# *%&$!!! speeding ticket.



## däycüs mäximüs (Nov 30, 2002)

got a $350 speeding ticket today, going down the 403 in oakville, just before ford drive.

so mad at myself!!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ouch! how fast do you have to go to get one of those? (I have narcolepsy and can't drive so I really don't know)


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

That's a pretty hard kick in the a$$. For me, that fine would succeed in it's intended effect.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Wow, out here in Alberta a fine that big would have you up before a judge for being 50 KPH over the limit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Drag, man. Sounds like you need to get a slower car so as to reduce the temptation. Or to cultivate greater patience. At any rate, I'm guessing you're a younger man... you sound annoyed more than aware of your own mortality.

Reminds me of getting a ticket in Eastern Ontario back in the mid-90s... the officer who pulled me over clocked me at something like 50 k over the limit and wrote it down as less than that. I forget what it was now but believe me, it cost me a good deal in relative terms. Before he let me drive off he cautioned me that, in his neck of the woods at least, 20 k above the posted limit was regarded as something they'd overlook, since most everyone was driving that speed anyway. But go a click over that and you're fair game.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

That's what he was doing....



Max said:


> *Drag, man.* Sounds like you need to get a slower car so as to reduce the temptation. Or to cultivate greater patience. At any rate, I'm guessing you're a younger man... you sound annoyed more than aware of your own mortality.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> got a $350 speeding ticket today, going down the 403 in oakville, just before ford drive.
> 
> so mad at myself!!


That's a lot of money...How fast were you going to get that kind of ticket?

I've only had one speeding ticket and it was going 50 km/hr on a 40 km/hr street.
(I was on a scooter at the time back in the 90's and it was in a school district)

Knock on wood, I haven't had a speeding ticket since.

Dave


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Hey!!! Welcome to the club!! 

I've got you beat though. 2 in one day. Same cop. One was for doing 101 km in a 50 km zone.

And watch your insurance go up. Mine doubled because of that stint.


----------



## däycüs mäximüs (Nov 30, 2002)

MaxPower said:


> Hey!!! Welcome to the club!!
> 
> And watch your insurance go up. Mine doubled because of that stint.


that's what i'm afraid of. i've just had it that i was paying a decent amount on my insurance, then this happens.

the ticket says i was was going 148 km/h... but the cop said that he clocked me at more than that..

so i guess i lose 4 points too.

... and $350.


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> the ticket says i was was going 148 km/h... but the cop said that he clocked me at more than that..


Hooooweeee! What did Daisy Duke say when when you got that ticket?
Was Uncle Jesse mad, or proud?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> that's what i'm afraid of. i've just had it that i was paying a decent amount on my insurance, then this happens.
> 
> the ticket says i was was going 148 km/h... but the cop said that he clocked me at more than that..
> 
> ...


Sounds like the cop was doing you a favour. The only thing you could do is try pleading guilty with an explanation in front of a JP to get the demerits reduced. 

Unless you chalk it up to lesson learned. Drive fast, get caught - _or much much worse..._


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> the ticket says i was was going 148 km/h... but the cop said that he clocked me at more than that..
> 
> so i guess i lose 4 points too.
> 
> ... and $350.


If you were clocked doing over 150km/h, then you're damn lucky he reduced it. If he hadn't, you'd be up in front of the courts and would be guaranteed to lose your license for at least 30 days.

I've been there, and trust me, it's not worth trying to fight this. You did the crime, own up for your responsibility and just get it over with.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Your insurance doesn't really care so much about points as it does about convictions.


----------



## madgunde (Mar 10, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The only thing you could do is try pleading guilty with an explanation in front of a JP to get the demerits reduced.


My understanding from other people who have tried is that the judge is powerless to do anything about the demerit points. All he can do is reduce the fine. If you plead guilty, you WILL be penilized the demerit points.

Cop did you a huge favour by reducing the speed on the ticket. Just pay the fine and put it behind you.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> that's what i'm afraid of. i've just had it that i was paying a decent amount on my insurance, then this happens.
> 
> the ticket says i was was going 148 km/h... but the cop said that he clocked me at more than that..
> 
> ...



What compelled you to go so fast?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

madgunde said:


> My understanding from other people who have tried is that the judge is powerless to do anything about the demerit points. All he can do is reduce the fine. If you plead guilty, you WILL be penilized the demerit points.
> 
> Cop did you a huge favour by reducing the speed on the ticket. Just pay the fine and put it behind you.


There was a time when a JP could reduce the charge in order to reduce the demerits. I guess this has changed. The fine in these cases stayed the same as it was the lesser of two evils.

