[Xort]

Strutz Strutz:

It makes no difference what the speed limit is.
There will always be people that will go over it.
There will always be people that will go under it.
There will always be a hundred other factors that can contribute to accidents.

The effective speed of a vehicle when it crashes is the most important factor in the severity of the crash. Having an overall higher limit will have overall more people traveling at higher speeds, which overall makes crashes more deadly.

The average of vehicle mass is 1841.59kg, call it 1850.

At 100km/h or 27m/s a vehicle has a kinetic energy of 674kJ
At 120km/h or 33m/s a vehicle has a kinetic energy of 1,025kJ
20km adds 350kJ to a crash, or half of the energy of a 100km/h crash.
Add 10km/h to 120km/h and you have 200kJ more.

Speed kills, above all else in car crashes. The main cause, the massive majority of all crashes are caused by driver error, and driver error is complicated by a high vehicle speed. Mistakes at lowers speeds that do nothing, become killers at higher speeds.

Their are other factors, but you could fix every other factor and still do less than correcting 10% the speed issue, as an example.

In public safety, their is no easier or more direct way to save lives than to lower driving speeds.

The only question is how to do it, and how to get people to want to go slower. Clearly education doesn't work, clearly driver training doesn't work.

[Brenda]

$1:

In public safety, their is no easier or more direct way to save lives than to lower driving speeds.

I disagree.
In public safety, there is no easier or more direct way to save lives than to ban cars altogether.

[Xort]

Brenda Brenda:

I disagree.
In public safety, there is no easier or more direct way to save lives than to ban cars altogether.

I think you would have a lot more trouble banning cars than lowering a speed limit.

I was once told that a definition of easy was something that you can do. I'm not sure I agree with that definition, but dropping a speed limit is something that can be done, banning the use of cars isn't something you can do in Canada.

The social and political difference that would be required to ban cars would be on scale with how society would be after a full nuclear exchange WWIII.

[Brenda]

Seriously? You actually took the time to try to school me there as well?

You can lower any speed limit you want. Doesn't mean people will not speed, nor does it mean people will not kill themselves driving. So that is helping people how?
You can get killed going 30 and survive going 180.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Seriously? You actually took the time to try to school me there as well?

You can lower any speed limit you want. Doesn't mean people will not speed, nor does it mean people will not kill themselves driving. So that is helping people how?
You can get killed going 30 and survive going 180.

Get a grip, Brenda. By your argument, there should be no speed limits at all, because the same number of people will get killed if you set the speed at 30 vs 180. You're not really that stupid are you? Even in the land of the Autobahn they have speed limits everywhere else.

The unfortunate calculus is speed limits vs number of acceptable deaths. And we're pretty inured to traffic deaths, even tho they by far outnumber the spectacular deaths in flying, say. Just because it happens one or two people at a time, it doesn't register with us.

[andyt]

$1:

Numerous studies of the relationship between increased speed limits and accident rates have been conducted since 1987, when states were allowed to increase maximum speed limits from 55 miles per hour (mph) to 65 mph. According to the NCHRP, the studies did not identify a clear relationship.

Consequently, NCHRP conducted its own study to help guide state highway officials and policy makers in setting speed limits. It examined these earlier studies, surveyed state transportation and police departments, and collected and analyzed relevant data.

The NCHRP study found that higher speed limits were associated with an increased likelihood of deaths and incapacitating injuries. It found that increasing a speed limit from 55 to 65 mph on an "average" section of high speed road resulted in about a 3% increase in the total number of crashes and a 24% increase in the likelihood that a vehicle occupant would be fatally injured. This increased crash rate would yield a 28% increase in the number of fatalities following the speed limit increase.

The study also found a similar, but lesser, impact when speed limits were raised from 65 to 75 mph. In those cases, the total number of crashes increased by 0.64%, increasing the probability of a fatality by 12%, with an overall increase of 13% in total fatalities. Although the analysis did not explain why a smaller increase occurred at the higher speeds, the study suggested that people may drive more cautiously when driving faster, or that roads deemed appropriate for a 75 mph limit are safer.

A subsequent study published in the American Journal of Public Health found about a 3.2% increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limit on all roads in the U.S. The highest increases were on rural and urban interstates. The researchers attributed 12,545 deaths and 36,583 injuries in fatal crashes over a 10-year period to increased speed limits nationwide.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0074.htm

$1:

The theoretical reasons for the increase in road deaths are pretty self-evident. At higher speeds you have to react more quickly and have less margin for error, making accidents more likely. Kara Kockelman of the University of Texas at Austin, along with Jon Bottom and other contributors, prepared a report on the topic for the Transportation Research Board (the gold standard of transportation bodies). It showed that being on a road with a 65 mph limit instead of 55 mph means a 3 percent higher probability of a crash taking place.
Much more significant is the fact that the extra speed makes the crashes that do occur far more deadly. Kockelman et al. estimated that the difference between a crash on a 55 mph limit road and a crash on a 65 mph one means a 24 percent increase in the chances the accident will be fatal. Along with the higher incidence of crashes happening in the first place, a difference in limit between 55 and 65 adds up to a 28 percent increase in the overall fatality count.

http://freakonomics.com/2010/04/02/life ... fast-lane/

$1:

And certainly other factors (like weather, DUI, law enforcement, seatbelt usage, demographics, driver education, driving while distracted, and car and highway design) are in many cases much more important than speed for accident and fatality rates.

