malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) (04/06/89)
Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By `lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: 1) overtake only on the left; 2) use the left-most lane for active passing only; 3) move right when approached from behind (even when not in the left-most lane); 4) yield or claim right-of-way at merge (actually I know this is in the HTA: the traffic flow and the merge flow have equal responsibility to ensure even merging); 5) limit speed on ramps (I believe the orange `ramp speed NN' signs are warning only; some ramps have white legal speed-limits instead, as on the 400 at Gravenhurst); 6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); 7) signal lane changes. These questions came up during an over-coffee-in-the-lounge discussion. Anybody know answers for sure? (In Great Britain (1) and (2) are matters of law. In Europe (3) is a de facto necessity. I've found in European highway driving that 1-3 are observed universally anyway; in Ontario it's commonplace to be overtaken on both sides at once (I drive in the middle lane where possible).) I think (7) is a trick question. Does the HTA *ever* require signals? Andrew Malton
yap@me.utoronto.ca (Davin Yap) (04/06/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > >1) overtake only on the left; >2) use the left-most lane for active passing only; >3) move right when approached from behind (even when not in the > left-most lane); >6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in > `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or > `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); >7) signal lane changes. Geeeezzzz, I wish more people would abide by these rules. It's amazing how many imbeciles I've come across (especially on the 401 - only two lanes) that don't. I'm very careful and have no reservations about slowing down before a dangerous situation arises, but it's very annoying. Just because you're travelling at 140 km/hr doesn't give you the right to claim the left lane - someone (like me!) may still want to pass you!-) > >Andrew Malton > Davin Yap.
brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) (04/07/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > >1) overtake only on the left; >2) use the left-most lane for active passing only; Aren't 1) and 2) here pretty much the same? I mean, if you're overtaking on the left your obviously passing on the left. In either case, I think the "left lane is passing lane" is a law w.r.t two lane highways, but not multi-lane highways. >3) move right when approached from behind (even when not in the > left-most lane); I always do this, lest I get hit. There are some pretty aggressive drivers on the road, and I *always* move right when some jerk is approaching from behind at 4 times the speed limit. I just like to give them more room to kill themselves. >4) yield or claim right-of-way at merge (actually I know this is in the > HTA: the traffic flow and the merge flow have equal responsibility to > ensure even merging); Ok.. If I am merging into traffic, I tend to get aggressive and like to time my entry with a moving space. If I am in traffic that someone is trying to merge into, I will often move one lane away from the point of merge, giving the other guy a hole to merge into. It also prevents someone from merging right into me. >5) limit speed on ramps (I believe the orange `ramp speed NN' signs are > warning only; some ramps have white legal speed-limits instead, > as on the 400 at Gravenhurst); Yep.. the orange signs are warnings of a safe speed, usually with a wide margin. With todays cars you can often exceed the posted yellow speeds by 10 to 15 kilometers an hour, and still feel safe. If you like the feeling of centrifigul force, you can try it a little faster still :-) My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you saw. >6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in > `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or Gawd... I *hate* drivers who do this. Makes me feel like they think they own the road. I *do not* think this is in the HTA. I certainly hope not. > `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); This is better. And I often practice it. Again, probably not law. >7) signal lane changes. I think this is in the HTA, because you can get a ticket for "failing to signal" and the ticket stubs usually make reference to some section of the HTA. >These questions came up during an over-coffee-in-the-lounge discussion. >Anybody know answers for sure? Well, not really for sure, but they are my opinions. >(In Great Britain (1) and (2) are matters of law. In Europe (3) is a >de facto necessity. I've found in European highway driving that 1-3 are >observed universally anyway; in Ontario it's commonplace to be overtaken >on both sides at once (I drive in the middle lane where possible).) > >I think (7) is a trick question. Does the HTA *ever* require signals? Yes... there are some sections of the HTA where signal placement, size (and brightness?, I don't remember) are explicitly specified. I would think that to go into this great a detail about the physical properties of the signals, and then not to mention their use would be silly. >Andrew Malton Brian. -- +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+ | Brian Onn | UUCP:..!{uunet!attcan, watmath!utai}!lsuc!ncrcan!brian | | NCR Canada Ltd. | INTERNET: Brian.Onn@Toronto.NCR.COM | +-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew) (04/07/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > >1) overtake only on the left; According to that booklet that's supposed to teach people how to drive in Ontario, passing is permitted only on the left, except where there are lane markings dividing traffic into two or more lanes, or where the passee is making a left turn. John -- john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329 trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}
ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) (04/07/89)
You forgot the Ontario special: Roar up behind someone who is going at the speed limit (but in the leftmost lane) and flash your lights for them to move over, knowing full well that you are within half a car length of them and there are three semis in the next lane to the right so they cannot possibly get out of your way.
john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew) (04/07/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu>
malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) asked about the legal
standing of lane discipline rules.
...which made me think about the fun I've had driving in and around
Cancun, Mexico, where `discipline' and `rules' do not seem to have
much to do with driving. Some of the signalling protocols that are
widely used down there are interesting though:
1) If your right turn signal is flashing, it indicates that you are
inviting the person behind you to overtake you on the left, on
a two-lane undivided highway.
2) When two cars approach a one lane constriction from opposite
directions, the first one to flash its headlights has right of way.
Signal #1 seems like a useful sort of thing to have. The nearest
thing to it that we have is the use of four-way flashers to indicate
a vehicle travelling substantially below ambient speed, but in Mexico
I'd signal right even if I were travelling a good forty or fifty
km/h above the nominal speed limit and I saw someone approaching
rapidly in my rear-view mirror (a common occurrence). The problem
of course is that the turn signal is also used to signal a turn.
Thus if you see a right turn signal flashing, it means either "go
ahead and pass me, I won't try to race you and I don't see any
oncoming traffic" or "I'm just making a right turn and I wouldn't
try to overtake me right now because there's a tanker truck behind
a school bus full of nuns barrelling towards us at 150 km/h". I
suspect that this is probably the reason for the large number of
really messy high speed head-on collisions on the highway south
of Cancun.
Signal #2 is also nice, though it seems to be the opposite of
usage hereabouts, where we flash headlights to yield rather than
claim right of way. It also makes for nice games of chicken
where two drivers will repeatedly flash headlights at each other
trying to claim right of way until one of them gives in.
Does anyone know of any other regional or national variations
in signalling?
