that priveledge and then if I do need them
the'll tell me how much my car is worth to them and wheather they'll
fix it or not. Plus how much they'll pay ot for any injuries or lost
work. I think they have enough control. Oh well I guess I could always
move.
Ricardo
wrote:
>> The situation is worsened if people just try to pass on the right,
>> rather than dislodge the logjam with their high beams.
>
>I have seen in some cases the LLB get all bent out of shape when
>someone does that.
It's best avoided if possible, and the turn signal should always be
favoured. However, on a few occasions, that is either insufficient
or confusing (if not in the far left lane due to hov presence).
>I don't know why people just can't figure it out.
>Keep right except to pass. It seems so simple.
Most people can do it, but the small number who can't really really
foul things up at times.
>> To quote a friend of mine: "oooh, brrrr, I know North Bay winters".
>
>We came through one of the coldest on record this past winter.
>Temperatures didn't peak above -30 for a couple of weeks.
"-" temperatures, what are they? ;)
>Totally agree however traffic is generally moving at 120 in the right
>lanes for alot of the 401.
And I would always advocate at least keeping up with the speed of
traffic were it legal to do so ;) but there are good reasons for
running slower: uncomfortable keeping up, vehicle incapable, gas
mileage, too many tickets, etc.
>> Getting a ticket for 130 on the 401 is pure and simple wallet rape,
>> period, and the Opp knows it (but I guess they have quotas too).
>
>Couple that to a radar detector ban and you know plain and simple it's
>not about road safety.
Yeah that really sucks: it seems like they enforce the RD ban so
strictly they've almost forgotten why they enacted it in the first
place. :} I guess an alternative would be to use a gps based device
with way point databank (where the programmed way points coïncide
with well known speed trap areas <g>), but I've heard that some cops
there are so anal they will even harass motorists who have devices
in their cars that LOOK like RDs. It goes to show that the RD law
has resulted in violations of basic civil liberties and should as
such be completely repealed.
>I think some of it has to be attributed to the slower is better
>mentality as well. For years people have been brainwashed that the
>speed limit is safe and exceeding it deadly. It's this brainwashing
>that prevents people from accepting the 85 precentile rule. Couple
>that to cash strapped governments and you get options like photo radar
>and Lidar with radar detector bans.
And yet just about everybody speeds on the 401, even on the right
lanes. :}
LiDAR may appear evil at first, but in fact if it becomes closer to
universal, it may make life a bit easier for "speeders" in some
regards, because it is less flexible than instant Ka. It is much
harder to hide a LiDAR tripod, for one thing, and there is no mobile
mode laser either. From what I gather, Opp is using more and more
laser guns, just like other revenue collecting agencies around the
world.
>What really seals the deal though is wathcing the OPP stake out a
>particular interchange on the 417 for about 6 weeks they on and off
>again posted an officer there with a cruiser and radar gun. Speeds up
>to 120km/h were ignored while those exceeding were whacked. Then comes
>the "zero tolerance" enforcement blitz on the seventh week and bam
>anything over 105 was ticket.
And anything under might result in a "RaDAR detector stop"... damned
if ya do, damned if ya don't. Over the limit, you're illegal, within
it and you're suspicious, both used as grounds for a stop and the
consequent papers checks etc.
Btw the gps based non-RaDAR detector idea I mentioned above would
foil that particular Opp trap you described just beautifully, given
your description "stake out a particular interchange on the 417".
>It's that kind of blantent revenue generation that just boils me.
That and, even worse imo, the civil liberties issues that arise with
such enforcement.
>> In extremis, I think it could be a safety feature to remove all
>> speed limits for non-commercial light vehicles on most of the 400
>> series highways, not to mention parts of Hwys 1, 5 and 99 here in
>> BC, but for political reasons, the probability of that occurring is
>> just about 0.00.
>
>It's less than zero here. All it would take would be one ungoverned
>truck on say the 7 to wipe out a family or something and the screaming
>from the "safety industry" would be deafening.
If you read the paragraph again you'll see I said NON-commercial
LIGHT vehicles. :) But your point is nonetheless probably valid.
Heck, here we have a gov't wanting to tighten up the graduated
licence regulations thinking it will somehow eliminate deaths caused
by unlicensed teenage drivers! And a 14 year old unlicensed driver
was recently killed in my neighbourhood in a head on collision with
a city bus... plus ça change and all that. *sigh*
>Well generally people here are pretty good but there are a few who
>will come to the end of the acceleration lane and stop.
Yeah I've seen the occasional onramp slug but no one has ever come
to a complete stop unless the freeway was gridlocked. Sadly, that
particular traffic condition is none too rare...
>> Stop the ricers annoying people with their "toy foggy lites"!
>> Actually, Suv drivers seem to be every bit as bad in this regard, to
>> say the least.
>
>Some actually come factory with annoying lights.
Yeah but it's not a cardinal sin to drive with them OFF! :} *sigh*
>It's partly to blame on the DOT in the US. Lots of cars sold here have
>DOT spec lights.
Like, 80, 90 plus percent, probably more even.
>Add to that Junior Honda with the Candian Tire stick on fog light and
>home made HID lamps
*shiver* Ugggghhhh...
>and you asking for a rolling glare machine.
OK, I guess I'll hafta 'fess up to having high bum drls on my car.
:{
>> Well it is amazing how the oh so severely cash and resource strapped
>> Opp can afford LiDAR guns. Did a well known in$urer "donate" them?
>
>As a matter of fact yes. I think it might have been State Farm but I
>can't remember.
GEICO do it all the time in the States. Here in BC the gov't in$urer
is not in the business primarily to make a profit so it has fewer
incentives to "do corrupt stuff".
>As a matter of interest the insurance companies say they want more
>control over insurance in Ontario. How much more do they want? I
>already have to have insurance forcing me to buy from them or not
>drive.
Right, that's the case almost everywhere, but I'm grateful that we
don't suffer from a private racketeering ring out here.
>Then they'll tell me how much coverage they are willing to
>extend what I'll pay for that priveledge and then if I do need them
>the'll tell me how much my car is worth to them and wheather they'll
>fix it or not. Plus how much they'll pay ot for any injuries or lost
>work. I think they have enough control. Oh well I guess I could always
>move.
You could try moving "oot west", héhé, but I "doot" that your rates
would be substantially lower. It depends on your driving experience
though: ICBC offers up to a 40% discount on basic liability
in$urance for chronologically very experienced motorists with a
clean accident/claim record, bigger discounts for optional
(extended) in$urance policies.
Robert Briggs
> Ricardo wrote:
> > robert Jones wrote:
> Totally agree however traffic is generally moving at 120 in the right
> lanes for alot of the 401. Other 400 series highways are as you say
> slower traffic on the right.
>
> > > Even the cops that sit in Prescott don't haul you over for 120k
> >
> > There's no need, when the 85th percentile is 125+! :{
>
> If they did ticket for 120 they would have lines back to Cornwall. :)
Good grief!
