Speeding up when someone attempts to pass

[John500]

Mmm....interesting spin....by adhering to the posted speedlimit, I am a danger on the road? So because 90% is wrong I am a danger? I think the speedlimits should be changed. But maybe there is a reason why there are speeedlimits. Sorry dont buy the spin.

[Smurf]

Would have to agree John since speed is one of the main causes of accidents.

[FreeRights]

Really? Guess how many accidents I have been in, speeding tickets I have received, and how many pedestrians I have mowed over.... Zero thanks...

The problem is you driving 20 KM below the speed limit, hogging two lanes, while weaving from lane to lane with both hands on the wheel with that beer in your hand, and your joint in the other. You should be locked up for the rest of your days....


Then again, I could be assuming, just like you did.

I drive the speed limit. By default, the speed limit is for everybody's safety. You drive over the speed limit, therefore putting people at risk. I am not 'assuming' when I told you that you were the problem. You attested to speeding, and that is enough verified information to determine that you are then an unsafe driver.

Speed limits aren't there to annoy people. Specialists whose job it is to determine how fast you can safely go on various roads adjust the signage. Are you suggesting that you know more about driving than these people do, and that you're such a good driver that you're capable of over-ruling their safety decisions? Or do you just not care?

Please, enlighten me as to why you choose speed over safety. To a person like myself, that seems like an extremely stupid trade-off, so I'd like to understand it from your perspective.

[jbaris]

I drive the speed limit. By default, the speed limit is for everybody's safety. You drive over the speed limit, therefore putting people at risk. I am not 'assuming' when I told you that you were the problem. You attested to speeding, and that is enough verified information to determine that you are then an unsafe driver.

Speed limits aren't there to annoy people. Specialists whose job it is to determine how fast you can safely go on various roads adjust the signage. Are you suggesting that you know more about driving than these people do, and that you're such a good driver that you're capable of over-ruling their safety decisions? Or do you just not care?

Please, enlighten me as to why you choose speed over safety. To a person like myself, that seems like an extremely stupid trade-off, so I'd like to understand it from your perspective.

I completely disagree. Speed limits should be "guidelines only" for people who are unfamiliar with the roads. These limits are not the maximum 'safe' speed at which people can travel. They are set low to cover their own behinds because if someone in a 1990 minivan tries to go around a corner at and flips over, they may get a lawsuit if they were going the speed limit. The limit is set unrealistically low, so that someone with an old-school minivan with bald tires and worn out shocks can go the speed limit without having a problem. I can do 100km/hr off the new bridge going towards westbank very safely in ideal conditions.

Many vehicles today are very agile and can SAFELY go MUCH faster than the posted speed limit.You can't clump everyone into one group and one speed limit. Motorbikes and high performance vehicles should be able to go as fast as they safely can. It's the driver's responsibility to look at the current road conditions and adjust accordingly. Let's vote for speed guidelines instead of speed limits. Most of us travel faster than the limit anyway, so let's make it legal.

[AlanH]

Really? Guess how many accidents I have been in, speeding tickets I have received, and how many pedestrians I have mowed over.... Zero thanks...

The problem is you driving 20 KM below the speed limit, hogging two lanes, while weaving from lane to lane with both hands on the wheel with that beer in your hand, and your joint in the other. You should be locked up for the rest of your days....


Then again, I could be assuming, just like you did.

I drive the speed limit. By default, the speed limit is for everybody's safety. You drive over the speed limit, therefore putting people at risk. I am not 'assuming' when I told you that you were the problem. You attested to speeding, and that is enough verified information to determine that you are then an unsafe driver.

Speed limits aren't there to annoy people. Specialists whose job it is to determine how fast you can safely go on various roads adjust the signage. Are you suggesting that you know more about driving than these people do, and that you're such a good driver that you're capable of over-ruling their safety decisions? Or do you just not care?

Please, enlighten me as to why you choose speed over safety. To a person like myself, that seems like an extremely stupid trade-off, so I'd like to understand it from your perspective.

