TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Street Racing
Pages (11): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 »

I honestly enjoyed reading that post. It added some much needed perspective on certain aspects of the issue.

Does anyone else hear Jeff Goldblum's voice when they read Diginut's posts ???? Don't know why but I can't shake it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut [/COLOR][/FONT]

great post.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I don't want to flog a dead horse, but people on both sides seem reluctant to really consider the issue objectively, so I want to present this from a pure mathematical standpoint. If the speed limit were exactly 0, then it could easily be said that 100% of all accidents and fatalities involve speeding. If the speed limit were exactly 5 km/h, the statistic would still be very close to 100%. On the other hand, if we posted an unreachable speed limit like 800 km/h, we'd be able to say that exactly 0% of accidents are caused by speeding, unless they involve a plane. If the limit were merely very high - for example, 300 km/h - the statistic would still be very small because only a handful of cars on the road can go that fast. Looking at the edge cases, it's clear that you have a continuous mathematical function. Not linear, probably, but continuous. The speed limit itself will have a direct effect on the "% of accidents related to speeding" statistic, which shouldn't be surprising to anyone because the act of speeding itself is defined by the speed limit! You could plot this function experimentally. I can't, obviously, because I don't have source data. City planners and engineers do this sort of thing often, though, which is why they suggest posting the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed. That's the speed at which a much more meaningful curve - speed limit vs. overall accident rate - has its minimum. 100 km/h on the 400/401 is below this speed. That means we are artificially inflating the original percentage (of accidents "related" to "high" speeds). No engineer ever recommended this speed limit, just as no engineer ever recommended the speed bumps you see in many residential neighbourhoods. They exist for political reasons only; a cynic might say that it's a cash grab, although I prefer to believe that it's just humanity's naturally poor understanding of probabilities and statistics. When somebody says "1/3 of all fatal accidents involve speeding", many people instinctively reverse the correlation and think "1/3 of speeders get into fatal accidents", even though the latter statement is completely unrelated to the first. In fact, P(S [Speeding] | FA [Fatal Accident]) gives you absolutely no information about P(FA | S). And if you are trying to say that speeding is dangerous - in mathematical terms, P(FA | S) > P(FA) - then you need to know both P(FA ∩ S) (i.e. overall probability of someone speeding and being involved in a fatal accident) and P(S) (overall probability of speeding). I have never seen a concrete number for either of these statistics, in any study. In the more general case, assuming that P(A|B) ~ P(B|A) is extremely common and extremely wrong. Simply because P(S | FA) is somewhat high does not logically imply that P(FA | S) is also high, or even higher than P(FA) or P(FA | !S). And, as I mentioned above, this equation is complicated even further by the fact that speeding is defined by the speed limit, so even if you knew P(FA | S), changing the speed limit changes both P(S) and P(FA ∩ S), each in different ways. The bottom line for this long-winded post is that politicians and lawmakers, for the most part, completely ignore the most relevant real-world data and substitute totally meaningless data in its place. And your average law-abiding citizen often falls into the same trap because he doesn't see the obvious fallacy. Insurance companies are a bit of a different story because the actuarial math is all about probabilities and takes into account the inherent uncertainty and incompleteness of the statistics we do have. But for those in the insurance business, please keep in mind that actuarial statistics are not meant to imply qualitative phenomena; they are designed to balance the books in aggregate form, not predict individual occurrences.

Thanks for ruining my Sunday. I feel like doing a regression analysis on Excel now.

Don't forget the INTERCEPT and RSQ functions.

quote:

Originally posted by geroin oh no, i'm arguing with a car insurance person, i must be wrong nice insults btw, very classy a) you said 132, you did not mention that this was not a 400 series highway when we were in fact talking about highways, if this was in 70 then this is almost double the limit which is an idiotic thing to do.

The law does not pertain only to highways. In addition, there have been people in this thread boasting of driving in excess of 200km/h on a 400 series highway... so thank you for stating that they are idiots, I'm glad we agree.

quote:

b) clearly you think you are right and everyone else is wrong, especially assuming that i have no grasp in physics which is fine, you can assume whatever the fuck you want. I realize if an object is traveling faster there will be more damage when there is a collision. DEPENDING ON THE COLLISION YOU CAN DIE IN BOTH ACCIDENTS NO MATTER HOW FAST YOU ARE GOING A 100 OR 130. OVER THE LIMIT SPEED IS NOT THE MAIN FACTOR IN ACCIDENTS ON THE HIGHWAYS (unless the speed is excessive), IT IS THE HIGH SPEED ITSELF BE IT 130 OR 100 PLUS THE INEXPERIENCED DRIVERS WITH UNSAFE LANE CHANGES.