One of your traffic jams all the way to Cornwall, eh?
Doesn't that require driving on water - and lots of it?
:-)
robert Jones
> On 23 Jun 2003 12:11:49 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I have seen in some cases the LLB get all bent out of shape when
> >someone does that.
>
> It's best avoided if possible, and the turn signal should always be
> favoured. However, on a few occasions, that is either insufficient
> or confusing (if not in the far left lane due to hov presence).
This is true. I find the lights work better than left turn signal here
only becasue I really think the LLB's just don't understand the turn
signal thing. Maybe they should spend some tax dollars on education
rather than radar guns :)
>
> >I don't know why people just can't figure it out.
> >Keep right except to pass. It seems so simple.
>
> Most people can do it, but the small number who can't really really
> foul things up at times.
I find that those guys are always out in rush hour ;)
>
> "-" temperatures, what are they? ;)
You'll know em when ya feel em ;) That is if your boots don't freeze
to the sidewalk first :)
>
> And I would always advocate at least keeping up with the speed of
> traffic were it legal to do so ;) but there are good reasons for
> running slower: uncomfortable keeping up, vehicle incapable, gas
> mileage, too many tickets, etc.
Oh No doubt and I totally agree but I think people should at least
understand that keeping with the flow is very important when
conditions permit.
> >
> >Couple that to a radar detector ban and you know plain and simple it's
> >not about road safety.
>
> Yeah that really sucks: it seems like they enforce the RD ban so
> strictly they've almost forgotten why they enacted it in the first
> place. :} I guess an alternative would be to use a gps based device
> with way point databank (where the programmed way points coïncide
> with well known speed trap areas <g>), but I've heard that some cops
> there are so anal they will even harass motorists who have devices
> in their cars that LOOK like RDs. It goes to show that the RD law
> has resulted in violations of basic civil liberties and should as
> such be completely repealed.
The rural cops can be ok. The guys here are pretty good and let some
of the small stuff go. RD's though are a no no. I never thought of the
GPS thing. Thats a great idea. I used to use the CB alot when I drove
but chatter on 19 is just getting less and less these days.
>
> >I think some of it has to be attributed to the slower is better
> >mentality as well. For years people have been brainwashed that the
> >speed limit is safe and exceeding it deadly. It's this brainwashing
> >that prevents people from accepting the 85 precentile rule. Couple
> >that to cash strapped governments and you get options like photo radar
> >and Lidar with radar detector bans.
>
> And yet just about everybody speeds on the 401, even on the right
> lanes. :}
Oh yeah easily 120 is the norm but mention rasing the provincial speed
limit to say 110 and it's like your advocating banning the sun. The
screams and howls out of the "safety industry" are ear shattering.
This province is a little screwed up though to be honest. Not just
with driving laws either.
>
> LiDAR may appear evil at first, but in fact if it becomes closer to
> universal, it may make life a bit easier for "speeders" in some
> regards, because it is less flexible than instant Ka. It is much
> harder to hide a LiDAR tripod, for one thing, and there is no mobile
> mode laser either. From what I gather, Opp is using more and more
> laser guns, just like other revenue collecting agencies around the
> world.
Belive me the OPP must have taken a how to hide your tripod course.
They are good at it. Mind you an attentive driver should be able to
spot the tripod if they are looking for it. Problem is the tripods and
LiDAR units are getting smaller. Best spot the OPP have is beween
Kingston and Napanee. The road drops abruptlly into creek bed. Thing
is you can't see the tripod until you crest the hill bam they have you
as you crest. I'll bet half te provinces fine revenue comes from that
one spot. They are always there and always have 5-7 cars pulled over.
>
> >What really seals the deal though is wathcing the OPP stake out a
> >particular interchange on the 417 for about 6 weeks they on and off
> >again posted an officer there with a cruiser and radar gun. Speeds up
> >to 120km/h were ignored while those exceeding were whacked. Then comes
> >the "zero tolerance" enforcement blitz on the seventh week and bam
> >anything over 105 was ticket.
>
> And anything under might result in a "RaDAR detector stop"... damned
> if ya do, damned if ya don't. Over the limit, you're illegal, within
> it and you're suspicious, both used as grounds for a stop and the
> consequent papers checks etc.
Correct comrade :) The OPP I have noticed are becomming more
interested in just stopping you for whatever. Then they want a paper
check and sometimes will ask to search. I have nothing to hide but I
don't like being stopped for doing nothing wrong. It's not just the
OPP with this mentality anymore either. The Game Wardens are getting
pretty bad for paper checks and vehicle searches too.
>
> Btw the gps based non-RaDAR detector idea I mentioned above would
> foil that particular Opp trap you described just beautifully, given
> your description "stake out a particular interchange on the 417".
That is correct. The OPP seem to be nothing if not consistent. They
all seem to have 4-5 honey pots they just keep milking. Sad thing is
they seem to keep catching people. Some are out of towners and the
like but I've seen locals pulled over too.
>
> >It's that kind of blantent revenue generation that just boils me.
>
> That and, even worse imo, the civil liberties issues that arise with
> such enforcement.
We have no civil liberties anymore. But thats another topic. I do
agree with yu though. If you get stopped for speeding that should not
give carte blanche for a fishing trip through your car.
>
> >> In extremis, I think it could be a safety feature to remove all
> >> speed limits for non-commercial light vehicles on most of the 400
> >> series highways, not to mention parts of Hwys 1, 5 and 99 here in
> >> BC, but for political reasons, the probability of that occurring is
> >> just about 0.00.
> >
> >It's less than zero here. All it would take would be one ungoverned
> >truck on say the 7 to wipe out a family or something and the screaming
> >from the "safety industry" would be deafening.
>
> If you read the paragraph again you'll see I said NON-commercial
> LIGHT vehicles. :) But your point is nonetheless probably valid.
> Heck, here we have a gov't wanting to tighten up the graduated
> licence regulations thinking it will somehow eliminate deaths caused
> by unlicensed teenage drivers! And a 14 year old unlicensed driver
> was recently killed in my neighbourhood in a head on collision with
> a city bus... plus ça change and all that. *sigh*
Your right I misread it sorry about that. I would go one step farther
though. Remove limits for non commercial light vehicles but insist on
semi annual safety inspections. Make them go along with your semi
annual smog test. Also a system of driver skills re-evaluation should
be put in place.
Don't fall for the lies of the graduated system. It doesn't seem to be
working in Ontario. I know the stats say differnt but take it from
somone who picks up the results of Ontario's new driver training
system. It's not really helping much here.
>
> >and you asking for a rolling glare machine.
>
> OK, I guess I'll hafta 'fess up to having high bum drls on my car.
> :{
Depends if they are aimed properly. Properly aimed they shouldn't be a
problem it's the guys who just stick them on an drive.