I don't see where I mentioned I speed... Do you?

[FreeRights]

I drive the speed limit. By default, the speed limit is for everybody's safety. You drive over the speed limit, therefore putting people at risk. I am not 'assuming' when I told you that you were the problem. You attested to speeding, and that is enough verified information to determine that you are then an unsafe driver.

Speed limits aren't there to annoy people. Specialists whose job it is to determine how fast you can safely go on various roads adjust the signage. Are you suggesting that you know more about driving than these people do, and that you're such a good driver that you're capable of over-ruling their safety decisions? Or do you just not care?

Please, enlighten me as to why you choose speed over safety. To a person like myself, that seems like an extremely stupid trade-off, so I'd like to understand it from your perspective.

I completely disagree. Speed limits should be "guidelines only" for people who are unfamiliar with the roads. These limits are not the maximum 'safe' speed at which people can travel. They are set low to cover their own behinds because if someone in a 1990 minivan tries to go around a corner at and flips over, they may get a lawsuit if they were going the speed limit. The limit is set unrealistically low, so that someone with an old-school minivan with bald tires and worn out shocks can go the speed limit without having a problem. I can do 100km/hr off the new bridge going towards westbank very safely in ideal conditions.

Many vehicles today are very agile and can SAFELY go MUCH faster than the posted speed limit.You can't clump everyone into one group and one speed limit. Motorbikes and high performance vehicles should be able to go as fast as they safely can. It's the driver's responsibility to look at the current road conditions and adjust accordingly. Let's vote for speed guidelines instead of speed limits. Most of us travel faster than the limit anyway, so let's make it legal.

Take a look at how many motor vehicle accidents we have annually. Now, if we took away speed limits, do you think that the number would increase tenfold? I do, because then we'll have more drivers trying to drive fast (legally), and speeding results in more accidents than driving slowly does.

Why do we have to drive fast? What, exactly, is the problem with driving the speed limit?

I've taken courses in Colorado based on pursuit driving, defensive driving, etc. I consider myself, due to years of advanced driving techniques and experience, an above average driver. I don't speed, though. Why should I? If I have to get somewhere, I leave earlier.

Look at how many traffic accidents we have, and the speed is regulated. If you deregulate speeding, the accidents will increase. It is definitely not the slow drivers who are causing the majority of these accidents.

[jbaris]

People speed because they have things to do and places to go, and don't want to waste unnecessary time getting there. I value my time, and I'd rather use it doing productive things rather than sitting in traffic. I'm not convinced that there would be more accidents. Where this the proof? There are actually less accidents in Alberta where the speed limits are higher. People are less angry and make more rational decisions when they are relaxed and thinking clearly. People are not relaxed and thinking clearly when they are forced to drive slowly or have to worry about a police officer rounding the corner with their radar on.

[John500]

It is my understanding that Alberta uses radar vans or similar tactics to control speeding. Maybe that has something to do with less speeding caused accidents. To suggest that posted speed limits are suggested, putting it simply, you are out to lunch. They are the law to obide by. To state that you dont like to sit in traffic as a reason for speeding, sorry, also out to lunch. Just leave a bit earlier. Everybodies time is valuable but should not be a reason to speed. Eventually you will learn by collecting speeding tickets to the point that you will slow down . At least it keeps my taxes down. Good luck with your argument. Its baloney to be added to your lunch.

[JLives]

The problem is not the speed, it is the various speeds that people are travelling in the same direction at. When you get an oblivious to other drivers driver the people around them start doing unsafe maneouvers to get back into the flow. Maybe instead of speeding tickets it should be a plus/minus ticket of a set speed.

[Xenoid]

Ugh it's worse when I have cruise control on and people try to pass me. They get about even with me and then they can't seem to get past me for some reason. I'm not sure why. I have cruise on! Then they get mad, go behind me, and start highbeaming me. Kelowna drivers..sigh.

And

But then again, I like to adhere to the posted speedlimit. And by doing that 90% of the cars pass me.