John
--
john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329
trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john
dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/07/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > >6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in > `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or > `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); >7) signal lane changes. 8) Turn on headlamps after speed trap to warn approaching drivers. (I think that's in the HTA) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (04/08/89)
In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >saw. Much as I might like this, and might claim it in court, I suspect the HTA actually says something like `the last white sign you PASSED'. :-) ../Dave
dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Brown) (04/08/89)
In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >>Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >>a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? >>6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in >> `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or >Gawd... I *hate* drivers who do this. Makes me feel like they think they >own the road. I *do not* think this is in the HTA. I certainly hope not. Relax, it isn't. It's a european convention, much like the southwestern- ontario trick of driving with parking lights on in reduced visibility. >> `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); >This is better. And I often practice it. Again, probably not law. You can also flip your lights on and off: it is just as noticable, but less annoying. Ie, it gets better results (:-)) -- David Collier-Brown, | {toronto area...}lethe!dave 78 Hillcrest Ave., | Joyce C-B: Willowdale, Ontario, | He's so smart he's dumb. CANADA M2N 3N7 |
cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA (Stephen M. Dunn) (04/09/89)
In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >>5) limit speed on ramps (I believe the orange `ramp speed NN' signs are >> warning only; some ramps have white legal speed-limits instead, >> as on the 400 at Gravenhurst); > >Yep.. the orange signs are warnings of a safe speed, usually with a wide >margin. With todays cars you can often exceed the posted yellow speeds >by 10 to 15 kilometers an hour, and still feel safe. If you like the >feeling of centrifigul force, you can try it a little faster still :-) >My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >saw. Of course, one must be rather more careful in bad weather. When I was taking Driver's Ed, I asked my instructor this one day and he said that they were legal limits. Now, if this were true, it makes one wonder why they bother with a different colour sign. But anyway, it doesn't really matter whether you go faster than the speed on the sign anyway. After all, most people do this when there are the white, "definitely-a-legal-speed-limit" signs around, so why shouldn't they do the same when the sign is of questionable legal force? >>6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in >> `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or > >Gawd... I *hate* drivers who do this. Makes me feel like they think they >own the road. I *do not* think this is in the HTA. I certainly hope not. Well, you may not like it, but sometimes it's necessary. For example, let's say you're on a two-lane highway and there's an idiot in the left-hand lane going at exactly the same speed as the traffic in the right-hand lane. What do you do to tell him to get the #$@* out of the way? Tailgating is not recommended, and besides which, if a driver is thick enough not to realize that the car approaching him from behind probably wants to pass him, he is probably thick enough not to get the hint from tailgating as long as you don't actually hit him. (Of course, if you _do_ hit him, you have an even bigger problem) So what else? If you honk your horn at him, he'll probably get pissed off at you and honk back, but once again he's probably too stupid to realize why you were honking. But high beams ... a momentary flash is probably too short for an idiot to understand, but it generally is the least obnoxious way of letting a sensible driver know. And if the driver _does_ turn out to be thick, you can just leave 'em on until he is forced to get out of your lane to avoid them (:-). Yes, I can see your point that high-beams can be annoying if the person using them doesn't realize that a momentary flash is supposed to be short, but I think they're quite useful for communicating with idiots. And let's face it - an alarmingly high number of drivers are idiots. I would be very surprised if this one's in the HTA. I'm sure that signals are mentioned in the HTA. As Brian pointed out, you get a ticket if you don't use them and the cops catch you, so they must be required. One thing I'd like to know is what we can do about cops who don't signal, who speed from the cop shop to the donut shop, etc. And don't say they don't ... I live just about across the street from a police station, and some of them could probably be given 20 or 30 demerit points for turning out of the road leading to the station, driving 600m up the highway and turning at the next lights. Now, I'm not saying they _all_ break the law (of course not), just that some of them do, which is not what you'd expect from a body charged with upholding the law. -- ====================================================================== ! Stephen M. Dunn, cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA ! DISCLAIMER: ! ! This space left unintentionally blank - vi ! I'm only an undergrad ! ======================================================================
wside@maccs.McMaster.CA (Dawn Whiteside) (04/09/89)
In article <2375@maccs.McMaster.CA> cs3b3aj@maccs.UUCP (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: >But high beams ... a momentary >flash is probably too short for an idiot to understand, but it generally >is the least obnoxious way of letting a sensible driver know. And if the >driver _does_ turn out to be thick, you can just leave 'em on until he >is forced to get out of your lane to avoid them (:-). Clearly, Mr. Dunn has never been blinded by a driver with bad manners and misaligned high beams. There is a reason why it is illegal to use high beams when following another vehicle within <insert distance from the HTA here>: it could easily cause accidents. Yes, I will usually get out of the way if I can (and generally, I can't do so immediately) when some idiot flashes me, but that does not justify his* action. * Why are the obnoxious drivers I encounter consistently men?
cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA (Stephen M. Dunn) (04/09/89)
In article <2381@maccs.McMaster.CA> wside@maccs.McMaster.CA (Dawn Whiteside) writes: >Yes, I will usually get out of the way if I can (and generally, I can't >do so immediately) when some idiot flashes me, but that does not justify >his* action. Well, it's nice to see that you have a brain in your head. But that doesn't mean everybody does. Don't tell me you've never been stuck behind an idiot. Yes, high beams can be _quite_ an annoyance, but let's say you've driven up behind somebody and they haven't moved out of the way (assuming it's possible for them to do so) in what you consider a reasonable amount of time. What do you do? >* Why are the obnoxious drivers I encounter consistently men? Isn't it funny ... why is it the person blocking the left lane usually a woman? -- ====================================================================== ! Stephen M. Dunn, cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA ! DISCLAIMER: ! ! This space left unintentionally blank - vi ! I'm only an undergrad ! ======================================================================
mdfreed@ziebmef.uucp (Mark Freedman) (04/09/89)
In article <1989Apr7.180040.26023@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >>My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >>saw. > >Much as I might like this, and might claim it in court, I suspect the >HTA actually says something like `the last white sign you PASSED'. :-) > >../Dave ***THAT*** explains why speed-limit signs are usually located behind trees, billboards or, if available, mailboxes :-)
mdfreed@ziebmef.uucp (Mark Freedman) (04/09/89)
(turn on headlamps after speed trap to warn approaching drivers)
I had the impression that one could be charged with obstructing justice
(chortle ... obviously a definition of "justice" which differs from my own)
for warning speeding drivers about speed traps.
The only case I can remember which is vaguely similar involved a man
convicted of obstructing justice after he warned a prospective client that
the "prostitute" with whom he was negotiating was actually a policewoman.
I'd be interested to know whether warning motorists about a speed trap
would be treated in similar fashion.eastick@me.utoronto.ca (Doug Eastick) (04/09/89)
In article <1989Apr9.053207.2842@ziebmef.uucp> mdfreed@ziebmef.UUCP (Mark Freedman) writes: >(turn on headlamps after speed trap to warn approaching drivers) > > I had the impression that one could be charged with obstructing justice >(chortle ... obviously a definition of "justice" which differs from my own) >for warning speeding drivers about speed traps. My driver's Ed. instructor told us that warning oncoming cars of a speedtrap is, indeed, an obstruction of justice. She went on to give a "what if" situation involving a relative of yours also on the road who gets hit by the speeding maniac (not caught by police) because he slowed down at the speed-trap. Kinda makes sense to me. -- Doug Eastick eastick@me.UTORONTO.BITNET UUCP: ...!utai!me!eastick eastick@me.toronto.edu
howard@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Howard Lem) (04/10/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > I just happen to have a copy of the Ont. HTA here. It's slightly out of date; but it should be reasonably accurate. >1) overtake only on the left; >2) use the left-most lane for active passing only; Passing on the right is allowed in certain cases. You can pass on the right if a) car other car is turning, or about to. b) on a highway where there is sufficient width for 2 or more lines of vehicles in each direction. c) on a higway designated for use of one-way traffic(divided highway.) (Sec. 100.1 & 100.2 of the HTA of Ontario.) >3) move right when approached from behind (even when not in the > left-most lane); "Any vehicle proceeding upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall when practicable be driven in the right hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway" (Quoted from Sec. 97 of the HTA.) My loose interpretation is that one should keep to the right as possible, if possible. Of course, problems arise when two or more people have different interpretations. >4) yield or claim right-of-way at merge (actually I know this is in the > HTA: the traffic flow and the merge flow have equal responsibility to > ensure even merging); Right again. (Sec. 90.1) >5) limit speed on ramps (I believe the orange `ramp speed NN' signs are > warning only; some ramps have white legal speed-limits instead, > as on the 400 at Gravenhurst); Right. Reg. 425 deals specifically with signs. Basic sign must be 24"wx30"h the word maximum must be 4"h & numeral are 12"h. >6) flash high-beams to communicate with other drivers (as in > `You should move out of my way', or `I am going to pass you now' or > `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); This seems to be something that is a 'courtesy'. >7) signal lane changes. Yes, It's a must. (Sec. 94.1) > >Andrew Malton -- .signature follows! use the n key if you don't want to see it :-) <<<<<<<<<========= ALL Usual disclaimers go here :-) =========>>>>>>>>> Canada Post: Howard Lem - University of Toronto Computing Services 11 King's College Rd., Room 107A Toronto, Ont., Canada, M5S 1A1 Telephone: (416) - 978 - 4310 {work} Email: howard@gpu.utcs.uucp
mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) (04/10/89)
In article <451@trigraph.UUCP>, john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew) writes: > 1) If your right turn signal is flashing, it indicates that you are > inviting the person behind you to overtake you on the left, on > a two-lane undivided highway. If you attend the races at Mosport (perhaps other tracks too, I wouldn't know), a variation of this rule seems to be in effect, ie, a left-turn signal is an invitation to pass on the left. Wonder why they invert things? But #1 is a Good Idea. It means I wouldn't have to use my arm to wave 'em past me... And I have read that using your left turn signal while behind someone in the left lane is a request for them to change lanes. What p*sses me off the most are high beams, or mal-aligned headlights. If only I had a pellet gun, and could aim it accurately while on the bike... -- Name: Matthew Francey Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m mdf@ziebmef.UUCP uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf
hpchang@rose.waterloo.edu (Hsi P. Chang) (04/10/89)
cs3b3aj@maccs.UUCP (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: > Yes, high beams can be _quite_ an annoyance, but let's say you've driven up >behind somebody and they haven't moved out of the way (assuming it's >possible for them to do so) in what you consider a reasonable amount of >time. What do you do? There are other alternatives than flashing the high beam into the other drivers eyes. I like to think that flashing the high beam is reserved for emergency warning situation (ie. Your tire is blown, your baby is about to crawl out of the backseat window, etc). There are alternatives to flashing the high beam: 1) Turn your lights on and off (Or off and on when dark) 2) Signal LEFT (On the left lane, of course) 3) Change lane (Passing on the right is possible!) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- hpchang@rose.waterloo.{edu,cdn} Hsi P. Chang hpchang@rose.uwaterloo.ca 3B Computer Science, Co-op. uunet!watmath!rose!hpchang University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Pbageby-k vf sbe vqvbgf
murray@sq.com (Murray Maloney) (04/10/89)
In my travels throughout North America, I noted that the drivers in Houston, Texas are the most likely to follow rules of highway driving. I was able to get from the far left lane to an exit ramp at the far right by simply indicating my desire to do so. Traffic opened up for me, and I slid over with ease. I was impressed. In Ontario, the highway signs read: SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT It's just my opinion, but I suspect that there is a disproportionate number of dyslexics in Toronto. 'Cos everyone seems to think that they should be travelling in the left lane.