> >As a matter of interest the insurance companies say they want more
> >control over insurance in Ontario. How much more do they want? I
> >already have to have insurance forcing me to buy from them or not
> >drive.
>
> Right, that's the case almost everywhere, but I'm grateful that we
> don't suffer from a private racketeering ring out here.
Be glad you have that. We could all be looking at rate increases like
New Brunswick. Now thats a racket.
>
> >Then they'll tell me how much coverage they are willing to
> >extend what I'll pay for that priveledge and then if I do need them
> >the'll tell me how much my car is worth to them and wheather they'll
> >fix it or not. Plus how much they'll pay ot for any injuries or lost
> >work. I think they have enough control. Oh well I guess I could always
> >move.
>
> You could try moving "oot west", héhé, but I "doot" that your rates
> would be substantially lower. It depends on your driving experience
> though: ICBC offers up to a 40% discount on basic liability
> in$urance for chronologically very experienced motorists with a
> clean accident/claim record, bigger discounts for optional
> (extended) in$urance policies.
I could but I'm well established here family and all. I would suspect
my rates may be some what lower or stay the same. My abstract is clean
and I've only had one accident witch wasn't my fault and I was not
ticketed or assesed fault by the ins. co. It's the liability and
accident benifits that drive the rates up here in Ontario.
Ricardo
<Robert...@BITphysics.orgBUCKET> wrote:
>> If they did ticket for 120 they would have lines back to Cornwall. :)
>
>Good grief!
>
>One of your traffic jams all the way to Cornwall, eh?
If the traffic were heading west, yeah. :) From the other direction
it could easily be backed up to, oooh, Chatham or Brampton or
Hamilton or Windsor or heck, even London, not to mention Bristol,
York, Peterborough or Pickering...
>Doesn't that require driving on water - and lots of it?
Héhé... about as much as the traffic jams here that reach all the
way to Surrey, or Langley, heck maybe even Huntingdon...
Talk about imperialism! :)
Ricardo
wrote:
>This is true. I find the lights work better than left turn signal here
>only becasue I really think the LLB's just don't understand the turn
>signal thing.
Lights are always more effective, but I think that the turn signal
is more polite. Not that a quick flash of the brights is in any way
overly rude or intrusive or anything.
>Maybe they should spend some tax dollars on education
>rather than radar guns :)
Maybe? :)
>> >I don't know why people just can't figure it out.
>> >Keep right except to pass. It seems so simple.
>>
>> Most people can do it, but the small number who can't really really
>> foul things up at times.
>
>I find that those guys are always out in rush hour ;)
At least you're lucky to get above 35mph then, anyway... LLB isn't
really an issue during rush hour when all lanes are saturated to
beyond the town limits, perhaps even the car pool lane.
>> "-" temperatures, what are they? ;)
>
>You'll know em when ya feel em ;) That is if your boots don't freeze
>to the sidewalk first :)
Moi, I've experienced the evil bitter severe cold of -12° way back
in '96. But that was in a large northern European city where the
darkness is often more unpalatable than the occasional cold snap.
>> And I would always advocate at least keeping up with the speed of
>> traffic were it legal to do so ;) but there are good reasons for
>> running slower: uncomfortable keeping up, vehicle incapable, gas
>> mileage, too many tickets, etc.
>
>Oh No doubt and I totally agree but I think people should at least
>understand that keeping with the flow is very important when
>conditions permit.
I'm a "go with the flow" advocate too (only when it's within the
limit, Officer) but the slower folks must always be fully respected
if they're using the correct lane(s).
>The rural cops can be ok. The guys here are pretty good and let some
>of the small stuff go. RD's though are a no no.
Don't I know it: VG3 can detect V1 from 300m or so, and Opp has at
least 85 of the darn things. Can you say "evil"? At least "Muggins"
doesn't drive "oot there".
>I never thought of the
>GPS thing. Thats a great idea.
Yeah, especially in a RD-prohibitive jurisdiction. I'm not sure how
much a suitable unit for that purpose would cost though. It would
require a pretty meaty memory to store a speed trap "bible" for all
of North America, or probably even just a single Canajun Province!
>I used to use the CB alot when I drove
>but chatter on 19 is just getting less and less these days.
And the interference more and more. *sigh* Sometimes ch15 and 17 can
be helpful, but 19 is still king.
>> And yet just about everybody speeds on the 401, even on the right
>> lanes. :}
>
>Oh yeah easily 120 is the norm
I'd say 110-115 is the "norm" here (when the limit is 90 or 100 and
conditions are ok, or sometimes even when not *sigh*), if there is
one, but it's not unusual to observe traffic in the 120-140 range
and I've seen the odd car here and there ('Stangs, Bimmers, rice
rockets etc.) running 150 or so. Not much above that though. I
wonder if those guys doing 150 (other than "Muggins") are naïve
enough really to believe that they're driving fast...
>but mention rasing the provincial speed limit to say 110
BC posts 110kph on the Coquihallabahn toll road and perhaps the New
[Vancouver] Island Highway, though I'm not sure about the latter.
Most, if not all other roads are posted 100kph or lower. If the New
Island Hwy isn't 110 then maybe the Kelownabahn (#97c) is, otherwise
that's also 100kph. I'm only certain about the Coq'bahn being 110,
not that many people obey that on the more open sections thereof
afaik. Alberta is also normally posted at 110kph for rural freeways,
and Sask. will be moving to 110kph on some of its X Canada portions
within a few days.
>and it's like your advocating banning the sun.
With 100kph being what, the 1st-10th percentile range on much of the
4xx, it's the perfect testament to speed limits largely being
irrelevant to the real speed of traffic.
>The screams and howls out of the "safety industry" are ear shattering.
Ahh, that would really be the $$$afety indu$$$try...
>This province is a little screwed up though to be honest.
Yup, but I have friends there, so I can't totally avoid the place.
:) Besides, it's not the people that are the problem (except in
To***to, but enough said about that), more the "competent" (sic)
authorities.
>Belive me the OPP must have taken a how to hide your tripod course.
Lol! They surely can't be better than some of the RCMP highwaymen
who prowl, ahem, I mean patrol Hwy 1. Or maybe even Delta police on
Hwy 99 or the Vancouver city cops skulking around by the Cassiar
tunnel, although most of those trap locations are blindingly obvious
as such, even to the uninitiated, since the speed limit suddenly
drops to 80kph for no discernible reason other than revenue
enhancement.
>They are good at it. Mind you an attentive driver should be able to
>spot the tripod if they are looking for it.
Yup.
>Problem is the tripods and LiDAR units are getting smaller.
I know the older LTI units are giant enough that you'd need your
eyes tested not to be able to sight them, but I don't really know
anything about the ultra high tech fancy shmancy new stuff that's
floating around now.
>Best spot the OPP have is beween Kingston and Napanee. The road drops
>abruptlly into creek bed.
That's one for your gps databank then. :)
>Thing is you can't see the tripod until you crest the hill bam they
>have you as you crest.