Indeed, the injuries that result from a collision depend on a great many factors, two of which are acceleration and crush (acceleration being the speed at which your body moves in a new direction post collision and crush being intrusion into the passenger cabin). If a vehicle is travelling at a higher rate of speed both the acceleration and crush will be greater then a vehicle travelling at a lower speed involved in an identical collision. We're talking probabilities here... the probability that you will be killed in a motor vehicle accident increases at higher speeds. You cannot argue around this.

quote:

c)big fucking deal what you investigated, you could be going 50 on a highway in traffic and get struck by a truck going 80 and die, to the ones that were traveling at an excessive speed got what they deserved

Exactly how does this support your argument?

quote:

d) lol i like that last little remark "the law is the law and most people agree with it" i dont give a shit, i don't agree with it, just because you like driving a 100 good for you, i dont like driving a 100 on a highway because highway it designed for much higher speeds which is at the very least 125km/h and is just safe or unsafe as it is driving 100. I'm not trying to convince anyone because i have better things to do. Regarding 150 yes it is fast, dangerous? barely on an empty highway (dangerous and stupid in traffic). Consider it street racing is even more idiotic, just a money grab by our government.

I think what you failed to understand in my post was that the law is both just and generally accepted thus is is not likely to change. All I ask is that those who choose to drive fast (myself included) understand that driving at high speed is both illegal and dangerous and they (we) are essentially gambling with both their (our) safety and money.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard In addition, there have been people in this thread boasting of driving in excess of 200km/h on a 400 series highway... so thank you for stating that they are idiots, I'm glad we agree.

I re-read every post in this thread and not a single person boasted of that. But they're still idiots!

quote:

Originally posted by fayraree I re-read every post in this thread and not a single person boasted of that. But they're still idiots!

quote:

Originally posted by jonnystel i dont understand.. itsn ot dangerous to drive over the speed limit lol... i found it safe when i was going 230 in my 03 jetta

I was driving down Cootes Drive (a road in Dundas, close to McMaster U) that used to be an 80km/h zone, but recently got down graded to a 60, then closer to the school it becomes a 40 (for a student crossing area). A mustang flew by me, must have been doing 100.... I eventually caught up to it, and it was pulled over by a cruiser. Turns out the guy was an old buddy from high school, he was standing outside of his car getting his ticket. LOL. I'm assuming a $2000 fine was tossed his way, and suspension was handed to him as well. I chuckled a little bit.

Idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard

pwned. why would someone do that?!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think what you failed to understand in my post was that the law is both just and generally accepted thus is is not likely to change. All I ask is that those who choose to drive fast (myself included) understand that driving at high speed is both illegal and dangerous and they (we) are essentially gambling with both their (our) safety and money.

Unlikely to change, that is for sure. Just, I don't know. The speeds limit on Ontario freeways are underposted (not by a ridiculous amount, but by about 20 km/h), and the system as a whole actively discourages people from exercising their due process rights.

In fairness, I should point out that speed limits on city roads usually are not underposted. Sometimes the posted speeds are actually a little higher than you'd want to be going in heavy precipitation or when the roads are slippery. Rarely, but sometimes. Speeding more than 15 km/h on city streets is not a smart idea.

the problem with the 50 over law is that it gives the police way to much power..it allows them to be judge and jury right at the side of the road. I dont know about you but I dont think they should have that kind of power.
it is also nothing more than a cash grab. in less than a month they made over 2 million dollars from this...

were any of those people "racing"? fuck no. cruising isnt racing.
drive on the 407 sometime..or on the 401 outside the city and watch as you get passed by at least half the people out there as you cruise at 140.

This new law was a knee jurk reaction to that one "Street racing crash" where that couple was killed. later found that they werent racing..just driving too fast...but the big point. the guy who got killed(who pulled in front of them) was loaded! (Drunk).

going 50 over in a school zone...ok you need to get in big trouble.

doing 50 over on the 400 series if conditions allow for it... isnt a big deal. (no its not), should you get a ticket for it if you get caught. yes! but not a $2000-$10000 ticket and automatic impound, + loss of license for a week.

you are better off driving home drunk.

and theresea maybe I mistook you for someone else with the same name..



and yes heart disease is the number one killer in canada.
"Street racing" deaths are such a small amount(not even 1 percent)...


more accidents and deaths are caused by bad driving(see: diginuts post).

quote:

The bottom line for this long-winded post is that politicians and lawmakers, for the most part, completely ignore the most relevant real-world data and substitute totally meaningless data in its place. And your average law-abiding citizen often falls into the same trap because he doesn't see the obvious fallacy. Insurance companies are a bit of a different story because the actuarial math is all about probabilities and takes into account the inherent uncertainty and incompleteness of the statistics we do have. But for those in the insurance business, please keep in mind that actuarial statistics are not meant to imply qualitative phenomena; they are designed to balance the books in aggregate form, not predict individual occurrences.

