|
Street Racing (pg. 17)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Listen, if you want to keep driving as you do that's fine by me, but don't try and convince everyone that it's not dangerous, because it is. Make all the rhetorical arguments you want, swear up and down that you're a good and safe driver, blame other people... you're really only fooling yourself. In the end, nothing you have to say is of any real consequence... the law is the law, most people agree with it, it isn't going to change any time soon. You either need to adjust your behaviour or take your chances, up to you. |
Best reply in this thread. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by Euphorica
lol @ all the tools who reply to this thread. just grand.
the new law is nothing more than a cash grab. over 2 million in less than a month...
"Street racing" is hardly a huge problem...
just cause your going 150 doesnt mean you are "Racing" cruising doesnt = racing. |
the new law is not just for street racing but also agressive driving.....so if you are not racing at 150 km/hr down the 401 then its pretty safe to assume that you are at least being an agressive driver.......they completely introduced this law the wrong way....they should have taken street racing out of the wording and just stated agressive driving.
like Moral Hazard.....I've got tons of pictures and have had to deal with many families who have lost someone in a car accident where the driver was doing even less then 50km/hr over and the driver thought they were an excellent driver and had never had an accident before.
When you've had to take photographs of a Decapitated body on the 401 because the driver was speeding down the 401 and lost control and went under a transport you tend to look at speeding a little differently. |
|
|
| 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 which is a car for speed and it was fine... sometimes on the 407 and what not its just EMPTY and theres no use to go 100 .. its bull.. in a lot of european countries speed limits are way higher or dont exist and theres less accidents statistically then in ontario alone. people here just arent educated enough to deal with things like that.. it ing rains here and people are pulling over omg i cant do this i cant drive in this rain.. its ridiculous.
not only that... but everything in this damn country is so overkill when it comes to safety and precautions.. take for example the on/off ramp speed limits... i find that theyre sufficient.. maybe in a blizzard or with black ice on the road. or something totally off topic warning labels in canada.. they actually have to say that red bull will not give u wings just temporary alertness.. .. really? my cousin was here visiting from poland and heard that... and he was just like wow... if someone went to court in Poland claiming that a redbull did not give him wings.. the judge would laugh him out and send him to a psych hospital.. like... i dunno theres just no more common sense here .
Perfect example ... i was at work today.. i work on a construction site as a project manager in Scarborough... one of the home owners came into the site driving... i look at the car.. and a buddy of mine pointed out that there is a mangled duck still alive stuck in the guys front grille.. at this point i was laughing so hard i couldnt believe that this guy had no clue... i point it out to him and say oh look whats that?.. the driver gets out and looks at the front of his car and says OMG bla bla bla . like HOW CAN U NOT FEEL THAT U JUST HIT A EN DUCK so we peeled it off and eventually it died... i have pictures but theyre on my buddies phone.. i just coudnt believe hwo stupid some people are lol. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
Just to clarify, Doesn't every country in Europe have a speed limit? Just the autobahn (and only across certain streches) does not have a speed limit that I know of. People talk as if drivers in europe are going a 150k/h all the time.
Now most countries' motorways do have a higher limit 120/130 k/h, however not on all the motorways. Many also have photo radar. So the higher limit is just that, a LIMIT. Excedding it by even 10 km results in a ticket. Whether your caught by a cop, or the photo radar.
Stop using the 'europe has no speed limit' argument because is it invalid.
*edit* I do admit drivers are 'better trained/more attentive' east of the Atlantic. Anyone who has driven across germany on the autobahn (It's honestly a beautiful thing) knows. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
a) it is improbable that the driver of this vehicle would have become airborn and then lost control upon landing if he had been doing 100 km/h as roads are designed for that speed. It is nearly impossible that that this accident would have happened had he been travelling the 70km/h speed limit on the road.
b) Clearly you have no grasp of physics.... if you are travelling 132km/h you will do significantly more damage when striking another object then if you were travelling 100km/h (all other things being equal). Are some kind of in' moron? An object travelling at a higher speed then an equally massive object at a lower speed has more energy then the slower moving object... energy translates into force in a collision, force translates into damage and injury.
c) I've investigated hundreds of motor vehicle accidents, the major ones, the ones with serious injury, all happen when at least one vehicle is travelling at high speed. I've handled approximately 60 accidents in which someone was fatally injured, only one of them happened where both vehicles were travelling at proper speeds (lady pulled out from a stop and under a transport trailer).
Listen, if you want to keep driving as you do that's fine by me, but don't try and convince everyone that it's not dangerous, because it is. Make all the rhetorical arguments you want, swear up and down that you're a good and safe driver, blame other people... you're really only fooling yourself. In the end, nothing you have to say is of any real consequence... the law is the law, most people agree with it, it isn't going to change any time soon. You either need to adjust your behaviour or take your chances, up to you. |
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.
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 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.
c)big ing 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
d) lol i like that last little remark "the law is the law and most people agree with it" i dont give a , 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. |
|
|
| Dr. DAS |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonnystel
not only that... but everything in this damn country is so overkill when it comes to safety and precautions.. take for example the on/off ramp speed limits... i find that theyre sufficient.. maybe in a blizzard or with black ice on the road. |
That's what these signs are for...worst case scenario.
Yes, in a car with good conditions you can probably take the ramp at 60, not the posted 30, with no trouble. However, the guy in his SUV driving in February probably needs to go 30. Not all signs on the highway were put there just for you. That's why it's YELLOW, it's a suggestion.
I love how many drivers are taking exception to some of the opinions expressed here...relax people.
This thread has offically jumped the shark.
MOVING ON...!!! |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Zentac_75 |
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. |
|
|
| geroin |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[/COLOR][/FONT] |
great post. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| 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. :wtf: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| Don't forget the INTERCEPT and RSQ functions. |
|
|
|
|