If the visibility is limited at that crest, I'd advocate, uhmmm,
sacrilege, slowing down on the approach. It's only natural anyway
and can help reduce ticket risk, among other risks.
>The Game Wardens are getting pretty bad for paper checks and
>vehicle searches too.
I'll hafta bear that in mind for when I go cruisin' through the
national or Provincial parks.
>That is correct. The OPP seem to be nothing if not consistent. They
>all seem to have 4-5 honey pots they just keep milking. Sad thing is
>they seem to keep catching people. Some are out of towners and the
>like but I've seen locals pulled over too.
Just take the necessary precautions so that you are not one of the
victims, that's the best ya can do.
>We have no civil liberties anymore.
That's true just about worldwide. Coming from Europe, Canada doesn't
seem at all bad in that field, except for the silly speed limits and
stuff.
>Your right I misread it sorry about that. I would go one step farther
>though. Remove limits for non commercial light vehicles but insist on
>semi annual safety inspections.
Certainly, I'll go for that. Annual ones, at the very least.
>Make them go along with your semi annual smog test.
Perhaps even - scoff scoff - junk the smog test in favour of stiff
safety inspections. Although the Vancouver AirCare emissions testing
is pretty effective (or so they say) at keeping the air cleaner, and
it's not that big of a deal, so I'm not really against the emissions
testing as such. But safety checks are more important and BC doesn't
have those as such.
>Don't fall for the lies of the graduated system. It doesn't seem to be
>working in Ontario.
It doesn't work too well here either, except at adding to the
general bureaucratic burden. It certainly doesn't stop unlicensed
drivers from going around wreaking mayhem left, right, high, low and
centre.
>> OK, I guess I'll hafta 'fess up to having high bum drls on my car.
>> :{
>
>Depends if they are aimed properly.
High bum drls are always aimed in other drivers' eyes.
>Be glad you have that.
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to drive otherwise, and in Canada that
would spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.
>We could all be looking at rate increases like
>New Brunswick. Now thats a racket.
I thought you already had experienced just that in the last couple
of years. At least according to ICBC propaganda, ahem, information.
>It's the liability and accident benifits that drive the rates up
>here in Ontario.
That for us too, but what really does you guys in is the greedy
profiteering of your private racketeers, I mean in$urers. The
government doesn't urgently need to generate huge profits from auto
in$urance.
robert Jones
> On 24 Jun 2003 10:51:49 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
> wrote:
>
>
> >Maybe they should spend some tax dollars on education
> >rather than radar guns :)
>
> Maybe? :)
I'm all for mandatory driver retesting every couple of years but it
appears the senior lobby here in the eastern utopia has a minor
problem with that.
> >
> >I find that those guys are always out in rush hour ;)
>
> At least you're lucky to get above 35mph then, anyway... LLB isn't
> really an issue during rush hour when all lanes are saturated to
> beyond the town limits, perhaps even the car pool lane.
Depends we really don't have much of a rush hour out here but when I'm
in the major cities like TO 35 is a dream. it's more like 2. :) Ottawa
isn't so bad traffic at least moves somewhat.
>
> >> "-" temperatures, what are they? ;)
> >
> >You'll know em when ya feel em ;) That is if your boots don't freeze
> >to the sidewalk first :)
>
> Moi, I've experienced the evil bitter severe cold of -12° way back
> in '96. But that was in a large northern European city where the
> darkness is often more unpalatable than the occasional cold snap.
Having spent time in Iqualuit and Resolute I can understand the
darkness thing. I don't know how the regulars cope with it. My
internal clock never recovered from that.
>
> >> And I would always advocate at least keeping up with the speed of
> >> traffic were it legal to do so ;) but there are good reasons for
> >> running slower: uncomfortable keeping up, vehicle incapable, gas
> >> mileage, too many tickets, etc.
> >
> >Oh No doubt and I totally agree but I think people should at least
> >understand that keeping with the flow is very important when
> >conditions permit.
>
> I'm a "go with the flow" advocate too (only when it's within the
> limit, Officer) but the slower folks must always be fully respected
> if they're using the correct lane(s).
Very true. with limits. I think if you know you can't maintain a given
speed say 80km/h you should consider taking an alternate route not
only for your safety but for those that may have to navigate around
ect ect. I'm thinking of people with overloaded pickups.
>
> >The rural cops can be ok. The guys here are pretty good and let some
> >of the small stuff go. RD's though are a no no.
>
> Don't I know it: VG3 can detect V1 from 300m or so, and Opp has at
> least 85 of the darn things. Can you say "evil"? At least "Muggins"
> doesn't drive "oot there".
Hehe 85 is a conservative estimate. Each OPP detachment with a traffic
enforcemnt unit has at least one.No to mention if certain municipal
police forces purchased them. Urban centers have as many as they can
afford or were donated by certain parties in the "$afety indu$try"
>
> >I never thought of the
> >GPS thing. Thats a great idea.
>
> Yeah, especially in a RD-prohibitive jurisdiction. I'm not sure how
> much a suitable unit for that purpose would cost though. It would
> require a pretty meaty memory to store a speed trap "bible" for all
> of North America, or probably even just a single Canajun Province!
GPS units are coming down in price. With only loading maps for where
you intend to drive you could svae some memory. With time though I'm
sure the units will have enough to store all.
>
> >I used to use the CB alot when I drove
> >but chatter on 19 is just getting less and less these days.
>
> And the interference more and more. *sigh* Sometimes ch15 and 17 can
> be helpful, but 19 is still king.
Some of the OTR guys are ruinning FM (freebanding) now. but 19 still
has the most traffic when you can hear it.
>
> I'd say 110-115 is the "norm" here (when the limit is 90 or 100 and
> conditions are ok, or sometimes even when not *sigh*), if there is
> one, but it's not unusual to observe traffic in the 120-140 range
> and I've seen the odd car here and there ('Stangs, Bimmers, rice
> rockets etc.) running 150 or so. Not much above that though. I
> wonder if those guys doing 150 (other than "Muggins") are naïve
> enough really to believe that they're driving fast...
True but I would suggest to the average uneducated driver 150 is more
than enough. Not to mention that alot of people re shoe their cars
with cheap tires. Now 150mph thats starting to talk :)
> BC posts 110kph on the Coquihallabahn toll road and perhaps the New
> [Vancouver] Island Highway, though I'm not sure about the latter.
> Most, if not all other roads are posted 100kph or lower. If the New
> Island Hwy isn't 110 then maybe the Kelownabahn (#97c) is, otherwise
> that's also 100kph. I'm only certain about the Coq'bahn being 110,
> not that many people obey that on the more open sections thereof
> afaik. Alberta is also normally posted at 110kph for rural freeways,
> and Sask. will be moving to 110kph on some of its X Canada portions
> within a few days.
We can only wish :( All 400 series are 100km/h Max the Trans Canada
(Hwy 17) is 90km/h and all others are 80km
>
> >and it's like your advocating banning the sun.