I agree that the cop did him a favour. I also agree with taking responsibilities for your actions. Driving that fast is reckless, period.


----------



## Sun Dog (Jan 4, 2004)

You're just lucky you didn't kill or hurt someone, stupid.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I got stopped for going 20 km/h over the limit on my bicycle once. The cop let me off with a warning, and, I do have to admit, it wasn't really a very bright thing to do.

I'm still inclined to drive somewhat over the speed limit when conditions are good, but I really wish people would realize that driving fast doesn't save you enough time to be worth the risk (to yourself and others). You may think you're in perfect control, but an extra few km/h costs you both the few ms of reaction time you need to avoid an accident, and adds a lot to the momentum you'll be fighting in any emergency (remember, momentum = mass * velocity^2 so a little more velocity means a lot more momentum). 

The argument I've heard people (mostly young males) use to justify their speeding is "if I drive the speedlimit, I get so bored I don't pay attention, so driving faster is actually safer." This is plain BS. Driving isn't a game, and it isn't supposed to be entertaining. When you use the public roads, you risk not only yourself, but everyone around you. It's your responsibility to reduce that risk as much as possible, and if you find it boring, don't drive.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bryanc makes a lot of sense. When I drive my motor home, I set the cruise at 2,500 rpm which is about 94 kph and leave it there for the duration of the trip. It never fails that I am passed many times during a five hour run (Edmonton/Saskatoon for example) by the same vehicles. That's because they go like hell, then stop for whatever, then go like hell again.

If they too set their cruise at even 100 kph and planned ahead by packing lunch and cold drinks to avoid stops for anything but a bathroom break, they would make far better time over all. At the end of the day, they would be much safer too.

Trying to tell that to a young person is like talking to a wall though. Speed should not be a factor on your journey. At the limit or lower, you can relax and enjoy the passing scenery. You can't do that when your knuckles are white and the adrenaline is pumping at 140 kph.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Your insurance may allow 3 minor convictions over 3 years without going up; thank god mine did. I got nailed for 65km/h on the highway while passing. Cop never moved at all on the ticket. My lawyer got it down to 49km/h over and was considered a minor ticket so my insuarance company didn't care. I was young and had a new 2000 Civic SIR; I keep my fullsize truck usually no higher than 120km/h. That lesson cost me $700 and 2 points. $350 to Lawyer, $350 to the province. I miss the car, and the $700 I paid out 80(

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## Digital_Gary (Sep 18, 2003)

> I was young and had a new 2000 Civic SIR


Like riding around with a bulls eye on your back 

I have the same car and drove like an idiot when I got mine too. I must be getting old becuase I am constantly telling my wife to slow down now


----------



## Britnell (Jan 4, 2002)

so fast? 148 is just a tad over cruising speed going up the 400. Hell, if you are not doing 130, you need to be in the centre lane. Doing 110 on the 400 is almost impossible.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

... I was in Renfrew passing in the passing lane on Hwy 17 when he drove by the other way...small town cops do not like city speeders. My lawyer said he got a guy off once and the cop was mad as hell! Left the court screaming! He says thay take offence to speeders in their little town. He did his job, he caught the guy and the guy likely learned his lesson. It's not like the cop sees the money anyways.

Cheers,

Scott


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Britnell said:


> so fast? 148 is just a tad over cruising speed going up the 400. Hell, if you are not doing 130, you need to be in the centre lane. Doing 110 on the 400 is almost impossible.


Isn't the speed limit 90/km?

You'd figure with the bad accidents that happen(ed) this time of year, people would smarten the F-k up.

I guess not.

Tell me you at least have snow tires.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> that's what i'm afraid of. i've just had it that i was paying a decent amount on my insurance, then this happens.


Why was the insurance not decent before? You have previous bad behaviour?
And what was the reason for your speeding? Not that there ever is a good one.

Comments above about the speed of traffic on the 400 being 140! Fanciful! Here's a tip, stay out of that lane then. "But Mom, everyone is doing it!" Didn't work when your were 7, still doesn't. 

Since you were driving 50% faster than the posted speed limit on the 403, you got almost exactly what you deserved. If I had been the officer you would have been charged exactly the speed you were going, with a careless driving charge thrown in. Which gets you a trip to the judge no matter what and 6 demerit points plus 6 more for 50 over the limit. Instead you get dinged for 4. Lucky you! Hopefully you don't take anyone out with you when you inevitably wrap your car around something. With luck, society won't be burdened with your long term rehab costs, and even better, you will have Darwin-ed yourself out of the procreative pool.