I like!

its like the lawmakers who ban certain guns(I know a whole other can of worms) based on the fact as to how scary they look(seriously thats how they do it) You can buy a completely identical firing weapon because it doesnt look as scary...they both fire the same bullet , the same way and with the same force... lol its bs.

quote:

Originally posted by Euphorica you are better off driving home drunk.

maybe i missed your point but you are NEVER better off doing that!

quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Button I was driving down Cootes Drive

Look out for the wee turtles!

Draconian laws lead to Big Brotherism
David Booth, National Post
Published: Friday, November 09, 2007


It turns out I wasn't paranoid enough.

Ontario's new "racing" law, which actually has nothing at all to do with racing, so thoroughly discombobulated me that I recently Motor Mouthed one of my patented (less kind souls would say angst-ridden) screeds that said the heavy-handed regulation was: (1) unjust; (2) likely to cause youngsters to try to run from the law; and (3) the slippery slope of Ontario's decline into a police state.

I got a number of favour-able letters -- more than a few from driving instructors who guide our youngsters in the art of avoiding getting run over by 18-wheelers -- agreeing that, indeed, many a young, testosterone-fuelled male is likely to try fleeing the gendarmerie rather than trying to explain to Dad why his brand new Lexus LS 460 got impounded. Of course, I also got a few "There, there, Dave" e-mails tut-tutting my descent into full-blown paranoia, their basic premise being that slower speeds on our thoroughfares might save lives and, of course, we can trust our constabulary to apply these new laws efficiently and fairly.

Wrong, it turns out, on both counts. First comes the news that, as of last Sunday, more than 1,000 drivers have been charged with travelling more than 50 kilometres an hour over the speed limit. That's almost 40 drivers a day that have been caught "racing" on our streets, making me wonder how it is that I have managed to drive these last 25 years in Ontario never having personally observed one of these crazed street races.

Most interesting was Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino's response. Rather than admit that the new laws were perhaps a little too draconian and catching more middle-aged college professors than young, speed-seeking youngsters, Ontario's top cop lamented that his one regret in implementing the new regulations was that he "didn't go after 30 over [the speed limit] as opposed to 50 over."

Imagine, just for a moment, the chaos if he had succeeded. Virtually everyone in Ontario would be branded a street racer. My mom has driven faster than 130 km/h on the 401. So has my dad. It would be quite difficult, I would think, to actually find someone who hasn't exceeded the speed limit by 30 klicks. Following Fantino's logic, why not reduce the threshold to 10 km/h over and brand even Buick drivers as law-scoffing drag racers?

Of course, this may not be all about safety. The province stands to collect between $2-million and $10-million for that first month's speeders alone. Some of that money will go to the municipalities whose police forces wrote up the charges, leading me to wonder why Mayor David Miller doesn't get the law re-written to charge everyone moving 10 km/h under the speed limit so he could collect fines from everyone moving faster than a bicycle courier and balance Toronto's budget.

And the insurance companies are just eating this stuff up. Why wouldn't they? Under previous rules, a 50-year-old dentist with no convictions might see a modest increase in her insurance for a speeding ticket. But with a "racing" conviction on her record, her insurance rate will be hiked through the roof. She'd be no worse a risk than before, yet she would generate a far heftier profit.

But, perhaps, being a very slow driver, none of this leaves you alarmed. This should. I've already received a letter -- detailed and well thought out, I might add--from a dedicated family man, a surgeon even, who has come face to face with the problem with making police the judge, jury and executioner of any law.

Dan (the name has been changed to protect the slightly guilty) was stopped by police after having just turned onto Eglinton East after exiting Allen Road. He wasn't much worried about a serious offence since he had been boxed in by a car in front and a car to the side. Imagine his surprise when the police officer accused him of travelling 102 km/h, "conveniently," as Dan notes, just over the 50-km/h threshold.

Dan says he felt "cheap and degraded" by this "terrible abuse of public trust and power." The police commissioner might call that "tough policing," but the first step toward the Orwellian Big Brotherism is to create laws so restrictive that everyone is guilty and so feels relieved when granted clemency by our benevolent dictators.

Still think I'm paranoid?

[email protected]

Source: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/...ccb9e294715&p=1

That was a fun EDITORIAL.

quote:

Originally posted by geroin Draconian laws lead to Big Brotherism David Booth, National Post Published: Friday, November 09, 2007 Most interesting was Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino's response. Rather than admit that the new laws were perhaps a little too draconian and catching more middle-aged college professors than young, speed-seeking youngsters,

And what does Mr. Booth base this assumption on ???