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (04/10/89)
Gee, we're really having fun here with this topic, aren't we? Here's my
contribution:
Somebody said he was annoyed by high beams flashed to say, "I'm about to
pass you." This indeed seems unnecessary on busy divided highways, but
on two-lane roads that are only intermittently used -- the situation where
this custom arose, I presume -- it's a very useful custom. If you've
been following a car for quite a while, waiting for a chance to pass,
the driver you're following doesn't really have a way of knowing when
you're going to judge it's safe to overtake, so he/she really does learn
something from the flashed beams. Also, if both drivers do it right,
there's a carefully-timed sequence of beam up and down changes to make
sure that nobody's blinded and that the driver in front can see the
upcoming curves, bumps, etc. The sequence is done better by drivers
who are awake, as they might be after the warning flash.
Things are really very different on two-lane roads from four-lane ones.
And I notice that a lot of drivers now seem not to know how to deal with
the two-lane situation, at least in the areas around Toronto where I
get a chance to watch. Maybe in northern Ontario the old skills are still
alive.
My gosh, I sound old.
--
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
(416) 978-4058
clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca
or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarkedave@sq.com (David Seaman) (04/10/89)
In article <1989Apr7.180040.26023@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >>My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >>saw. > >Much as I might like this, and might claim it in court, I suspect the >HTA actually says something like `the last white sign you PASSED'. :-) I have always wondered about this one. I am sure there are a few cases in which you can get off of a highway onto city streets without seeing er..passing a 50km posting. Even more so switching from a 60km zone onto a side street. I always assumed that this was covered by the "unless otherwise posted, the speed limit is" law that is found within most municipalities. And that most speed traps are setup by the police near a posted sign. >../Dave !!
dclyons@ai.toronto.edu ("Daniel C. Lyons") (04/10/89)
I was under the impression that it is AGAINST the law to flash your high beams at another driver. Dan Lyons
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (04/11/89)
In article <13189@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hpchang@rose.waterloo.edu (Hsi P. Chang) writes: > >There are other alternatives than flashing the high beam into the other >drivers eyes. I like to think that flashing the high beam is reserved for >emergency warning situation (ie. Your tire is blown, your baby is about to crawl >out of the backseat window, etc). There are alternatives to flashing the >high beam: > > 1) Turn your lights on and off (Or off and on when dark) > 2) Signal LEFT (On the left lane, of course) > 3) Change lane (Passing on the right is possible!) I was under the impression that turning off your light means your are *yielding* regardless of the right of way. (As least it is in England). The times that I have seen people do it here, they also seemed to be yielding. Stanley Chow ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public (613) 763-2831 No one is responsible for my opinions, not even me.
jmsellens@watdragon.waterloo.edu (John M. Sellens) (04/11/89)
>> `You are welcome to move in ahead of me now'); >You can also flip your lights on and off If you watch trucks and/or buses at night (and in the day, but it's not as obvious), you'll notice that toggling headlights is the convention for "you're passed me now, it is safe to change back into my lane" i.e. at night, the overtaken truck will turn off its headlights (leaving all other lights on of course) and the overtaking truck will change back into that lane. Then the overtaking truck will flash some lights, often marker or four way lights, to say thank you. As for being able to go "10 or even 15 km/h" over the warning limit on ramps - the real challenge is trying to double the warning limit, though this gets a little harder when the yellow sign says "80" :-)
tpc@bnr-fos.UUCP (Tom Chmara) (04/11/89)
In article <8904101406.AA16291@king.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >Things are really very different on two-lane roads from four-lane ones. >And I notice that a lot of drivers now seem not to know how to deal with >the two-lane situation, at least in the areas around Toronto where I >get a chance to watch. Maybe in northern Ontario the old skills are still >alive. Being from North Bay, and having driven thru a fair amount of N. Ontario, I can safely say that things are worse now than they used to be. My father (now retired -- geez, he STILL smiles when he says that!) drove ~20K miles per year through N. Ontario (mining consulting), covering lots of the province, has noticed a steady deterioration of the driving abilities of northerners. Especially with respect to maintaining speed on the roadway (i.e. not doing 60 in an 80) and making all your movements SMOOTH. Too damned many white-knuckle drivers out there. > >My gosh, I sound old. Oh? I can't hear you from here. Must be creaking knees :-) ---tpc--- -- I am sole owner of the above opinions. Licensing inquiries welcome. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Chmara UUCP: ..utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!tpc BNR Ltd. BITNET: TPC@BNR.CA
cebly@ai.toronto.edu (Craig Boutilier) (04/11/89)
In article <1989Apr7.180040.26023@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >>My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >>saw. >Much as I might like this, and might claim it in court, I suspect the >HTA actually says something like `the last white sign you PASSED'. :-) I'm not a native, but aren't there such beasts as "prima facie" speed limits in Ontario? There certainly are in Nova Scotia, since I've received the odd speeding ticket for exceeding these limits! Off-ramps, city streets, and all sorts of other places have speed limits which need not be posted. You're just supposed to know. For instance, coming off a highway on my bike and travelling a curved section of road (not exactly a ramp) which led to another highway, I used the excuse that since the speed limit on both highways was 100km/h and no signs were posted on this road I was on, I was quite justified in my speed (actually, it may have been a little higher than 100:-). It didn't work, and I was charged with exceeding the prima facie speed limit (which was 50 or 70 for that little section). Craig Boutilier
ross@aimed.UUCP (Ross Morrissey) (04/12/89)
In England, flashing high beams as a courtesy is a hardware feature; if your headlights are off, they are flashed on while the high beam control is depressed -- Ross Morrissey uunet!mnetor!aimed!ross AIM Inc. ross@aimed.UUCP "Forgive me, I'm just a PICK programmer..."
ntt@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (C. Harald Koch) (04/12/89)
In article <9111@watcgl.waterloo.edu> ksbooth@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Kelly Booth) writes: >You forgot the Ontario special: > > Roar up behind someone who is going at the speed limit (but > in the leftmost lane) and flash your lights for them to move > over, knowing full well that you are within half a car length > of them and there are three semis in the next lane to the > right so they cannot possibly get out of your way. To which I always apply the following line of reasoning: This guy wants to get by me. My right side is blocked so I can't change lanes. I'm already going the speed limit so advancing would be illegal (-: Only alternative: Apply the brakes until I've dropped back enough to move to the right lane. And people actually get upset at me for giving them what they want! Can you imagine that?? (-: --- Kevin, previously a Waterloo student, now moved into the world of fast cars and slow driving.