Weather - often very poor on the Coq. Driver ed - we don't do a good job of it. Driving while distracted - nuff said.

Our cars have no problem with the higher speeds - vehicles have much improved from when 70 mph was the norm.

BC highways seem to be designed by idiots tho. We have very poor/short entry and exit lanes. There's a spot I drive frequently where I'm trying to exit from a 90 kph road while the the exit lane is also an entry lane for people wanting to enter the highway. So they are trying to boot it to match speed, while I'm trying to decelerate to exit. Insane.

I once drove across Canada in a 240z. Ontario seems to build much better roads, where the corners are actually banked to keep the car on the road, instead of being off camber as we like to do in BC. Being a young idiot, I punched my car to 130mph = 209kph to pass a 'Cuda. I was watching him in my rearview mirror when i happened to take a look ahead, and there was a curve coming up. Braking would have been fatal, so I floored it, and to my surprise, the corner sucked my car to the road because it was banked properly. Yahoo. Did the next 400 miles in 4 hours. This is in western Ontario in the 70's - almost nobody on the road.

According to Brenda, I should be OK driving like that, since speed is irrelevant to chance of fatality. I finally did total the Z, trying to take a slow to 20mph corner at 80. Unfortunately there was gravel on the road which caused me to slide. Walked away tho, so hey, no problem right?

[Canadian_Mind]

Personally, I think the trade off is acceptable. Why should everyone drive slower to reduce the already very low risk of dying in a car crash? If people didn't think the trade off was worth it, they'd drive slower. But they don't. There is risk in everything, and I find it puzzling how overpopulation and overconsumption of resources is a crisis, yet we still make minimalism our top priority for risk management.

Everyone does this trade off in their head. Yes, if there was no speed limit, some people would speed as fast as they can go, some would also go as slow as they could go. But I'm faithful that the majority would stick to the already established 110-130 range. This is where most people drive anyway. And if you look at the statistics originally gathered for and subsequently used to justify the speed limit increase, the current speed limit is still considered arbitrarily low by half the Coquahalla users.

So the solutions were the following:
- Leave the limit where it is and only hit the very worst offenders (status quo). So far doesn't stop speeding.
- Leave the limit where it is and launch a blitz campaign where literally 90% of the people would be pulled off the road, utilizing an innumerable amount of police resources and pissing everyone off. Would stop speeding, and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
- Raise the limit to what the majority of people feel is acceptable and blitz those who drive dangerously (too fast, too slow, etc). This is too early to determine how well it works, but it is what they are doing. There is science behind it. Lets see how it plays out.

There are many concerns that raising the limits 10kph will just make everyone go 10kph faster. The science says only 2-3kph. I think it's both. Just as when you get your full drivers licence for the first time, you will have that overwhelming sense of freedom, and you will abuse it. Everyone does. If you say you didn't then I do believe you're a liar. Same shit here. New limits mean new freedom. Means you can go that extra 10, so you will. Eventually though, the nuance will wear off, you'll realise that perhaps doing 130 - 140 isn't really all that great (what I may have driven the Coq at in previous years), and you'll slow down back to what you feel is comfortable. For me this is 120-130 depending on the section of road (couple spots where 100). I may or may not just permanently set the cruise at 120 now for a few reasons: burns less fuel than 130, no excuse at all for the cops to pull me over, and i get to enjoy the scenery a bit more. 120kph also makes it very convenient to calculate time-to-destination in your head (distance/2 = time in minutes).

[Brenda]

The first thing Canada should do, is make sure people can actually DRIVE. That means, have them educated by professionals. NOT by mothers/fathers/friends, who have also been taught by idiots.

[Brenda]

$1:

According to Brenda, I should be OK driving like that, since speed is irrelevant to chance of fatality. I finally did total the Z, trying to take a slow to 20mph corner at 80. Unfortunately there was gravel on the road which caused me to slide. Walked away tho, so hey, no problem right?

Everything is so black and white with you, isn't it.

Did I SAY that? Seriously?
Maybe, just MAYBE, you should stop putting words in my mouth, come to conclusions, while you have no damned clue about anything but your little corner of the world.

Common sense is not your strong suit ("roads are constructed by idiots".. SERIOUSLY?? You can do it better? Then f*cking DO it better. Oh, wait... Internet tough guy... Sorry 'bout that...), is it...