>
> With 100kph being what, the 1st-10th percentile range on much of the
> 4xx, it's the perfect testament to speed limits largely being
> irrelevant to the real speed of traffic.
Thats so true. I firmly belive that our speed limits contribute to
traffic accidents and fatalities. What do I know though I'm only the
guy that cleans up the mess :)
>
> >The screams and howls out of the "safety industry" are ear shattering.
>
> Ahh, that would really be the $$$afety indu$$$try...
lol!
>
> >This province is a little screwed up though to be honest.
>
> Yup, but I have friends there, so I can't totally avoid the place.
> :) Besides, it's not the people that are the problem (except in
> To***to, but enough said about that), more the "competent" (sic)
> authorities.
>
We have no authorites just money grubbing political hacks (oops did I
write that out loud :) ) I mean good intentioned well respected
caring honest Mpp's
> >Belive me the OPP must have taken a how to hide your tripod course.
>
> Lol! They surely can't be better than some of the RCMP highwaymen
> who prowl, ahem, I mean patrol Hwy 1. Or maybe even Delta police on
> Hwy 99 or the Vancouver city cops skulking around by the Cassiar
> tunnel, although most of those trap locations are blindingly obvious
> as such, even to the uninitiated, since the speed limit suddenly
> drops to 80kph for no discernible reason other than revenue
> enhancement.
Gotta love the drop the limit trap. There is a section of one of the
local roads here that they do the same thing on. It's straight falt
and nothing for a couple of miles but trees. Limit drops from 80 to
60. They pick off tourists all summer. Real smart I say. They spend
money to attarct tourists then hose them in a speed trap so they don't
come back. Brilliant I say. :(
>
> >They are good at it. Mind you an attentive driver should be able to
> >spot the tripod if they are looking for it.
>
> Yup.
Apparently there aren't many attentive drivers though. On the way home
they had a trap on 17 had two guys pulled over. It was real obvious
too the tripod was just sitting on the shoulder.
>
> >Problem is the tripods and LiDAR units are getting smaller.
>
> I know the older LTI units are giant enough that you'd need your
> eyes tested not to be able to sight them, but I don't really know
> anything about the ultra high tech fancy shmancy new stuff that's
> floating around now.
One today was about the size of a surveyors transit.
>
> >Best spot the OPP have is beween Kingston and Napanee. The road drops
> >abruptlly into creek bed.
>
> That's one for your gps databank then. :)
That one is burned into the gps in my head. Used to have drive through
there alot. Used to slow down on the crest then gun it back up after
passing through. :)
> >The Game Wardens are getting pretty bad for paper checks and
> >vehicle searches too.
>
> I'll hafta bear that in mind for when I go cruisin' through the
> national or Provincial parks.
It's not so much in the parks as it is on the back country roads to
popular hunting/fishing grounds.Mind you if you are on accesible crown
land be prepared to prove you either have a hunting/fishing permit or
weren't hunting or fishing.
>
> >That is correct. The OPP seem to be nothing if not consistent. They
> >all seem to have 4-5 honey pots they just keep milking. Sad thing is
> >they seem to keep catching people. Some are out of towners and the
> >like but I've seen locals pulled over too.
>
> Just take the necessary precautions so that you are not one of the
> victims, that's the best ya can do.
>
For now. I keep hoping that we finally will get some people in the
know into the right spots but the cash cow is just too big. We were
able to tank Photo Radar twice now (they re thought their plan to
reintroduce it last week)We can getthe limits changed too it'll just
take time and the right government.
> >We have no civil liberties anymore.
>
> That's true just about worldwide. Coming from Europe, Canada doesn't
> seem at all bad in that field, except for the silly speed limits and
> stuff.
No I suppose not but I just can't help but remeber the things we used
to do as kids that would likely get us arrested if we tried it now.
>
> >Your right I misread it sorry about that. I would go one step farther
> >though. Remove limits for non commercial light vehicles but insist on
> >semi annual safety inspections.
>
> Certainly, I'll go for that. Annual ones, at the very least.
Sure I can live with that but I suspect you and I are in the
miniority. Most people don't maintain their cars. You should see some
of the stuff I've picked up over the years. It seems that people
equate reliable with never have to do anything to it.
> >Make them go along with your semi annual smog test.
>
> Perhaps even - scoff scoff - junk the smog test in favour of stiff
> safety inspections. Although the Vancouver AirCare emissions testing
> is pretty effective (or so they say) at keeping the air cleaner, and
> it's not that big of a deal, so I'm not really against the emissions
> testing as such. But safety checks are more important and BC doesn't
> have those as such.
>
The drive clean program here is a joke. If you fail you have to spend
something like 200 bucks. These days thats an oil change nad tune up.
If it still fails after 200 bucks they give it a conditional pass. How
does that help the air? Not to mention that you could take in some
heap with the fenders flapping in the breeze but as long as it passed
emissions you could drive it. The system is somewhat messed up I say.
Get the rolling hazzards off the road and you'll take care of some of
the smoggers.
> >Don't fall for the lies of the graduated system. It doesn't seem to be
> >working in Ontario.
>
> It doesn't work too well here either, except at adding to the
> general bureaucratic burden. It certainly doesn't stop unlicensed
> drivers from going around wreaking mayhem left, right, high, low and
> centre.
Yep same here. Had to pick one up last night. 16 years old on G1 class
license failed to negotiate a curve due to "excessive speed" rolled a
97 Civic. Driver was shook up and cut but pretty much ok. Car was
totalled. Apparently just got his G1 last week.
>
> >> OK, I guess I'll hafta 'fess up to having high bum drls on my car.
> >> :{
> >
> >Depends if they are aimed properly.
>
> High bum drls are always aimed in other drivers' eyes.
TSK TSK :P
>
> >Be glad you have that.
>
> Yeah, I wouldn't be able to drive otherwise, and in Canada that
> would spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.
I always get a kick out of the take the bus crowd for just that
reason. Anytime we complain about gas tax or insurance it's always the
same response take the bus, walk,bike. Well I'll be waiting a long
time for any bus around here and biking may be ok within town but if I
have to go to Pembroke or North Bay it may be a long ride.
>
> >We could all be looking at rate increases like
> >New Brunswick. Now thats a racket.
>
> I thought you already had experienced just that in the last couple
> of years. At least according to ICBC propaganda, ahem, information.
What we saw is nothing. The next round of increases is due in the next
six months and they promise to be huge. We're talking 12-15% on top of
what just occured.
>
> >It's the liability and accident benifits that drive the rates up
> >here in Ontario.
>
> That for us too, but what really does you guys in is the greedy
> profiteering of your private racketeers, I mean in$urers. The
> government doesn't urgently need to generate huge profits from auto
> in$urance.