pete@uotcsi2.UUCP (Peter Hickey) (04/12/89)
In article <8904061731.AA21685@ellesmere.csri.toronto.edu> malton@csri.toronto.edu (Andrew Malton) writes: >Are the `lane discipline' rules for driving on multi-lane highways >a matter of law in Ontario, or of recommended driving habits only? By >`lane discipline' I mean the rules including but not necessarily limited to: > >1) overtake only on the left; >2) use the left-most lane for active passing only; >3) move right when approached from behind (even when not in the > left-most lane); > . > . > . >Andrew Malton I find that interresting that somebody from Toronto would notice this. I live in Quebec. There is a (two lane each direction) on which I often drive. From time to time, I find a slow driver in the left lane. Sometimes people pass him/her on the right, but usually not. An interesting thing that I notice is that 80% of the time, the car has Ont. plates. This number is fairly accurate, because it interested me, and I started keeping notes on it. Don't flame me about Quebec drivers being the worst. I'm not saying that they're any better, I'm just saying that that pass (and let pass) on the left. -- Pete Hickey (613 564-5420) University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA pete@uotcsi2.UofO.EDU ACNSL.UOTTAWA.BITNET
il@csri.toronto.edu (Indra Laksono) (04/13/89)
>In article <2381@maccs.McMaster.CA> wside@maccs.McMaster.CA (Dawn Whiteside) writes: >>Yes, I will usually get out of the way if I can (and generally, I can't >>do so immediately) when some idiot flashes me, but that does not justify >>his* action. > > Well, it's nice to see that you have a brain in your head. But that >doesn't mean everybody does. Don't tell me you've never been stuck behind >an idiot. > > Yes, high beams can be _quite_ an annoyance, but let's say you've driven up >behind somebody and they haven't moved out of the way (assuming it's >possible for them to do so) in what you consider a reasonable amount of >time. What do you do? > >>* Why are the obnoxious drivers I encounter consistently men? > > Isn't it funny ... why is it the person blocking the left lane usually >a woman? >-- >====================================================================== >! Stephen M. Dunn, cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA ! DISCLAIMER: ! >! This space left unintentionally blank - vi ! I'm only an undergrad ! >====================================================================== > > It really is unfortunate that the government is planning to lower insurance premiums for people in Mr. Dunn's age group. used to always sympathize with the amount people below 23 have to pay to drive a car, but judging from this immature posting, if the majority of youths under 23 are like Mr. Dunn here, then my sympathies must have been misplaced. Mr. Dunn, your letter shows that there is a problem with your attitude towards driving. When you get in any vehicle, the idea is to get on the road, and get off as quickly and safely as possible. If you happen to enjoy the journey, fine. But you do not do so at the expense of others, and you certainly are not there to show off your great driving skills, or how fast your car can go. If you think you have more right to use the road than others, remember that you probably have less right to ownership of the road than someone who pays his taxes, someone like your parents. So to other people on the net who face an increase in premiums, do you think it is fair that people like us are subsidizing Mr. Dunn's insurance premiums? ........................................... ` |- Indra Laksono ---- ---, University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 `' | ........................................... ------ ---' il@theory.toronto.edu, il@theory.toronto.cdn ,---. | il%theory.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net |---| |- {uunet,watmath}!theory.toronto.edu!il |---| |- ........................................... | | |- ' ; `___,
pt@geovision.uucp (Paul Tomblin) (04/13/89)
In article <1989Apr9.051842.2600@ziebmef.uucp> mdfreed@ziebmef.UUCP (Mark Freedman) writes: >In article <1989Apr7.180040.26023@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >>In article <1342@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes: >>>My understanding is that the legal limit is still the last white sign you >>>saw. >>Much as I might like this, and might claim it in court, I suspect the >>HTA actually says something like `the last white sign you PASSED'. :-) > ***THAT*** explains why speed-limit signs are usually located behind trees, billboards or, if available, mailboxes :-) Actually, as well as signed speed limits, there are also defaults. I forget the actual numbers, but a rural road without speed limit signs is considered to have a speed limit of 80km/h, and an urban road has a default of 50km/h. I guess that means if you turn off one type on to another, the speed limit is no longer controlled by the last sign you saw, but rather by the default limit for the new type, until you see otherwise. Special Disclaimer: Just because I spent 5 years in Highway design for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications doesn't mean I understand or even obey the HTA! As a followup to another thread of this discussion: Why is it that anybody who doesn't drive like you is an idiot. I.e. I think people a) who don't move over the the furthest right lane they can, b) who don't signal, and c) who don't make use of opportunities are idiots. Other people probably think I'm a) a speed demon, b) crazy (because I assume you're going to do what you are saying you're going to do), and c) pushy. -- Paul Tomblin, First Officer, Golgafrinchan B Ark | PANIC - Bad Neuron UUCP: nrcaer!cognos!geovision!pt ?? | address list. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here aren't | "My brain hurts" necessarily even mine! |
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (04/13/89)
In article <8904122324.AA16146@yorkmills.csri.toronto.edu> il@csri.toronto.edu (Indra Laksono) writes:
<
[discussion on the merrits of high-beams/asking slow left-laner's to
get out of the way]
<< Isn't it funny ... why is it the person blocking the left lane usually
<<a woman?
<<--
<<======================================================================
<<! Stephen M. Dunn, cs3b3aj@maccs.McMaster.CA ! DISCLAIMER: !
<<! This space left unintentionally blank - vi ! I'm only an undergrad !
<<======================================================================
<<
<<
<It really is unfortunate that the government is planning to
<lower insurance premiums for people in Mr. Dunn's age group.
[personal attacks on Mr. Dunn's driving habits]
<So to other people on the net who face an increase in premiums,
<do you think it is fair that people like us are subsidizing
<Mr. Dunn's insurance premiums?
Better than subsidizing those who drive slower-than-ambient-traffic in
the left lane. This causes accidents as other frustrated drivers do
dangerous things to get around them. As a side effect the slow
drivers who caused the hazard in the first place are not involved in
the accident, and thus their insurance/points are unaffected, so they
continue to go about causing hazards.