There's a big problem when 90% of the population is breaking the law by speeding. Something needs to be changed. We need to raise the speed limits. They are not being followed because they are unrealistic. We need to have them raised so that 90% of us can drive at a safe comfortable speed and the 10% that feel they can't keep up can stay in the right lane or join the majority. These laws are made for us. Why do we all feel restricted by them? Let's change them to suit our needs.

Agreed. The speed limits are set with 70s fuel crisis and old cars in mind. If we got rid of speed limits, do you know what would happen? 90% (it's a "saying", hence the number) would do whatever they felt comfortable at, which would likely be around the same speed. Certainly some people would go as fast as they wanted everywhere, but it is highly unlikely. Self preservation and all. I've certainly gone 20km/h in a 90km/h before, but I've also done 200+ in a 110 zone. It's all based on circumstances... the road, the car, and the driver, the weather, etc. Not many would blindly speed, they're already dead or close to it.

And all the accidents I've been in (0 at fault) have been because people weren't paying attention, not because they were speeding. Speeding can amplify damage, but it is quite rarely the cause of an accident. In England, how many accidents would you reckon are caused by speeding, in the countryside, by drivers over 26 years of age? 25%? 50?% 10%?

The Department for Transport found out the answer: 2%.

Source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/20 ... .asp#adata

[FreeRights]

People speed because they have things to do and places to go, and don't want to waste unnecessary time getting there. I value my time, and I'd rather use it doing productive things rather than sitting in traffic. I'm not convinced that there would be more accidents. Where this the proof? There are actually less accidents in Alberta where the speed limits are higher. People are less angry and make more rational decisions when they are relaxed and thinking clearly. People are not relaxed and thinking clearly when they are forced to drive slowly or have to worry about a police officer rounding the corner with their radar on.

In Alberta, the roads are generally much easer to drive on because they follow a different road setup than we do in BC.

Your excuse for speeding doesn't fly. You're suggesting that, in the time it takes you to drive from point A to point B, is unacceptable because you want to save time. Two problems with your comment.
1. If you're 'sitting in traffic', you aren't speeding either.
2. If there's no traffic, then you MIGHT save 3 minutes of time. Is that worth breaking a law? If you say "yes", you're an extremely selfish, unsafe person.

Think logically. If EVERYBODY abided by the speed limit, we would have fewer accidents. So keeping that in mind, the reason there ARE accidents is not the government's fault for setting the speed limits as they are. It's the PEOPLE'S fault for being unable to abide by them.

[Fancy]

To get back to the topic, you cannot speed up when one is attempting to pass you. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

[westbanker]

Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.


http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/


Speeding is against the law. (now that that's said before some *bleep* tell's me it's illegal or i'm condoning the behaviour)

but what a fun fact.

[Fancy]

Speeding is an issue that isn't solved by increasing the speed limit. It would benefit most people to take refresher courses since it's obvious a lot of folks didn't know the law regarding the topic.

[jbaris]

Speeding is an issue that isn't solved by increasing the speed limit. It would benefit most people to take refresher courses since it's obvious a lot of folks didn't know the law regarding the topic.

That's a pretty narrow-minded way of looking at it. Just cause you're content with blindly following the rules that some random person may have made 30 years ago, doesn't mean the rest of us are going to accept them. Things are constantly changing and improving from when those arbitrary laws were made. Tires now last longer and have better traction. Suspension is better, and breaking has considerably improved with the invention of disc brakes. Why should we follow rules that were made when dinosaurs roamed the earth just because someone says they are 'the law'? The law is often hypocritical and inconsistent. What is legal in one province may be completely illegal in the next. Speed limits have their places (in front of school zones, or hospitals), but on the highway, they just don't make sense. I don't believe in going 90km down a 2km long straight stretch. I'll go 115 if I feel like it and risk a ticket. I average one ticket a year, and the amount of time I save by speeding the rest of the year more than makes up for it. Thats' just my 2 cents.