[andyt]

If you're using cruise, you're in light traffic. If there is little traffic, going well over the speed limit is no problem for most people driving mechanically sound cars. The problem arises when it gets congested. I've mostly driven the Coq in the winter for backcountry skiing, but I bet in the summer there are tons of RVs on it, driven by people who may have rented them and don't know how to drive them, struggling up the hill, or running away from the driver on the downhill. Plus distracted drivers with kids in the back seat, tired from the day, etc etc. And still there will be the yahoos that are going to drive over the limit no matter what.

Really, we probably have the technology to have variable speed limits depending on conditions. In the winter the speed should probably never exceed 100, you never know when you hit that patch of black ice. I've spun out on ice in first gear, driving back from Whistler. If the road is congested, the speed limit should be less, so you don't get the yahoos trying to do the high speed limit even when conditions don't favor that.

OTOH, if the road has little traffic and conditions are bare and dry, have at er. Even going 130 or 140 is probably OK. The problem with our traffic enforcement is that it is exactly during these favorable conditions that the cops will be out with their radar to give tickets. The cops should give up on radar traps and just cruise the highway looking for numbnuts driving too fast for conditions, or so slow as to impede traffic. In fact just the visible presence of cops driving on the road will slow things down nicely, whereas once you've passed that radar trap you know you're good to go.

[andyt]

Brenda Brenda:

Common sense is not your strong suit ("roads are constructed by idiots".. SERIOUSLY?? You can do it better? Then f*cking DO it better. Oh, wait... Internet tough guy... Sorry 'bout that...), is it...

I can do better. I just need to look at US highways, with very well constructed on/off ramps, or my aforementioned experience in Ontario, where the curves and banked to help keep your car on the road, instead of like we do it in BC, which is to bank the road to have the rain run off to the more convenient side, which means many curves have off camber banking.

[Brenda]

Then build better roads in BC. You do it. You lead 'them idiots' who obviously have no clue what they are doing.

[Canadian_Mind]

For the most part I agree with you Andy.

andyt andyt:

If you're using cruise, you're in light traffic.

Or you're the only one doing the speed limit in the right hand lane. I've had that happen to me when the limit was 110.

Andyt Andyt:

If there is little traffic, going well over the speed limit is no problem for most people driving mechanically sound cars. The problem arises when it gets congested. I've mostly driven the Coq in the winter for backcountry skiing, but I bet in the summer there are tons of RVs on it, driven by people who may have rented them and don't know how to drive them, struggling up the hill, or running away from the driver on the downhill. Plus distracted drivers with kids in the back seat, tired from the day, etc etc. And still there will be the yahoos that are going to drive over the limit no matter what.

I recently came up with and now frequently flaunt this idea: Make driver education a graduating requirement, and teach it in school. Have a basic driving course worth credits that is required (rules of the road, emergency procedures, practical examination, etc), and a couple optional advanced courses like advanced driving/emergency techniques, how to drive an RV, how to drive with a trailer, early start to a commercial licence, etc.

Of course you could get the optional courses outside highschool... but like all other post-highschool courses, they would cost the individual money.

$1:

Really, we probably have the technology to have variable speed limits depending on conditions. In the winter the speed should probably never exceed 100, you never know when you hit that patch of black ice. I've spun out on ice in first gear, driving back from Whistler. If the road is congested, the speed limit should be less, so you don't get the yahoos trying to do the high speed limit even when conditions don't favor that.

I like the idea of variable limits. And not just a blanket variable either. conditions could be great up to the snow-sheds, so have the sheds at 60 and the rest at 120 (just make sure people slow down before the hill). I also like the idea of minimum speeds. Ie. you must be travelling between 100 and 120 when those are the limits. Of course this isn't practicable on it's own, exceptions would need to be made for slow trucks, RVs, etc. going up hill. But for the most part, stay in this window or you will be nailed.

Set it for 110-130 in perfect summer conditions, and 100-120 in perfect winter conditions. Keep the 20kph window, but go down from there.

Andyt Andyt:

OTOH, if the road has little traffic and conditions are bare and dry, have at er. Even going 130 or 140 is probably OK. The problem with our traffic enforcement is that it is exactly during these favorable conditions that the cops will be out with their radar to give tickets. The cops should give up on radar traps and just cruise the highway looking for numbnuts driving too fast for conditions, or so slow as to impede traffic. In fact just the visible presence of cops driving on the road will slow things down nicely, whereas once you've passed that radar trap you know you're good to go.

I think people treat cruisers on the highway the same way. As soon as he pulls off, you are free and clear again. All highway patrol vehicles should be effectively cammed ghost cars that for the most part just roam and record traffic. For violations bad enough (more than 10 over or under the limitations without 4-ways and outside of written exceptions, trolling, accidentally cutting someone off, etc), mail someone a ticket. Only when a violation is an immediate threat (excessive speeding, excessively trolling the left lane, racing, consistently cutting people off, etc) would someone actually get pulled over.

[Zipperfish]

There should be speed limits for everyone but me, 'cause I'm such an awesome driver.

[2Cdo]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

There should be speed limits for everyone but me, 'cause I'm such an awesome driver.

Wrong, I am the awesomest driver!