<........................................... ` |-
<Indra Laksono ---- ---,
<University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 `' |
<........................................... ------ ---'
<il@theory.toronto.edu, il@theory.toronto.cdn ,---. |
<il%theory.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net |---| |-
<{uunet,watmath}!theory.toronto.edu!il |---| |-
<........................................... | | |-
< ' ; `___,wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) (04/14/89)
In article <2097@lethe.UUCP>, dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Brown) writes: > You can also flip your lights on and off: it is just as noticable, but > less annoying. Ie, it gets better results (:-)) Or flip them off and on, if you drive with them on full time. Speaking of which, I think the first batch of cars wired for full-time driving lights are now on the roads. Has anybody noticed that some new cars seem to be cruising around with the *inner* set of headlights on? Normally those are the high beam lights, but in these cases they don't seem unusually bright. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
root@arakis.UUCP (Hans Jespersen) (04/14/89)
> il@csri.toronto.edu (Indra Laksono) writes: [major preaching session deleted to conserve net bandwith and spare all others from reading this kind of crap again] I'm sorry Indra, but as an "under 23"-year-old I take great offence to the tone of your article. Firstly, I fail to see how Stephen has demonstated any level of immaturity. Basically he is saying, "How (other than flashing my lights) do I get these left lane bandits to move over?". A mature response would consist of some valid ideas on how to accomplish this. Instead you bore the entire province of Ontario with "Listen son, you shouldn't be driving so fast anyway" and "I hope they put back your insurance to $3000 where it belongs". Let me give it a try. Since I always drive with my (low beam) lights on, you could always try flashing your lights in the opposite direction (ie. turn them off and back on again). This spares the driver in front of you the pain of getting blinded by high beams. Another trick would be to put your left turn indicator on to indicate your intention to pass, on the left like your supposed to (hey, it works in Europe). BTW, Why do I get the impression you drive an '89 Volvo with a "Baby On Board" sticker in the window? >........................................... ` |- >Indra Laksono ---- ---, >University of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 `' | >........................................... ------ ---' >il@theory.toronto.edu, il@theory.toronto.cdn ,---. | >il%theory.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net |---| |- >{uunet,watmath}!theory.toronto.edu!il |---| |- >........................................... | | |- > ' ; `___, PS. What in heavens name does THIS mean? ----^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Hans Jespersen UUCP: uunet!attcan!nebulus!arakis!hans or ..!attcan!hjespers
dave@perle.UUCP (David LeReverend) (04/16/89)
In article <774@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: > >Speaking of [driving with headlights on full time], I think the first >batch of cars wired for full-time driving lights are now on the [roads]. > I've got an '88 Toyota that automatically shuts off the headlights once the engine is off and the driver's door has opened. Since I leave my headlights on whenever I'm driving, this feature saves me about 6 battery boosts per year. This feature also gives drivers the option of using the old-fashioned, more dangerous practice of only turning on the headlights when they feel like it. I've noticed that almost no drivers in the U.S. use their headlights during the day. They collectively spend person-years flashing their headlights "on" and then "off" at me. Being a courteous driver, I cheefully flash mine "off" and then "on" in return. It drives 'em crazy. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Gee, there must be a LOT of speed traps out tonight." --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Au de Newark" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Get it? "DRIVES 'em crazy"? --------------------------------------------------------------------- "How come the lights go 'on', but the horn goes 'off'?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- How do I cross-post to (w)rec(k).autos? --------------------------------------------------------------------- All blames and flames to: David LeReverend (dave@perle)
broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) (04/17/89)
In article <1647@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> ntt@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Kevin Picott) writes: >To which I always apply the following line of reasoning: > This guy wants to get by me. > My right side is blocked so I can't change lanes. > I'm already going the speed limit so advancing would be illegal (-: > Only alternative: > Apply the brakes until I've dropped back enough to move to the > right lane. Exactly what I do. (Though if they're tailgating I don't brake -- I just take my foot off the gas). -- Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watdcsu.UWaterloo{.edu,.csnet,.cdn} BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!broehl Voice: (519) 745-4419 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work]
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/17/89)
You may think it's cute when a you're blocking the left lane to slow down to re-insert yourself, and I suppose it is the right thing to do if you're unwilling to do anything else. But the fact is that while most people understand that you're not supposed to go slower than right lane traffic in the left lane, you are also not supposed to go the same speed or only just a few miles an hour faster. The left lane is for fast traffic (some roads) or PASSING (all multi lane roads.) PASSING is not something that is done by moving into the left lane and proceding at the same speed or 2 mph faster until you are past the guy on the right. To pass, you should accelerate by a significant amount, even if if takes you over the limit (8-)), pass quickly, and then return to the slow lane. You should not sit an block the lane for other people who, in accordance with the rules of the road, are passing at a high speed. I hate the drivers who drive 100 kph who come up upon a driver going 99 kph, so they figure what they should do is go into the left lane at 100 kph, take 2 minutes to pass the guy, and then move right. This is wrong, and a serious hazard to traffic safety. Yes, as far as I understand it, the law says you are permitted and supposed to exceed the limit to pass. If you're not a driver who goes at normal left lane speed, you are passing, so get with it. I just hate to see one of these 1 mph passers who has created a line of 15 cars behind him, all in the name of "traffic safety." For my next question, why is it that these guys are always wearing hats? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
kevin@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) (04/17/89)
In article <3098@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >You may think it's cute when a you're blocking the left lane to >slow down to re-insert yourself, and I suppose it is the right thing ... >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I completely agree with you when looking at it from this perspective Brad, but the situation I always encounter is when all lanes are jammed and some guy behind me is weaving in and out of lanes so that he can get wherever he is going 30 seconds earlier. When I'm driving in the "passing" lane (which really does not exist as such during rush hour) and I am trying to leave a safe distance in front of me, it really bugs me that these 'weavers' think that they are entitled to occupy that safe area. I like to make some allowance during heavier traffic by not leaving huge gaps in front of me (I like 1/2 the recommended 2 second spacing during rush hour), but by no means am I advocating slow passing or even (as I have seen happen many times) speed matching. (As a side note, I once had this guy in front of me who deliberately made every effort to prevent me from passing him, including matching speeds with cars beside him, slamming on the brakes when I was behind him and accelerating as I went to pass him. With guys like this on the road it's no wonder that there are so many unnecessary traffic problems. Maybe *someday* they'll include common sense in the drivers exam.) --- Kevin Picott NTT Systems Inc. currently stationed at DCIEM, CFB Toronto
andy@mks.UUCP (Andy Toy) (04/18/89)
In article <3098@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
You may think it's cute when a you're blocking the left lane to
slow down to re-insert yourself, and I suppose it is the right thing
to do if you're unwilling to do anything else.
.....[stuff deleted]
I hate the drivers who drive 100 kph who come up upon a driver going 99
kph, so they figure what they should do is go into the left lane at 100 kph,
take 2 minutes to pass the guy, and then move right. This is wrong,
and a serious hazard to traffic safety. Yes, as far as I understand
it, the law says you are permitted and supposed to exceed the limit to
pass. If you're not a driver who goes at normal left lane speed, you
are passing, so get with it.
Sounds correct and I agree with you, but the law doesn't permit you to
exceed the speed limit when you are not passing so I guess you should
be passing all the time if you want to go fast :-) Really, this is
only useful if you are passing cars going much slower than the speed
limit since you would never catch up to cars going at the speed limit
if you are going the speed limit too. I guess you could always use
slower cars for a sling-shot effect to catch up to those other cars :-)
Brad is right about passing cars. You must do it quickly and safely.
None of this slow?! passing.
I just hate to see one of these 1 mph passers who has created a line
of 15 cars behind him, all in the name of "traffic safety."
For my next question, why is it that these guys are always wearing hats?
Because they have cold heads?
--
Andy Toy, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Internet: mks!andy@watmath.UWaterloo.ca
35 King Street North, Waterloo, UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!andy
Ontario, CANADA N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
Phone: 519/884-2251 FAX: 519/884-8861 BIX: join mksjmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) (04/18/89)
In article <3098@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >... > >But the fact is that while most people understand that you're not >supposed to go slower than right lane traffic in the left lane, you >are also not supposed to go the same speed or only just a few miles >an hour faster. > >... > >I just hate to see one of these 1 mph passers who has created a line >of 15 cars behind him, all in the name of "traffic safety." > Even worse are the myriad souls who overtake at their normal driving speed, and then as they are passing SLOW DOWN to a few kph (some of us have gone metric, Brad) faster than the car they are passing. I assume that they think that passing is dangerous (the car might pull out in front of them and he is going too fast to stop), without considering that he is dramatically increasing the amount of time that the car could pull over into him broadside WHILE he is passing. It is also extermely obnoxious treatment of any traffic which is trying to pass HIM - he goes slow when the road is blocked and people cannot pass, and then speeds back up making it more difficult for them to pass when the road is clear again. (Slowing down for curves and hills is in the same category, except of course when the curve is sharp enough to make it unsafe to continue at the same speed.) -- John Macdonald
clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) (04/18/89)
Maybe part of the problem is that there's a really wide variation in speeds at
the upper end. To someone doing 120 or 130 km/h, 110 looks really slow; but
the 110 driver might have speeded up from 100 to pass safely. It's possible to
follow the "safe passing" rules advocated by the "we like to drive fast but
skilfully" crowd and still have people driving into your trunk. And it's
possible to be driving what seems dangerously fast to the "we like to drive
safely and keep our insurance premiums down" crowd and still be intensely
irritating to the person behind you.
People in cars seem to view each other as irresponsible idiots more than they
do in any other situation. I've always thought that was because the means of
communication between drivers were so few. But this discussion seems to be
going on at the usual drivers' level of cursing and finger-waving, even though
we're using this ultra-modern (well, mid-70's) communication channel. One of
us even complained about the Chinese character in Indra Laksono's .signature!
Let's just remember [he said pompously] that we might meet each other sometime.