Keep up the good work and you will find yourself being kicked into the Facility Association for your insurance. Expect to pay upwards of 6000 a year, regardless of the vehicle. And you may find that certain vehicles will cost even more or may even be uninsurable.

Also remember that the officer has a thick book of other offences he can look into, if you fail "the attitude test", as it was described to me. Back when I was young and stupid.

There are old drivers and bold drivers, but not many old, bold drivers. Myself I have an ACZ license, which allows me to drive any vehicle except school buses or motorcycles. I have seen all manner of stupid driving. Driver behaviour around large trucks is always shocking. The same person that will curse the truck taking a mile or more to get up to highway speed, will cut in front of the same vehicle, not realiizing that it will take an equally long time for that truck to stop in an emergency. At least without running over the evolutionary dead end in the car that just cut him off.

Automobile drivers are taught, hopefully, to maintain 2 seconds following distance, in GOOD conditions. For trucks it is 7 seconds minimum, in GOOD conditions. (Dry road, daylight, clear weather). 

If you don't like being in the right lane on highways with 3+ lanes, due to merging vehicles etc. take the next lane over. If conditions allow, set your cruise such that the traffic in your lane gradually pulls ahead of you. This way you will always be increasing following distance for your own safety. 

People like to talk about how expressways in parts of Europe have no speed limits, or at least higher ones than here. What gets left out tho', is the fact that no one cruises in the PASSING lane. you keep to the right all the time. Then change to the overtaking lane only when actually doing so, and also to allow traffic to enter the highway, 

Speed limit in Portugal on the autoroute was 120. Most traffic going faster, (I was being passed while doing 140), but all vehicles followed the above behaviour. Of course this requires some level of sense on the part of drivers!

link for points in Ontario
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/demerit.htm

Set fines in Ontario
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/ontario_court_justice/set_fines/schedule_43.htm#b

note that 50 over has no set fine, see the judge!
Also careless driving has this little detail. 

CARELESS DRIVING
Is one of Ontario's most serious offences. Insurance rates are known to climb at least 100% and the driver can receive a fine of up to $1000. If found guilty the driver may also receive a custodial sentence for not more than six months and may also receive a licence suspension for not more than two years.
HTA 130. "Every person is guilty of the offence of driving carelessly who drives a vehicle or street car on a highway without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway"

<note that no mention is made of a SPEED for careless driving. looks like Officer's discretion on that baby!!>

9 points will generally get you an interview with license officer to do some "splainin' " and could still get you 30 days on foot


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> Isn't the speed limit 90/km?


Minor point, but 400 series highways (at least within the GTA) generally have a posted speed limit of 100 km/hr.

Not sure about the particular speed limit of the highway in question, though.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

däycüs mäximüs said:


> got a $350 speeding ticket today, going down the 403 in oakville, just before ford drive.
> 
> so mad at myself!!


go to court
get there at least 30-45 min. before trial time - there will be a big line up
prosecutor will cut you a deal and you;ll get 90 days to pay
you'll reduce your fine and get more time to pay

don't bother with ticket busters
most are a$$holes ex cops with bigger attitudes than when they had guns

trust me on this..

prosecutors are there to get quick convictions, not to argue cases

i bet you cut your fine in half


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> ... I was in Renfrew passing in the passing lane on Hwy 17 when he drove by the other way...small town cops do not like city speeders. My lawyer said he got a guy off once and the cop was mad as hell! Left the court screaming! He says thay take offence to speeders in their little town. He did his job, he caught the guy and the guy likely learned his lesson. It's not like the cop sees the money anyways.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Scott


and they give this guy a gun?
i think cops need more psychological screening
i don't get a weapon so i can be a goof
but being a goof with a weapon and in a position of authority is a very very bad thing


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

Britnell said:


> so fast? 148 is just a tad over cruising speed going up the 400. Hell, if you are not doing 130, you need to be in the centre lane. Doing 110 on the 400 is almost impossible.



Hwy 400 has a limit of 100 km/h, and he's absolutely right about "cruising speed". If you are doing 100 km/h on the 400, you are suicidal, unfortunately. 120-130 is the required speed, as drivers doing less will be tailgated, honked at, and dangerously passed.

And I don't think people have figured out that the far left lane is a PASSING lane. It bugs me when I see vehicles passing on the right... However, most drivers seem to drive well enough to avoid accidents here, so I guess that's why it is less patrolled, and accommodates higher speeds. Then again, the volume has dramatically increased...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

> Automobile drivers are taught, hopefully, to maintain 2 seconds following distance, in GOOD conditions. For trucks it is 7 seconds minimum, in GOOD conditions. (Dry road, daylight, clear weather).