You got that right. What burns me as well is when we had the NDP in
Ontario they promised gov. liability insurance. Once they were elected
it was a diffrernt story. Now 15 years later were still being ripped
off and Ernie isn't going to tick off his corporate friends.
robert Jones
Well we are a special type of people up here :) I guess I should have
indicated Cornwall Ont ;)
DTJ
wrote:
>sovietja...@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca (Ricardo) wrote in message news:<3ef37a52.2259685@news>...
>> On 17 Jun 2003 09:42:23 -0700, bobb...@hotmail.com (robert Jones)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I also find that the majority of LLB's just don't seem to understand
>> >what they are doing. There is a small percentage however that seem to
>> >take great pride in being stuck in the wrong lane and causing chaos.
>> >it's less than .5 percent but they are there for whatever reason.
>>
>> The situation is worsened if people just try to pass on the right,
>> rather than dislodge the logjam with their high beams.
>>
>
>I have seen in some cases the LLB get all bent out of shape when
>someone does that. I don't know why people just can't figure it out.
>Keep right except to pass. It seems so simple.
What gets me is when you do pass them on the right, they then seem to
find the accelerator. I guess they just have to be first. Kind of
like a two year old, except thankfully two year olds can't drive.
Ricardo
>What gets me is when you do pass them on the right, they then seem to
>find the accelerator.
Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
>I guess they just have to be first.
Yeah but there's no rational self interest in that. Surely there's a
much greater rational interest in keeping right, letting speeders be
on their merry way to get tickets and at the same time averting road
rage? But no, that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
DTJ
sovietja...@spamfreezone.yahoo.ca (Ricardo) wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 03:38:11 GMT, DTJ <nosp...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>What gets me is when you do pass them on the right, they then seem to
>>find the accelerator.
>
>Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
>Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
Unfortunately it doesn't work where I live. Using your lights just
causes them to slow down more.
I pass on the right, which is legal by the way, only when they refuse
to move over. I then get back into the left lane when required to
pass other cars in the right lane. What is amazing is how those LLBs
seem to find that accelerator to try to prevent me from passing.
It is always interesting to watch their reaction when I move over
WHETHER THEY ARE THERE OR NOT!
>>I guess they just have to be first.
>
>Yeah but there's no rational self interest in that. Surely there's a
>much greater rational interest in keeping right, letting speeders be
>on their merry way to get tickets and at the same time averting road
>rage? But no, that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
Yes it would.
John David Galt
>> What gets me is when you do pass them on the right, they then seem to
>> find the accelerator.
Ricardo wrote:
> Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
> Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
This is silly advice. Do you really believe that the kind of jerk who
speeds up to prevent you from getting in front of him, will move over?
The best advice I've found is to get a car that accelerates quickly, so
you can cut off the asshole before he can speed up to block you.
Ricardo
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>Ricardo wrote:
>> Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
>> Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
>
>This is silly advice. Do you really believe that the kind of jerk who
>speeds up to prevent you from getting in front of him, will move over?
If you are referring to *deliberate* speeding up to prevent you from
passing, then probably not. Some people unintentionally speed up
while being passed though. If someone is passing me, especially on a
2 lane roadway, I consciously try to remember to back off a little
so as to make the passer's life a little easier, or, at the very
least, to make damn sure I don't accelerate while being passed.
>The best advice I've found is to get a car that accelerates quickly, so
>you can cut off the asshole before he can speed up to block you.
That is totally fine (as far as passing on the right can ever be) so
long as it doesn't cause problems for the next vehicle in front on
the right lane.
Ricardo
wrote:
>>Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
>>Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
>
>Unfortunately it doesn't work where I live. Using your lights just
>causes them to slow down more.
Eeeek! Well, who knows, you might be able to use that to your
advantage, since them slowing down may make it easier for you to
pass, if you have sufficient machinery, so to speak.
>I pass on the right, which is legal by the way, only when they refuse
>to move over.
As a last resort, fair enough.
>>Yeah but there's no rational self interest in that. Surely there's a
>>much greater rational interest in keeping right, letting speeders be
>>on their merry way to get tickets and at the same time averting road
>>rage? But no, that would be too simple, wouldn't it?
>
>Yes it would.
*sigh*
Toastmaster
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:19:10 -0700, John David Galt
> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>>Ricardo wrote:
>>
>>>Yet another good reason not to pass on the right in the first place.
>>>Make judicious use of flashing lights (signal and/or high beam).
>>
>>This is silly advice. Do you really believe that the kind of jerk who
>>speeds up to prevent you from getting in front of him, will move over?
>
>
> If you are referring to *deliberate* speeding up to prevent you from
> passing, then probably not. Some people unintentionally speed up
> while being passed though. If someone is passing me, especially on a
> 2 lane roadway, I consciously try to remember to back off a little
> so as to make the passer's life a little easier, or, at the very
> least, to make damn sure I don't accelerate while being passed.
>
>
You mean people actually pass you?
Ricardo
wrote:
>> If you are referring to *deliberate* speeding up to prevent you from
>> passing, then probably not. Some people unintentionally speed up
>> while being passed though. If someone is passing me, especially on a
>> 2 lane roadway, I consciously try to remember to back off a little
>> so as to make the passer's life a little easier, or, at the very
>> least, to make damn sure I don't accelerate while being passed.
>
>You mean people actually pass you?
Héhé, yeah, as a law abider, I have to max out at the posted
speed[*] ;) (though I enjoy accelerating up to it), which usually
falls around the 20th-30th percentile of free flowing traffic, as
also recently demonstrated by our North Vancouver RCMP detachment,
which logically implies that ca. 70-80% of cars - the scawflaws -
have to worm their way around me. I'm always courteous though and
make it as easy as possible and practicable for them to zip by.
Now as for "Muggins", he doesn't get overtaken if the road
conditions are appropriate. ;) But he's still geezing out (sorry
fellow demons) and hasn't been on the freeway much in the '91 yet,
so he still hasn't had chance or reason to get her above 75mph.
[*] Unfortunately, we have absolute speed limits in BC so it's not
possible to be a theoretically law abiding "speeder".
Ricardo
wrote:
>I'm all for mandatory driver retesting every couple of years
Well that might be just a little OTT but the principle is fine.
>but it appears the senior lobby here in the eastern utopia has a
>minor problem with that.
Where I originally learned to drive (Lux., EU), older folks must
renew their license every so often (every 5 years after 50, every 3
years after 70 and every year after 75 and all commercial licences
automatically revoked at age 75) which involves a medical
examination and comprehensive doctor's report. If the doctor doesn't
give a clean bill of health, then it's bye bye driver's licence.
After grad licensing though (two years from new), there is no
special mandatory training or testing, so the 19 year old who
learned to drive at 17 and has just exited the graduated system
(consisting of theory test, 12-16 hours minimum practical training,
road test and special training day with skidpad, cones, etc., at
least 6 months of mandatory on the road rear L plates, lower speed
limits prior to the training day and a compulsory
probation/endorsement book that must be carried while driving) will
be issued a regular full driver's licence valid until age 50.