--
Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
(416) 978-4058
clarke@csri.toronto.edu or clarke@csri.utoronto.ca
or ...!{uunet, pyramid, watmath, ubc-cs}!utai!utcsri!clarkebrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/19/89)
I think we might do well with the British system. Drive at passing speed in the left lane (really the right lane over there) or get a ticket. Pass on the right and you get a ticket. It's really not that hard to avoid these problems. Passing involves two things: A) Accelerating to a good speed so that the pass only takes a very short time and B) Checking the traffic coming up on the left to ensure you can complete your pass without blocking somebody. The people who do the weave in a clump of cars are right out. Nobody likes them. Tailgating is bad too, although sometimes it is very tempting to tailgate somebody who is passing at 1 kph relative speed if they refuse to speed up to finish their pass. I drive fairly quickly so I don't get passed by a lot of cars on average, but when somebody comes up behind me, I speed up and cut right. Nobody has to blink their lights at me. I also think there should be a law for two lane roads (1 each way) that any driver going slow enough to build a line of over 5 cars behind them should be required to pull over. There bunches of cars are dangerous, but unless there is such a rule, they will always happen as long as drivers go at different speeds. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
woods@tmsoft.uucp (Greg Woods) (04/19/89)
Unfortunately I've forgotten to read this group lately (I was too busy?
Nah, that couldn't be it!) and I didn't get into the "driving"
discussion as soon as I'd have liked...
(Sorry Mark, but since I'm going to comment about Ontario drivers, and
I would like to address a segment of same, AND I don't give a damn
what the rest of the world thinks of my driving or Ontario driving,
I'm continuing here.)
There has been a lot of mis-information and "I know best" opinions
spread through this trail of discussion.
First, I believe that, as a previous poster stated, it is NEVER legal
to exceed the speed limit, whether passing, or being passed.
Second, though I often disagree with posted limits (to the extent that
if in a hurry I can often be found to exceed same by up to 10%, which
has not yet resulted in a ticket), I firmly believe that exceeding the
speed limit should NOT be tolerated. I don't agree with metric, and I
fight it every step of the way. Often it seems that 10% over the
metric speed limit is near the previously posted speed in M.P.H. At
least that's one way of justifying it :-).
Third, the rules about passing on multi-lane highways are quite
simple. You MUST move over to the right if approached from behind,
AND you are not driving at the speed limit. However, if you are
driving at the speed limit, you may continue on your merry way. (I
know, I've also heard of cases where people were fined (in court) for
not getting out of the way. I don't think all of the facts of these
cases have been presented clearly.) Of course, any emergency or police
vehicle MUST be given the right-of-way.
Finally, what really pisses me off are: A) people who weave; and B)
people who barrel down (up) on my rear, (even when I'm 10% over the
limit), and begin making like they think I'm the crazy asshole. In
many cases these people are the cause of traffic jams and accidents.
I insist that it is not my action of following the speed limit, but
that of those who exceed the limit that cause problems. Traffic jams
are also caused by people who slow on corners and "rubber-neck" to see
various "interesing" things. Accidents are also caused by people who
signal while (or after) making a move, or worse yet, don't signal at
all. Problems of both kinds are caused by paranoids who don't know
enough to match traffic speed when trying to merge (of course some
vehicles and circumstances prevent this).
Now that I've said all that, I've got to contemplate safe procedures
for practicing what I preach while riding my motorcycle. Driving my
full sized 4x4 pickup lets me get away with my "non-standard but
legal" ways, but a motorcycle is a different kettle of fish. With the
bike I do have a bit more control, and theoretically more maneuvering
room though.
I suppose most of you who've also ridden with me (bike or truck) will
think I've gone completely off my rocker. You'll know I'm often an
aggressive driver and I think caution speeds are for paranoids and
people who drive little tin boxes with poor tires. I AM a defensive
driver, but I try to follow the motto "the best defense is a good
offense".
If you've gotten this far, thanks for listening to a VERY frustrated
driver.
--
Greg A. Woods.
woods@{{tmsoft,utgpu,gate,ontmoh}.UUCP,utorgpu.BITNET,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU}
+1-416-443-1734 [h], +1-416-595-5425 [w] Toronto, Ontario, Canadawheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) (04/20/89)
In article <3098@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > To pass, you should accelerate by a significant amount, even if if takes > you over the limit (8-)), pass quickly, and then return to the slow > lane. Yes, as far as I understand it, the law says you are permitted > and supposed to exceed the limit to pass. Well, Brad, I'm willing to defer to higher authority, but I've never heard of such a thing. And the problem with it (besides the legalities) is that the passer often returns to his previous speed minus 2 km/h, thus making him slower than the car he passed. You must have seen this -- where someone is passing you with a trail of cars behind him in the left lane, then pulls in front of you and slows down. What a bummer. No, I think the best bet is to maintain a constant speed at all times (but not running into things in front of you :-), moving into the passing lane when necessary, and returning to the right lane when possible. -- Gerry Wheeler Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!wheels 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (04/20/89)
In article <8904181609.AA02831@harbord.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: > >... > >People in cars seem to view each other as irresponsible idiots more than they >do in any other situation. I've always thought that was because the means of >communication between drivers were so few. ... > It should not be so unexpected. Traffic laws and traffic design in general seem to be based upon an assumption of incompetence on the part of drivers. For example, consider right of way. A yield sign, a stop sign, and a red traffic each indicate that a driver does not have right of way. A competent driver who does not have right of way would proceed at a rate that ensure that he is able to stop until such time as he can determine that there is no opposing traffic that has right of way over him. At that time, he would carry out his desired action at a reasonable speed. Why then would a traffic designer choose to use a stop sign instead of a yield sign? If you assume that drivers are competent, then a stop sign should be an indication of non-obvious danger and a yield sign should be used in almost all cases. Instead, we have the situation where yield signs are only used in merge- but-you-do-not-have-right-of-way situations where it is safer to maintain speed unless the opposing traffic is too heavy to allow a safe entry. Traffic flow desginers assume that the average driver is not competent to handle a yield sign safely. In additiona, a red traffic light prohibits any activity, no matter how obvious it is that there is no opposing traffic to take precedence. The coders of the traffic law assume that the average driver is not competent to determine whether it is safe to proceed at any time - even if the driver can see that there is no oncoming traffic for miles in either direction. I do not claim that either the law or the traffic designers are wrong in their beliefs. I presume that many of these choices have been made after studies of the consequences of the alternatives. I certainly agree that a large number of drivers are incompetent - (-: in my judgement, of course; I am certain I would be classed as incompetent by other drivers :-). -- John Macdonald
mike@mks.UUCP (Mike Brookbank) (04/21/89)
With all this discussion of Highway Driving Manners and Mores, what I
would like to know is why drivers can't pay more attention to the rhythm
of traffic and drive accordingly.
What I mean by rhythm is the speed and nature of the traffic at the
current time. For example, traffic coming into Toronto from the suburbs
just after rush hour often moves at an average of 110 to 130 kmph. The
left hand lane should be moving at a higher rate than the right hand
lane. At this time and place the traffic is usually fairly solid with
little room for frequent lane switches. Unfortunately, there always
seems to be two types of drivers ruining the rhythm. The driver who
insist on travelling 140 kmph and therefore weaving in and out of slower
traffic and on the other side, the driver who travels at 95 kmph in the
left lane. Both drivers represent a hazard because they are disturbing
the traffic rhythm.
Sometimes, like late at night, it is viable (although illegal), to
travel at 140 kmph because the there is plenty of room between cars and
trucks to travel in the right hand lane and pass on the left. Other
times, like the above example, it just isn't reasonable. So why can't
we all pay more attention, like they do in Germany and Italy, to the
traffic patterns and rhythms and learn to drive as a collective team
rather than little aluminium wrapped egos.
--
Mike Brookbank Phone: (519)884-2251
Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!mike
35 King St. North BIX: join mks
Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043root@helios.toronto.edu (Operator) (04/21/89)
All this reminds me of a line I heard a stand-up comedian use years ago:
If you want to do the speed limit on the 401, you'd better have a ramp on
the back of your car.
Too true! What a shame nobody does.
(Nope, sorry, this was one evening in about 1982 at the University of Guelph,
I haven't the faintest idea who said it - apologies if credit is due).