It's 4 seconds for trucks....but who's counting. Try that on any of the 400 series hwys near Toronto...LOL.



> If you don't like being in the right lane on highways with 3+ lanes, due to merging vehicles etc. take the next lane over. If conditions allow, set your cruise such that the traffic in your lane gradually pulls ahead of you. This way you will always be increasing following distance for your own safety.


Stupid advice. The middle lane is the truck passing lane, as trucks are not allowed in the far left lane on any of the 400 series hwys. Have a look at that pretty sign with the slash through the truck on overpasses. 

Keep it clear for trucks or move over. The law says keep right...so keep right and don't play cop or get a holier than thou attitude. If a vehicle want's to pass, let them pass.

Speed related accidents are caused by large discrepencies in speed between vehicles, either too slow or too fast. 

Best advice...keep up with the flow of traffic. Don't become a hazard by travelling too fast or too slow.


----------



## AppleAuthority (May 21, 2005)

kps said:


> It's 4 seconds for trucks....but who's counting. Try that on any of the 400 series hwys near Toronto...LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:clap: :clap: :clap: 

And please don't speed up when the person to your left is trying to merge right after the pass.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

kps said:


> It's 4 seconds for trucks....but who's counting. Try that on any of the 400 series hwys near Toronto...LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Might say 4 seconds in the book, but trust me, it's not enough. Most trainers would recommend a higher figure. In fact the largest trucking company in N. America teaches 7 to their drivers. Are you an actual truck driver? Try spotting yourself 4 seconds behind a vehicle and see if you would like to have 80,000 pounds that close to your butt at 60+ mph.

As for the middle lane being the truck passing lane, and staying out of it? Balls!

Trucks are the ones that should keep right except to overtake slower vehicles or to allow room for merging traffic. At least ones driven by professionals!. 

Keep with the flow of traffic? Perhaps, but you are not required to speed just to be in the lane you like. As I said, use a speed that allows traffic to GRADUALLY pull away. This maintains a safe following distance, which others are always taking away from you. I am talking about a difference in speed of as little as 1 mph.

Speed diffferential is often a factor in accidents. The most common accident involving trucks for instance, is inattentive car drivers running into the back end of a trailer. Personally, I think there should be different speed limits for different lanes on multilane highways. This would perhaps mitigate the weirdo who chooses to drive in the middle lane at 99 km/h. We've all seen it, and they figure that as long as they are close to 100 they are ok for any lane they choose. Since limits are posted as maximums, and we do not have any minimums posted, this is the result.

Studies by the AAA in the US have shown that truck lane restrictions and differential speed limits for trucks vs cars ( cars 60, trucks 55 for instance) actually increasse the risk of accidents between cars and trucks. This study not popular with the anti-truck/anti-highway crowd.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

rondini said:


> Might say 4 seconds in the book, but trust me, it's not enough. Most trainers would recommend a higher figure. In fact the largest trucking company in N. America teaches 7 to their drivers. Are you an actual truck driver? Try spotting yourself 4 seconds behind a vehicle and see if you would like to have 80,000 pounds that close to your butt at 60+ mph.


As a matter of fact, I am an "actual truck driver". Going on 28years, three million miles without a chargeable accident, fifteen of those years with my own truck and trailer, running coast to coast and all points in between.



> As for the middle lane being the truck passing lane, and staying out of it? Balls!
> Trucks are the ones that should keep right except to overtake slower vehicles or to allow room for merging traffic. At least ones driven by professionals!.


You must be an Ontario driving instructor. :lmao: 

Keep right except to pass applies to everyone. On hwys where there are truck restrictions, I expect slower traffic to extend the same courtesy that's expected of me.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Not an instructor, a former driver, now in the office babysitting....errrrrr I mean Fleet Managing.

Congrats on the good record, that in fact makes you a professional. But 4 seconds? I know that is more likely than 7, but still makes me nervous.

Good luck on that courtesy thing, tho'.

Who are you driving with these days?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

and I, wish you luck on the 'babysitting'... 

I worked dispatch for three trucking companies too and I could only take it for so long before I had to get back on the road...too many :baby: 

Did 2 years in logistics, whse management, that drove me nuts too.

I have a good gig with a cargo airline now, doing local P&D.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I was trying to find the reference but last year some guy got nailed at 110 over.
Coming off the 4 laner into Niagara Falls he was doing 150 in a 40 zone. 

Bye bye licence. I do believe he was drunk too


----------



## Deep Blue (Sep 16, 2005)

I don't condone speeding but, living in Germany, you stayed in the slow lane of any Autobahn if you were doing anything less than 120kmh. If I felt like topping that speed and I would tackle the middle lane. If I wanted to hang out in the fast lane I had to do 140kmh + or I would end up with a maniac in a BMW or Mercedes flying up behind me with his headlights flashing.