>> Moi, I've experienced the evil bitter severe cold of -12° way back
>> in '96. But that was in a large northern European city where the
>> darkness is often more unpalatable than the occasional cold snap.
>
>Having spent time in Iqualuit and Resolute I can understand the
>darkness thing. I don't know how the regulars cope with it. My
>internal clock never recovered from that.
Yeah it does affect serotonin levels et al. But I only experienced
it for a few days, and that was still something. :}
>Very true. with limits. I think if you know you can't maintain a given
>speed say 80km/h you should consider taking an alternate route not
>only for your safety but for those that may have to navigate around
>ect ect.
That makes a lot of sense, and I tend to agree. If you're really
slow, and can't even come close to keeping up, then it makes sense
to use alternative non-freeway routes as much as possible.
>I'm thinking of people with overloaded pickups.
Ugh, get them off the road pronto! Aren't they being ticketed for
overloading their vehicles and/or carrying an unsafe load?
>Hehe 85 is a conservative estimate. Each OPP detachment with a traffic
>enforcemnt unit has at least one.No to mention if certain municipal
>police forces purchased them. Urban centers have as many as they can
>afford or were donated by certain parties in the "$afety indu$try"
The RD wieldin' scawflaws can only pray that Mike Valentine et al
churn out that VG3 immunity fix asap. Then it will once again be
less risky to drive east of Saskatchewan. :)
>> Yeah, especially in a RD-prohibitive jurisdiction. I'm not sure how
>> much a suitable unit for that purpose would cost though. It would
>> require a pretty meaty memory to store a speed trap "bible" for all
>> of North America, or probably even just a single Canajun Province!
>
>GPS units are coming down in price. With only loading maps for where
>you intend to drive you could svae some memory. With time though I'm
>sure the units will have enough to store all.
Like you said, they're a great idea; alas, not my idea personally.
:{ They are widespread in Britain these days, since the greedy
revenue hungry government there has a speed camera fetish, and not
all the cameras transmit a RaDAR signal - some use timing by
concealed loops instead. The actual police usually use laser guns,
although they normally turn a blind eye to 140kph (or higher) on a
good suburban/rural motorway under good free flow conditions.
>> I'd say 110-115 is the "norm" here (when the limit is 90 or 100 and
>> conditions are ok, or sometimes even when not *sigh*), if there is
>> one, but it's not unusual to observe traffic in the 120-140 range
>> and I've seen the odd car here and there ('Stangs, Bimmers, rice
>> rockets etc.) running 150 or so. Not much above that though. I
>> wonder if those guys doing 150 (other than "Muggins") are naïve
>> enough really to believe that they're driving fast...
>
>True but I would suggest to the average uneducated driver 150 is more
>than enough.
Following a few simple rules that even the dimmest nimrod can figure
out, 150 isn't that big a deal under good conditions in a decent
car. If "Muggins" could handle it on the freeway in the old
Pontiscrap of all things, it can be that big a deal!
>Not to mention that alot of people re shoe their cars with cheap tires.
Even el cheapo low grade "Back Alley No Frills Special" S rated all
season rubber is rated for sustained 180km/h, and brief spurts up to
150-160 on a good road is not a huge problem for such tires,
provided they're properly inflated. "Muggins" had a flat whilst
cruising slowly on the streets of Surrey once, although it may have
been brought about by too much driving on aforementioned type tires
at 140+. ;)
Now the '91, that's a different story. Mazda calls for V rated
tires, and "Muggins" obliged. Michelin Pilot XGT V4, 205/60VR15,
$1005, but worth it, and he did get a free $50 gas card for his
troubles. :)
>Now 150mph thats starting to talk :)
I've travelled in a car at 145mph before (not as the driver!),
nominally legally. It's a lot of fun, although neither of my cars
are capable of anything remotely resembling that. The '89 is
electronically restricted to 155kph (ugh) and as for the '91, I'm
not exactly sure about her natural, ungoverned top speed :), but
she's actually geared shorter than I originally thought, so she
turns 3krpm at 120 in 5th. This means that peak power will kick in
in the low 170s, and the availability of extra speed above that will
depend entirely on the lack of power drop above that peak rev point.
She should still be good for 190+ with the short gears, though, and
tbh a slightly lower but more readily available top end with peppier
acceleration is preferable to a few extra klix on top but with the
car taking all year to get there. What road or track, other than in
the prairies or empty deserts, would be suitable for that?
>> BC posts 110kph on the Coquihallabahn toll road and perhaps the New
>> [Vancouver] Island Highway, though I'm not sure about the latter.
>> Most, if not all other roads are posted 100kph or lower. If the New
>> Island Hwy isn't 110 then maybe the Kelownabahn (#97c) is, otherwise
>> that's also 100kph. I'm only certain about the Coq'bahn being 110,
>> not that many people obey that on the more open sections thereof
>> afaik. Alberta is also normally posted at 110kph for rural freeways,
>> and Sask. will be moving to 110kph on some of its X Canada portions
>> within a few days.
>
>We can only wish :( All 400 series are 100km/h Max the Trans Canada
>(Hwy 17) is 90km/h and all others are 80km
110, 100, 90, 80, whatever, it's all about revenue. Most limits are
set around the 30th percentile and that implies 70% scawflaws, BY
DEFINITION. Pray tell me dear legislators, aside from revenue
collection facility, what purpose is served by setting speed LIMITS
(supposedly an upper bound by definition) below the speeds actually
travelled on the highway system?
>Thats so true. I firmly belive that our speed limits contribute to
>traffic accidents and fatalities. What do I know though I'm only the
>guy that cleans up the mess :)
With any luck, with proper scientifically valid prima facie limits
and/or (///) zones, you'd have a bit less to clean up.
>> >The screams and howls out of the "safety industry" are ear shattering.
>>
>> Ahh, that would really be the $$$afety indu$$$try...
>
>lol!
It's amusing when one isn't the victim of predatory wallet rape...
>We have no authorites just money grubbing political hacks (oops did I
>write that out loud :) )
;)
>I mean good intentioned well respected caring honest Mpp's
Ahh, the good old Canajun political correctness had to be restored!
>Gotta love the drop the limit trap. There is a section of one of the
>local roads here that they do the same thing on. It's straight falt
>and nothing for a couple of miles but trees. Limit drops from 80 to
>60. They pick off tourists all summer. Real smart I say. They spend
>money to attarct tourists then hose them in a speed trap so they don't
>come back. Brilliant I say. :(
Don't worry, people gotta visit Ontario 'cos we have friends there
and stuff, and the authorities probably figured as such that the
non-returning of visitors is not a major issue. But we don't
necessarily have to drive there, although of course, it has a big
time car culture just like any other Province or Territory, and
getting around without a car can be seriously... well, awkward.
>Apparently there aren't many attentive drivers though. On the way home
>they had a trap on 17 had two guys pulled over. It was real obvious
>too the tripod was just sitting on the shoulder.