--
Ruth Milner UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!sysruth
Systems Manager BITNET - sysruth@utorphys
U. of Toronto INTERNET - sysruth@helios.physics.utoronto.ca
Physics/Astronomy/CITA Computing Consortiumroot@helios.toronto.edu (Operator) (04/21/89)
In article <794@mks.UUCP> wheels@mks.UUCP (Gerry Wheeler) writes: >No, I think the best bet is to maintain a constant speed at all times >(but not running into things in front of you :-), moving into the >passing lane when necessary, and returning to the right lane when >possible. > And in fact you can often make extremely good progress this way. I have frequently seen heavy-loading situations where there are dozens of cars creeping along in the "fast" lane, sometimes not even managing the speed limit, passing a few widely-separated cars which might be doing a few units ph slower. By maintaining a constant speed, e.g. the speed limit or only a very few units ph faster, you can follow the policy above and wind up passing all the "passing" cars very efficiently. And for those of you who can't stand being passed on the right: if you aren't passing someone, move over. If everyone did that, traffic would flow faster and more smoothly. It's not illegal to pass on the right on a multi-lane highway, and provided you keep your eyes peeled at all times (which you should be doing anyway), it's not unsafe either. I love driving. I'm not talking about weaving here, I don't like weavers any more than it sounds like anyone else here does. I'm talking about trundle along till you come up on someone; move into passing lane when possible; pass at flow-of-traffic speed; move back into the right lane; continue until you come up on yet another slow car. And I do that whether or not there is anyone behind me or in front of me. It works. And it makes driving a lot of fun. -- Ruth Milner UUCP - {uunet,pyramid}!utai!helios.physics!sysruth Systems Manager BITNET - sysruth@utorphys U. of Toronto INTERNET - sysruth@helios.physics.utoronto.ca Physics/Astronomy/CITA Computing Consortium
evan@telly.UUCP (Evan Leibovitch) (04/21/89)
In article <274@ecijmm.UUCP> jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (John Macdonald) writes: >In article <8904181609.AA02831@harbord.csri.toronto.edu> clarke@csri.toronto.edu (Jim Clarke) writes: >>People in cars seem to view each other as irresponsible idiots more than they >>do in any other situation. I've always thought that was because the means of >>communication between drivers were so few. ... >It should not be so unexpected. Traffic laws and traffic design in general >seem to be based upon an assumption of incompetence on the part of drivers. >If you assume >that drivers are competent, then a stop sign should be an indication of >non-obvious danger and a yield sign should be used in almost all cases. >Traffic flow desginers assume that the average driver is not competent >to handle a yield sign safely. Don't put all the blame on 'traffic flow designers'. In my pre-Unix days, I served for a time as a journalist covering municipal transportation issues in North York. The city's transportation committee frequently over-rode the recommendations of the bureaucrats who did the surveys, police records, traffic counts, etc. The committee meetings frequently appeared to me like the aldermen were making deals with each other. "You go along with this new four-way stop in my ward and I'll approve one for you one day." That kind of thing seemed commonplace, as committee members responded to neighbourhood letters and phone calls, putting hundreds of new stop signs per year into places where they weren't justified by traffic patterns or common sense. Nobody at these meetings represents the interests of those who have to drive through the area, stopping what seems like every few feet in areas with no traffic most hours of the day. It's the same at the regional/county level of government. The only ones speaking at these meetings on behalf of efficient traffic flow are the paid municipal 'experts', and nobody cares how they vote. -- Evan Leibovitch, SA of System Telly, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 For a dollar you can still buy: A piece of paper with the Queen's face on it
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (04/22/89)
In reading all news re: left lane bandits, boosting down the 401 at 140kph in the left lane, etc, I have some insight that may be of interest. A few years ago, I had a car that was capable of 140 (which means I don't now). I was always in the left lane, wanting people out of the way. When this car finally blew up (xmission disintegrated -- really!), I bought what I could afford at the time; a 4spd Honda Civic. Top speed: 100kph. This taught me two rules: 1) Stay in the right lane always, since you ain't goin' nowhere fast!, and 2) You get there just as fast averaging 110 as you do 140. People seem to scream a great deal about the 'average speed' and the 'flow of traffic'. And, I tell ya, the majority of people are staying inside 115-120 kph (my observation, not concrete) So, people at 140kph during the day: Don't expect miracles. Ontario drivers live in the left lane. Getting mad isn't going to change it. All it will do is get you more upset (as well as the people around it). If you can, then do your part to stay out of the left lane. I have found that on the 401, when it is 4 lanes (divided), the drivers tend to stay to the right when traffic permits. They know that consideration gets them better results. The people living in the cities have the cars more packed together. Since they are all trying to get where they want to go, they're not willing to reinquish the lane. People in large urban areas tend to be inconsiderate of others. As far as I can see, the only solution is to try ant NOT be part of the problem. MAYBE, if we're REAL lucky, other people will get there collective acts together and try being considerate as well... ...but I doubt it. Ladies and gents, it's time to bring out shotguns on the 401!!! No prisoners! -- Don't bother preaching | J. Paul Landolt | UUCP: landolt@yunexus to the saved | | INTERNET: LANDOLT@orion.YorkU.CA
broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl) (04/24/89)
In article <1657@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> kevin@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) writes: >In article <3098@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>You may think it's cute when a you're blocking the left lane to >>slow down to re-insert yourself, and I suppose it is the right thing >... >>-- >>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 > >I completely agree with you when looking at it from this perspective Brad, >but the situation I always encounter is when all lanes are jammed and some >guy behind me is weaving in and out of lanes so that he can get wherever he >is going 30 seconds earlier. When I'm driving in the "passing" lane (which >really does not exist as such during rush hour) and I am trying to leave a >safe distance in front of me, it really bugs me that these 'weavers' think >that they are entitled to occupy that safe area. Exactly. In general, I stay in the right lane unless passing or making space for people pouring on from a ramp. If I'm in the left lane it's usually because I'm passing; I slow down to get out of it only if I'm blocked front and side with some guy bearing down on me from behind flashing his lights and tailgating. -- Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept Mail: broehl@watdcsu.UWaterloo{.edu,.csnet,.cdn} BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watdcsu!broehl Voice: (519) 745-4419 [home] (519) 885-1211 x 2607 [work]
larry@hcr.UUCP (Larry Philps) (04/26/89)
It is interesting, that I consider myself to be a good law abiding citizen.
I am sure that most of you consider yourselves to be the same. Yet for all
that, there is one law a break regularily - speed limits. Don't you also?
As I though I understood it, the government should be passing, and thus
enforcing, laws that reflect the desires of the majority of the population.
(Pretty naive view eh?) However, all you have to do it spend a short time
driving on any major highway to see that the majority of the population is
not at all in agreement with the speed limits. A great deal of the zigzaging
that takes place is done to get around people who are already breaking the
law by going too fast.
I drive up to Owen Sound a lot, and thus take good old highway 10 (speed limit
80) between Orangeville and Chatsworth. In the summer, if I drive less than
105kph, I get passed by everybody! Not just in legal areas either. I get
passed up hills, around blind corners and the like. I ended up on the
shoulder twice last summer to let some bozo doing an illegal pass to get back
in before he hit the car coming head on.
In my opinion the speed limits are too low. In Michigan a couple of years
ago they raised the highway limits from 55mph to 65mph. The average speed on
the highways increased from (something like) 66mph to 68mph. The majority of
the people just won't drive 70mph, it feels too fast. I say we should raise
the limits to something the majority of the population are willing to
accept. A fair percentage of the people who are "good law abiding citizens"
will then speed up to the new limits and a great deal of the reckless passing
with cease.