That said, I felt a lot safer on German roads than I do on Vancouvers'. People here are so dangerous on the highway. Idiots weaving in and out traffic, blocking you in so you can't change lanes, no indicators, crawling along at 80kmh in the fast lane and refusing to budge, overtaking on the right and so on. Give me speed and knowledgable drivers over the bullock cart drivers we have here on the Lower Mainland.

I should add I've only ever had one speeding ticket before - picked off by country police in Germany in their regular Sunday spot at the bottom of a hill. All the locals know the area and avoid it. Nothing more than a fund raiser - you can't help but accelerate going down a steep hill and exceeding a 50kmh limit.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Speaking of fund-rasers, I once got tagged by a radar mounted just behind an 'end of construction / resume speed' sign on the Whitemud Freeway. Officially I was going 80 in a 50 zone, but the resume speed sign was well past the end of the construction site, and I had simply accelerated to the freeway speed limit a few meters ahead of the sign.  

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Deep Blue said:


> I don't condone speeding but, living in Germany, you stayed in the slow lane of any Autobahn if you were doing anything less than 120kmh. If I felt like topping that speed and I would tackle the middle lane. If I wanted to hang out in the fast lane I had to do 140kmh + or I would end up with a maniac in a BMW or Mercedes flying up behind me with his headlights flashing.
> 
> That said, I felt a lot safer on German roads than I do on Vancouvers'. People here are so dangerous on the highway. Idiots weaving in and out traffic, blocking you in so you can't change lanes, no indicators, crawling along at 80kmh in the fast lane and refusing to budge, overtaking on the right and so on. Give me speed and knowledgable drivers over the bullock cart drivers we have here on the Lower Mainland.
> 
> I should add I've only ever had one speeding ticket before - picked off by country police in Germany in their regular Sunday spot at the bottom of a hill. All the locals know the area and avoid it. Nothing more than a fund raiser - you can't help but accelerate going down a steep hill and exceeding a 50kmh limit.


that's because properly trained drivers DON'T use their rear view mirrors for more than just backup up, even then not always

if more people were aware of the traffic flow, or lack thereof, behind them they might move over

i travel the 400 a lot and it's usually a van in the left lane doing 115 keeping everyone else back thinking that he or she is the ruler of the road
and if you pass them on the right, you get the "finger"

i especially get annoyed at vans with boat (or other) trailers in the left hand lane

there's a radio commercial on tv that goes something like; "ever notice that anyone driving slower than you is an moron and anyone driving faster than you is an idiot"

just for the record, i regularly check my rear view mirror when i am driving and always move into the middle lane when traffic permits

if at least 5 cars pass you while you are hogging the left lane, lay off the testosterone and move the f*ck over !!!


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

kps said:


> Speed related accidents are caused by large discrepencies in speed between vehicles, either too slow or too fast.


Exactly. 

I sometimes take the 407 in the morning and get on at Brock. I set my cruise control to 140km/h and stick to the right lane. I get passed by work trucks and minivans consistently. I almost feel unsafe because i am not keeping up. Staying at 100km/h in that situation is just plain stupid. 

Of course i then get to Markham Rd and it bogs right down. 

The weak link in the system is driver training.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

maximusbibicus said:


> I set my cruise control to 140km/h and stick to the right lane. I get passed by work trucks and minivans consistently. I almost feel unsafe because i am not keeping up. Staying at 100km/h in that situation is just plain stupid.
> 
> Of course i then get to Markham Rd and it bogs right down.
> 
> The weak link in the system is driver training.


The practice is commonly called dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. Travelling at that speed is lunacy no matter the reason. One of these days when it bogs down, you'll find yourself eating the backside of another vehicle before you can react. Driver training indeed.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We drove steadily at 160 in France on tighter roads with no issues at all. We were passed pretty consistently as well by vehicles in the 200+ range.

Speed on clear roads with a properly maintained vehicle is a non-issue when traffic allows.

The 400 series highways are wider and have more gradual turn radius standards than many French highways.

Unsafe vehicles, poor driver etiquette ( left lane hogging/tail gating), not accelerating into traffic flow or exiting properly and not driving to conditions are the major culprits......as are SUV owners who think traction = stopping power and end up on their rooves. 

140 is the norm for many GTA stretches when traffic is light.
I like the blitzes on unsafe vehicles and dangerous practices like tail gating and weaving.