Last time I checked the transportation minister (fanta something) said 80% of those caught were male, and at least half were under 27.

*edit* does it matter who it catches as long as they are going 50 over?!?!?! */edit*

I'm 25...oh no I must be middle aged as well AAHHHH!!!!!!

Geroin...there are parts of this law that I disagree with entirely. specifically that the cops basically convict you on the spot without fair trial or due process. HOWEVER, I am willing to sacrifice my right for due process in this matter until people stop driving 50 km over the limit (a decision I may regret if I were to be wrongly accused). Anywho...I don't know how long this will hold up...I think it just may get tossed out within the year as it seems to violate our constitutional right to a fair trial. (Isn't that why photo radar got tossed???because the mailed ticket did not allow the accused to plea not guilty???)

I like the expression "Young, speed-seeking youngsters." They probably drive so fast because they have important errands to run for the Department of Redundancy Department.

quote:

Originally posted by Zentac_75 HOWEVER, I am willing to sacrifice my right

i'm not, i barely drive 50 over if ever, i do go 140 once in a while, i disagree with this law because it is way too harsh, the way it was before was fair, we do not have such a serious problem with street racers that they had to pull this law. 50 over is fast but it is not that fast to get your life messed up over speeding.

I did go through similar process, i was wrongfully convicted of dangerous driving and i did win the case in the end but it cost me 2 years of my life, stress, money and a lot of time. I was going through exams in school at the time and i had to go to trials once every few months missing important lectures and classes just because some jackass cop was pissed off when he handed me the charge. He thought i was trying to lose him when in fact i didn't. I went to court in total of 12 times, i spent over 6 grand just to win the case. I had problems getting a job because they did not care enough to take this shit of my record in time. There is much more to it but i'm not going to get into details. The point is street racing is a criminal offense as well as far as i know and getting the same punishment as i did for going 50 over is absolutely not fair and i will never agree to it.

Driving on the highway going 150 at night with no one on the road is not dangerous or street racing, you are not a criminal doing 150, you are a criminal if you go excessive speeds and you are a danger to the public.

That's rough. Glad it worked out in the end. NOW I get your stance on the issue. I was under the impression that you were defending a person's 'right' to go 50 k/h over the limit as opposing the officer's new power as judge,jury and executioner.

LMAO, fucking queers

quote:

Police Charge 85-Year-Old Under Street Racing Legislation Thursday January 3, 2008 CityNews.ca Staff An 85-year-old man has become the oldest individual ever to be charged under the province's new street racing law. Police allege the man was driving 161 km/h on Highway 407 Wednesday. The posted speed limit there is 100 km/h. "He said he was going to the bank and shopping," noted OPP Sgt. Cam Woolley, who added that road conditions at the time were snowy and icy. Anyone caught driving more than 50km/h above the limit can be charged under street racing legislation enacted Sept. 20, 2007. Among the possible penalties: drivers can have their vehicle impounded for a week and/or be fined $2,000 or more. Officers also have the option to suspend a motorist's licence for a week. Woolley contends the new laws are aimed at cracking down on all aggressive drivers, not just racers. "It got silly -- we were getting crashes at high speeds and the defence was, 'well, if they weren't racing someone, then they weren't racing,' even though the consequences are the same," he said. So far, approximately 2,300 drivers in Ontario have been charged under the street racing laws, 83.9 percent of them male. And though the average age of offenders is 30, police have also charged two 75-year-olds.

gotta be carefull out there, 85yo street racers on their souped up civics

quote:

Originally posted by geroin LMAO, fucking queers gotta be carefull out there, 85yo street racers on their souped up civics

the law is to prevent aggressive driving....which includes racing....the media has put it in everyones head that its a street racing law.

There is no way in hell an 85yo should be doing 161 km/h....especially if he is going shopping and to the bank....the bank wasn't running out of money so I can't see him having to make a mad dash to grab some cash.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced the law is to prevent aggressive driving....which includes racing....the media has put it in everyones head that its a street racing law.

uh it is street racing law buddy, this has fuck all to do with street racing and thats what he was charged with!
aggressive driving, how the fuck going 160 is considered aggressive driving on a highway in one lane, jesus christ it's not the first time you make absolutely no sense.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced There is no way in hell an 85yo should be doing 161 km/h

No one should be driving 161 km/h....that's just insane!!

quote:

Originally posted by geroin uh it is street racing law buddy, this has fuck all to do with street racing and thats what he was charged with! aggressive driving, how the fuck going 160 is considered aggressive driving on a highway in one lane, jesus christ it's not the first time you make absolutely no sense.

It's called the "Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act 2007."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.