Maybe they thought it was a filming crew. :}
>That one is burned into the gps in my head. Used to have drive through
>there alot. Used to slow down on the crest then gun it back up after
>passing through. :)
If visibility is limited before the crest, this is only natural
skilled driving practice anyway.
>It's not so much in the parks as it is on the back country roads to
>popular hunting/fishing grounds.Mind you if you are on accesible crown
>land be prepared to prove you either have a hunting/fishing permit or
>weren't hunting or fishing.
Presumption of guilt, comrade...
>For now. I keep hoping that we finally will get some people in the
>know into the right spots but the cash cow is just too big. We were
>able to tank Photo Radar twice now (they re thought their plan to
>reintroduce it last week)We can getthe limits changed too it'll just
>take time and the right government.
But the Opp will always come up with some twoddle about having
"insufficient resources to enforce the new limits strictly", so
they'll oppose raising them to more realistic levels as a result.
>> >We have no civil liberties anymore.
>>
>> That's true just about worldwide. Coming from Europe, Canada doesn't
>> seem at all bad in that field, except for the silly speed limits and
>> stuff.
>
>No I suppose not but I just can't help but remeber the things we used
>to do as kids that would likely get us arrested if we tried it now.
Hmmm, maybe I just had a boring childhood. ;)
>> >Your right I misread it sorry about that. I would go one step farther
>> >though. Remove limits for non commercial light vehicles but insist on
>> >semi annual safety inspections.
>>
>> Certainly, I'll go for that. Annual ones, at the very least.
>
>Sure I can live with that but I suspect you and I are in the
>miniority. Most people don't maintain their cars.
Then they should be made to. But all these (European inspired)
sensible ideas can only ever be realistically and fairly implemented
if the car culture is eroded down to something more manageable. And
that means making HUGE commitments and investments in public
transportation infrastructure, in this country at least.
>You should see some
>of the stuff I've picked up over the years. It seems that people
>equate reliable with never have to do anything to it.
The problem of unsafe vehicles and drivers is compounded by the
grossly indecent car culture. In western Europe, those who don't
care much for driving plainly and simply don't do it. They still
have their fair share of moron drivers mind you, but the system of
driving being a genuine and unnecessary privilege is indisputably
superior.
>The drive clean program here is a joke. If you fail you have to spend
>something like 200 bucks. These days thats an oil change nad tune up.
>If it still fails after 200 bucks they give it a conditional pass.
If a vehicle gets a conditional pass for AirCare, the certificate is
only valid for 3 months, although of course that is sufficient to
renew tags and in$urance and therefore keep the vehicle on the road
for another 6-12 months.
>Yep same here. Had to pick one up last night. 16 years old on G1 class
>license failed to negotiate a curve due to "excessive speed" rolled a
>97 Civic. Driver was shook up and cut but pretty much ok.
Oh well, if he'd killed himself but harmed no one else it would just
have been a case of Darwin at work. The "safety" (sic) lobby
shouldn't get too worked up about incidents like this. There's been
an analogous situation in Australia (hi JP) with the unrestricted
speeds permitted in their Northern Territory (no, not to be confused
with our Northwest Territories!). The "safety" lobby there has been
pointing to one or two isolated incidents where Indonesian tourists
killed themselves, and only themselves, by driving 200+ on poor
quality, treacherous, unpaved bush roads (or whatever) - now that
truly is DARWIN at work and the pun is definitely intended - and
yet, when foreign visitors in Australia kill both themselves AS WELL
AS INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES in head on collisions due to forgetting
that Australia has wrong side traffic, the same "safety" lobby is as
good as mute, given the relative severity of the latter situation in
terms of being a genuine safety hazard to the public. The former
situation (a small number of idiots who kill themselves 'cos they
can't drive worth s**t) is trivial in comparison. To put it another
way, the notion that NT should impose mandatory speed restrictions
on its rural highways is founded upon a weaker premise than
advocating that Australia convert to right handed traffic (which, if
I had any say in the matter, it would ;).
>Car was totalled. Apparently just got his G1 last week.
And I guess he's just lost it?
>> >> OK, I guess I'll hafta 'fess up to having high bum drls on my car.
>> >> :{
>> >
>> >Depends if they are aimed properly.
>>
>> High bum drls are always aimed in other drivers' eyes.
>
>TSK TSK :P
Well if I decide to make the conversion to ECE, the high bum drls
will hafta go. If not, they're here to stay. It's not as if the low
beams are glare free, and there are far worse high bum drls in use
than the 9004 based lights on my '91.
>> >Be glad you have that.
>>
>> Yeah, I wouldn't be able to drive otherwise, and in Canada that
>> would spell D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R.
>
>I always get a kick out of the take the bus crowd for just that
>reason. Anytime we complain about gas tax or insurance it's always the
>same response take the bus, walk,bike. Well I'll be waiting a long
>time for any bus around here and biking may be ok within town but if I
>have to go to Pembroke or North Bay it may be a long ride.
And flying only works between airports. The reality is, that in this
country, public transit is de facto non-existent. Many problems
result from this imho, but Ottawa's not willing to toss a dime into
resolving the mess, so the gross car culture is here to stay.
And it's not only the smaller towns that lack transit connections;
Vancouver is not really much better. A while back I was down at Main
St. station and the complete lack of intercity connections -
especially rail connections - is absolutely astounding! Then again,
if Ottawa's stingy about funding transit improvements in your
region, then out on this coast, we don't stand a chance of even
getting a look in.
>> >We could all be looking at rate increases like
>> >New Brunswick. Now thats a racket.
>>
>> I thought you already had experienced just that in the last couple
>> of years. At least according to ICBC propaganda, ahem, information.
>
>What we saw is nothing. The next round of increases is due in the next
>six months and they promise to be huge. We're talking 12-15% on top of
>what just occured.
I hope that's not going to affect us here 'cos my rates are already
high enough as it is.
>> >It's the liability and accident benifits that drive the rates up
>> >here in Ontario.
>>
>> That for us too, but what really does you guys in is the greedy
>> profiteering of your private racketeers, I mean in$urers. The
>> government doesn't urgently need to generate huge profits from auto
>> in$urance.
>
>You got that right. What burns me as well is when we had the NDP in
>Ontario they promised gov. liability insurance. Once they were elected
>it was a diffrernt story. Now 15 years later were still being ripped
>off and Ernie isn't going to tick off his corporate friends.
Our friend and dearest Premier Gordie "DWI" Campbell is obsessed
with privatization. The gov't wants to privatize ICBC, although for
now they have seen sense. If only the optional in$urance market is
privatized and deregulated, that would make sense though, because
the current shambles where private companies are allowed to offer
optional in$urance but ICBC distorts the market by also providing it
is about as reminiscent of a true free market as Lenin's New
Economic Policy of the 1920s. But mandatory in$urance should remain
under government monopoly control imo.