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

SINC said:


> One of these days when it bogs down, you'll find yourself eating the backside of another vehicle before you can react. Driver training indeed.


Thanks for the pep talk. :lmao: 

Years of stop and go on the 401 have prepared me well. You know, you aren't the only one that has practical life experience. I've logged almost 1,000,000KM in the last 15 years, and i don't even drive for a living. Regardless, a level headed teen with two years driving experince in many cases is a better driver than a 50 year old with 30 years of experience. Bad habits develop fast and are often tough to break. 

Keep yourself visable, pay attention, keep out of the passing lane except to pass and keep up with traffic. Simple. 

Lose the "I naturally know more because I am older" schtick. Its getting annoying.


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> We drove steadily at 160 in France on tighter roads with no issues at all. We were passed pretty consistently as well by vehicles in the 200+ range.
> 
> Speed on clear roads with a properly maintained vehicle is a non-issue when traffic allows.
> 
> ...


Well thought out post. I agree completely. Funny how when i talk to people that have visited or lived in Europe (Germany and Italy mostly) they always say the feel safer on those highways than on ours. A lot of the highways in German don't have speed limits and its not uncommom to cruise at speeds approaching 225km/h. 

Sinc would **** his pants there. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mmm I sit a bit in the middle. Reaction time is marginal as much of driving is autonomic - you are not consciously aware of your actions moment by moment and young drivers tend to lack judgement which is why despite their reaction times they have more accidents.

Sort of like squash - young players don't beat the 30 somethings.

I do agree with the bad habits comment.
I continually force myself to up my rearview mirror time ( supposed be every 7 seconds or so ) and actively keep a buffer in front of me, look for bubble zones and stay well away from "lock step" clusters.

A critical item that carries over from flying is looking well ahead and anticipating....something I dialogue with the kids on all the time. Look to see well ahead vehicles entering and leaving and set up conditions where it's safe for all....especially with trucks around you.

Let them know they can pull in or across with your lights and don't stick on their corners or blind spots....that goes for other cars as well.

I see far too many flat out oblivious drivers bailing along when brake lights are going on further up the road or merging traffic is about to cause issues.

Much danger is coming at you from the rear and keeping that space clear is an endless effort when traffic tightens up - I regularly use my flashers to warn off tailgaters and will drop back further to leave a greater cushion ahead if they are on ignore. 

Not a few times I've seen a panicked driver in my rear view mirror trying desperately to haul it in and I've had room to give them.
Toronto traffic is for sure a survival of the fittest game.

Every flight trainer will tell you flying smoothly, knowing your equipment and anticipation is the key to safety - the same applies to driving.

Anyone else regularly test stopping distances with their vehicle?? 
When I don't know the conditions I'll hit the brakes hard on with no one around just to see how slippy it might be.
It's also the first thing I do with a new vehicle push the edges a bit in an isolated stretch so their are fewer surprises.

•••

Maxim....I recall doing the Autobahn at 160 in the middle lane heading from Amsterdam to Geneva via Germany in a small 1.3 litre something or other.
A Mercedes 600 went by me like I was standing still - the shock wave just rocked my little car - he had to be approaching 300 - carved a big sweeping turn over a bridge and disappeared into the distance.
Amazing.
The most consistent high speed bit aside from the usual Beemers and Mercedes in France when we were there were TDi VWs.
Blew us off all the time.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

maximusbibicus said:


> Thanks for the pep talk. :lmao:
> 
> Years of stop and go on the 401 have prepared me well. You know, you aren't the only one that has practical life experience. I've logged almost 1,000,000KM in the last 15 years, and i don't even drive for a living. Regardless, a level headed teen with two years driving experince in many cases is a better driver than a 50 year old with 30 years of experience. Bad habits develop fast and are often tough to break.
> 
> ...


Having logged well over 2 million kilometers myself, I do know a thing or two about driving and excessive speed is a no-brainer regardless of your age. Read it for yourself from the Canada Safety Council:

Speed Kills
_There is an ongoing debate in Canada about speed limits on major highways. Advocates of higher limits need only look across the border for proof that raising speed limits is a bad idea.
A recent study examined the impact of higher travel speeds on US rural interstates after the repeal in November 1995 of the national speed limit. Researchers found states that had increased their speed limits to 75 mph (120 km/h) experienced a shocking 38 per cent increase in deaths per million vehicle miles than expected, compared to deaths in those states that did not change their speed limits. States that increased speed limits to 70 mph (112 km/h) showed a 35 per cent increase in fatalities.
The US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has tracked vehicle speeds on rural and urban interstates since 1987. Preliminary data for 2003 show the highest speeds the Institute has ever observed. In California, for example, the speed limit is 70 mph. However, the mean speed is 74. Well over two-thirds (69 per cent) of drivers go over 70 mph, and 19 per cent go faster than 80 mph.
As US speed limits have risen, statistics show an associated increase in lives lost. The Canada Safety Council seriously questions why any jurisdiction in Canada would choose to follow this lead._

http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/speed.html


----------



## maximusbibicus (Feb 25, 2002)

SINC said:


> Having logged well over 2 million kilometers myself, I do know a thing or two about driving and excessive speed is a no-brainer regardless of your age. Read it for yourself from the Canada Safety Council:
> 
> Speed Kills
> _There is an ongoing debate in Canada about speed limits on major highways. Advocates of higher limits need only look across the border for proof that raising speed limits is a bad idea.
> ...


I'll stick to my opinion that it isn't speed that kills. Its a combination of speed/lousy driver training/inexperience/bad habits/selfish drivers and drivers that don't follow the rules of the road. Throw a couple of beers in the mix and thats where deaths come from.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There could be any number of reasons for that death rise other than speed - I'll bet SUVs have a huge impact on death rates.



> Traffic crash mortality rates in the United States declined from 26.4 per 100 000 person-years in 1969 to 14.7 in 2003.1,2 At least five factors may have influenced this decline in mortality. Citizen groups that influenced attitudes and laws regarding drunk driving have been credited with part of this decrease.3–6 The first state seat belt law was adopted in 1984;6–8 by 2004, 80% of 52 000 observed front seat motorists were belted.9 By 1994 most new cars had dual air bags and these were required in cars by 1998 and in light trucks by 1999.10 Observed helmet use by motorcyclists was 63% in 1994, rose to 71% in 2000, but declined to 58% by 2002.11 Bicycle helmet use has become more common in some regions.12
> 
> We studied US traffic deaths during 1982–2001 to assess the contribution of alcohol use, not wearing a seat belt, lack of an air bag, not wearing a motorcycle helmet, and not wearing a bicycle helmet. We estimated the count and proportion of deaths attributed to each risk factor, the change in prevalence for each factor, and trends in mortality rates for all US traffic crash deaths and for deaths attributed to each of the five risk factors and combinations of these factors.


So tell me where is the increase here since most states went off the 55 mph standard introduced in the 70s oil crunch during this period.

The speeds went from 55 to 65-75 but the mortality rate went down. .....nice try....no cigar.



> There were 858 741 traffic deaths (rate 16.75) during the 20 year period. When the five risk factors were considered separately, 43% (366 606) of all crash deaths could be attributed to alcohol (table 1), 30% (259 239) to not wearing a seat belt, 4% (31 377) to lack of an air bag, and 1% each to lack of a motorcycle (12 095) or bicycle (10 552) helmet. *Jointly, the five risk factors accounted for 61% (528 105) of the deaths*;


http://ip.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/3/148

funny - speed not mentioned once.



> Final fatality figures for 2003 reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) today indicate a marginal decrease in overall fatalities over 2002. NHTSA reported that there were 42,643 traffic deaths in 2003, 577 fewer deaths than the agency had announced for 2003 in its early assessment last April. At the same time, NHTSA revised its fatality figures for 2002, increasing that total from 42,815 up to 43,005. The previously announced figures for both years indicated that traffic deaths were still on the rise.
> 
> Even according to the revised figures there were mixed results in the 2003 figures, with *deaths in sport utility vehicles (SUVs) rising dramatically, traffic deaths in motorcycle crashes increasing for the 6th year in a row,* and fatalities in crashes involving large trucks on the upswing.


http://www.saferoads.org/press/press2004/pr_FARSFinalRelease8-10-04.htm



> The FARS report also shows a dramatic 12 percent jump in motorcycle deaths in 2003 against a backdrop of efforts by state legislators to repeal all-rider motorcycle helmet laws. According to the FARS report, motorcycle deaths have increased six years in a row. Safety groups beat back attempts this year to repeal or severely weaken all-rider motorcycle helmet laws in several state legislatures, including California, Maryland, Tennessee, and Michigan. Louisiana, which had seen a 100 percent increase in motorcycle fatalities since repealing its all-rider helmet law in 1999, re-instated its helmet law in June. *Every state that has repealed its all-rider motorcycle helmet law has experienced an increase in deaths and injuries.*
> 
> Rollover deaths continued at high levels due to the ever-increasing proportion of light trucks in the passenger vehicle fleet. Overall, rollover deaths in SUVs jumped nearly 7 percent, from 2,471 in 2002 to 2,639 in 2003. The majority of people killed in SUVs, 6 of every 10, die in rollover crashes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> The speeds went from 55 to 65-75 but the mortality rate went down. .....nice try....no cigar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't tell me, tell the Canada Safety Council if you think you know better than them. 

I'm stickin' with them BTW.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah well if we all walked I'm sure the Canada Safety Council would recommend a slow walk then there would be very few traffic fatalities.

There is a trade off for a society's efficiency versus safety.

Speed as a factor is very minor compared to legislation for alcohol, helmuts ( duh ) and safer vehicle design ( aka SUV and light truck).
Notice all the ads about computerized "stability" these days 

One of the major benefits to traffic safety and flow in the GTA has been metered entrance ramps.

THAT's the kind of focus needed.

Driver training, better roads and signs, unsafe vehicle blitzes, spot checks for alcohol and drugs, unsafe driving blitzes, seat belt and helmut laws....these are all worthwhile efforts.

Lower speed limits is way way down the list and with the distances for transport in Canada.......it hurts productivity for no good reason.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Must be nice to consider oneself right every time on every subject.

Me, I'm with the Canada Safety Council who say speed kills. Ask any cop. They too know more about it than the average bear.


----------



## däycüs mäximüs (Nov 30, 2002)

rondini said:


> Why was the insurance not decent before? You have previous bad behaviour?
> And what was the reason for your speeding? Not that there ever is a good one.
> 
> Comments above about the speed of traffic on the 400 being 140! Fanciful! Here's a tip, stay out of that lane then. "But Mom, everyone is doing it!" Didn't work when your were 7, still doesn't.
> ...


this was my very first offence. my record is clean (except for this one) and my insurance is fairly low. i worry because obviously no one wants to pay more. that's the reason why i'm worried about it. hearing some people on this forum and from other people at work about their stories about their reckless abandon when they were "young and stupid" fills me with satiety, knowing that i am not alone.

but i sure am glad that there's (always) someone out there who's a lot holier than myself to tell me how much in the wrong i was, especially since i've been rewinding the incident over and over in my mind for the past 3 days knowing that a.) i could have avoided it and b.) i could've really hurt somebody, and myself.

thanks, father rondini. i'll say my penance and hope to the lord almighty that the devil doesn't possess my mortal soul once more and succumb to temptation.


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

not sure when providing facts and information became "holier than thou"? Also don't recall saying I never made any mistakes. which would make me holier than thou/

Pax vobiscum!


----------



## markceltic (Jun 4, 2005)

*Driving styles...*

Since we are on the subject of highway related matters here's a little something to add  
Beat-up pick-up, harpoon mounted in the rear window, box of Caplin for a snack, "I Loves Joey" bumper sticker: Newfoundland

One hand on the wheel, the other clutching a double-double, glove box stuffed with forged car inspection stickers, taking the back-roads to the bootlegger: Nova Scotia

Painstakingly preserved '65 Citroên, no need of breaks or turn signals, federal government employee parking sticker, "Vive le Québec Libre" bumper sticker: Quebec

One hand on 12oz. double shot latte, one knee on wheel, cradling cell phone, PDA in one hand, Blackberry in the other, newspaper in the lap, totally oblivious to everything else: Ontario

Nova Scotia plates, empty beer cans & pizza boxes on the floor, back seat made up as a bed, "Easterners Go Home" bumper sticker: Alberta

One hand on wheel, one hand on nonfat double decaf cappuccino, with a joint between the fingers, cradling cell phone, smell of McDonalds fryer oil coming out the bio-fuel converted, diesel engine exhaust: British Columbia


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ah Sinc no wonder you love King Harper. Daddy knows best 

Funny the study on death rates in automobiles which of course you couldn't be bothered to read simply failed to include speed and when the speed limit in the US went UP - the death rate went down.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good kowtow to "Big Brother knows best."
The ideal prole.



> Category The Netherlands Germany Sweden Australia USA
> 
> Accident
> Rate 0.38 0.67 N/A 0.15 0.63
> ...


http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/speed06.html


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Ah Sinc no wonder you love King Harper. Daddy knows best


Just because YOU don't get it gives you no right to pursue your constant "I know better than you attitude" on this board.

Any police officer will tell you that speed is the constant in the bits and pieces of people like you who they scrape off the pavement with a shovel, when practicing your theory.


----------



## kloan (Feb 22, 2002)

Speed the constant?

Speed or no speed, accidents are caused by people not paying attention. You could be going 20km/hr or 150km/hr. Only difference is one'll kill ya, the other will just bruise your ego.

Speed doesn't kill people, people kill people. lol...


----------