Anybody else agree? Maybe I will send a copy of my tirade to my MP. His
garbage can is probably empty :-)
Larry Philps HCR Corporation
130 Bloor St. West, 10th floor Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1N5
(416) 922-1937 {utzoo,utcsri,uunet}!hcr!larryjdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (04/26/89)
In article <400@hcr.UUCP> larry@zeus.UUCP (Larry Philps) writes: >As I though I understood it, the government should be passing, and thus >enforcing, laws that reflect the desires of the majority of the population. Egad! This is pretty scary! As a general principle, this could be disastrous. Imagine if the majority of the population should decide that killing some minority group is ok.... As for highway regulations: as I understand it, these laws are intended to reduce highway accidents. If the majority of the population should decide they don't like these laws, should they be changed? Would it be right to abolish speed limits if their abolition led to a much more dangerous highway environment? Even if the majority of the population wanted their abolition? > >Larry Philps HCR Corporation >130 Bloor St. West, 10th floor Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1N5 >(416) 922-1937 {utzoo,utcsri,uunet}!hcr!larry -- John DiMarco * We will live in the light * jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net jdd@db.toronto.edu jdd@db.utoronto.ca jdd@db.toronto.cdn {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax!utcsri,decwrl!utcsri}!db!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/26/89)
While everybody breaks the limit, I suspect if they had a vote many would vote for slower limits for various supposedly civic minded reasons. What they mean is that everybody else should go 100. If I, myself judge it safe to go 120, that's for me.... -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (04/27/89)
In article <89Apr26.134028edt.9320@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: > [...] >As for highway regulations: as I understand it, these laws are intended to >reduce highway accidents. If the majority of the population should decide >they don't like these laws, should they be changed? Would it be right to >abolish speed limits if their abolition led to a much more dangerous highway >environment? Even if the majority of the population wanted their abolition? > >John DiMarco * We will live in the light * jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net >jdd@db.toronto.edu jdd@db.utoronto.ca jdd@db.toronto.cdn >{uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax!utcsri,decwrl!utcsri}!db!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP I am not sure if you asked the question rhetorically, but I like to answer yes to them. Specifically, if the majority wants to drive faster knowing that it is more dangerous, then the speed limit should be raised to suit. Note that the speed limit is an upper limit, others can still drive slower, The only valid argument for limiting the speed (in the context of majorities and rights) is that allowing people to drive fast endangers the "slow drivers". For this argument to hold, several factors must be present: 1) there must exist the "slow drivers" who will not drive above 100 KM/hr even if the limit is raised to 300 KM/hr 2) there must be evidence showing that "fast drivers" will endanger the "slow drivers" 3) there must be evidence that raising the speed limit increases the danger to to "slow drivers" The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, but the relative speed difference that causes accidents. It is also said that the "slow drivers" cause more accidents for the "fast drivers" than the other way around. To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. Stanley Chow ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!show%bnr-public Disclaimer: What? Me? Speak for the company? Surely you jest!
kevin@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) (04/27/89)
In article <89Apr26.134028edt.9320@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: >In article <400@hcr.UUCP> larry@zeus.UUCP (Larry Philps) writes: >>As I though I understood it, the government should be passing, and thus >>enforcing, laws that reflect the desires of the majority of the population. > >Egad! This is pretty scary! As a general principle, this could be disastrous. >Imagine if the majority of the population should decide that killing some >minority group is ok.... > >>Larry Philps HCR Corporation > >John DiMarco * We will live in the light * jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net I don't think that in the history of [our] government the *majority* of the people have ever expressed any opinion on anything, which probably has something to do with the origin of this point of view. I have never met anyone that thinks that killing a minority group is ok (unless you call child rapists a minority group) and I don't think that I ever will run across too many of them. (People who think speeding is okay is another matter :-) But, and it's a big but, people are generally lazy and will not go to any extra effort to express an opinion. So in a situation related to the failings of our government system, the vocal minority might harangue their MP's into voting for something that the majority really does not want, but is unwilling to 'go out on a limb' to support. This is the scary part to me. 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is not a valid form of government, at least in my mind. What we need is instant voting capability, or at least a way for the 'lazy' person to voice their opinion. (I've long since realized the futility of trying to get these people into action. They will do something about it, but this usually consists of them reading the paper, shaking their heads and saying 'someone ought to do something about that.) Maybe the MP on the net is a really good idea after all :-) How about can.gov.write_your_mp ? --- Kevin Picott NTT Systems Inc.
adam@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Adam R. Iles) (04/27/89)
In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: Stuff about who's dangerous deleted... >To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people >should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. But should they be able to live dangerously around ME? If you want to kill yourself that's one thing, but if you want to kill me that's another. BTW. I don't recall anyone mentioning that the REAL hassle (demerit points) are given for exceeding the limit by 16km/h, so there's really not too much of a problem exceeding the posted limit by 10km/h (if you don't mind risking a fine.) -- Any opinions stated above may, or may not, refect those of any sane person living, dead, or just sleeping. Adam R. Iles: adam@utgpu adam@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (04/27/89)
One of the reasons that the speed limit is set the way it is (aside from 'safety') is that a) a majority of the people exceed the posted limit (due to reasons such as the 'flow of traffic' or the 'engineered speed' of the road), and b) it is VERY easy to pick speeders out. Ever thought how much grouds the local constabulary would have if they tried bringing people in for not signalling (which, as far as I'm concerned, causes more accidents than speeding) when changing lanes? Catching speeders is an almost guaranteed source of revenue and ticket quotas.
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (04/28/89)
In article <1989Apr19.035315.25117@tmsoft.uucp>, woods@tmsoft.uucp (Greg Woods) writes: > > Third, the rules about passing on multi-lane highways are quite > simple. You MUST move over to the right if approached from behind, > AND you are not driving at the speed limit. However, if you are > driving at the speed limit, you may continue on your merry way. My posting is long enough so some of Greg's material was deleted. > woods@tmsoft.uucp (Greg Woods) At this point, I must disagree. I remember quite distinctly an incident about 18 years ago when I was pulled over on a perfectly deserted highway (the 401 between London and Windsor at about 2 a.m.) for driving in the "passing" lane. A very polite and instructive O.P.P. officer informed me that driving in the passing lane was prohibited (and against the law) except in circumstances where I was actually *passing* another vehicle. As this was not the case (I was just driving on the smoother surface of the passing lane), I was violating the law, and was issued a polite warning. I have remembered that officer's point, and have since acquired a rather concise understanding of both his comments and the law. The intervening 2 decades have resulted in my having to commute to the northern fringe of Toronto (Concord) from Kitchener, that being a precise distance of 104.7km *each_way* daily. During my twice-daily commute, I constantly witness numerous critical situations, almost invariably brought about by drivers (and I use the term loosely) who deem themselves to have the god-given right to enforce their own home-brewed versions of the law, by simply blocking any and all traffic that should presume to approach the posted speed limit. Very simply put, the passing lane(s) is/are for *passing*. If a driver is NOT passing, then they have absolutely no reason and/or right to be block those lanes. Period. The volume of traffic (heavy or light) has absolutely *no* bearing on their position on the road. If one is not passing, one belongs in the furthest right hand lane. Period! (Note the emphatic symbol there, people). One only acquires the right to emerge from the "slow" lane when a necessity (and desire and physical ability) to pass slower traffic transpires. Until this happens, stay where you are. When a requirement to pass a slow vehicle transpires, then do so, safely, quickly, expediently. Do not loiter, sightsee, lollygag, restrain, or otherwise impede in any dangerous fashion the normal (lawfull) flow of other traffic. All drivers sharing the highway have rights to unhindered passage. It is (and most certainly should be!) an offence to unreasonably restrain another driver from going about their lawful business (driving safely, according to the rules, and within the posted speed limit). Note that I am *not* advocating breaking any laws, and if all drivers (there is still a shred of idealism left in my soul) were to observe common sense, respect and decency for others rights, then the highways would be a much more civil place for all. Unfortunately, we get right down to the reality of the situation..... One gets on the highway at 7:30 a.m. Things are decent for the first few miles. You can actually motor along just under the speed limit on a nice sunny dry day at 99.9 km/hr in a 100km/hr zone. Then somebody decides that they are going to be an "enforcer" for the day and proceeds to block the passing lane for the next 10 minutes. To make matters worse, there are dozens of these self-styled "enforcers" on the road simultaneously, all driving way below the speed limit, side by side, blocking traffic. Frustration builds, and normal drivers (faced with the reality of having to be at work at a preset time) become anxious. They start to tail-gate. They start to weave between lanes. They take any advantage that they can get. All it takes is one frustrated driver given the impetous by an idiot who thinks *everybody* has all day to get to work. Others see the actions of the frustrated. They proceed to emulate these actions, after all, the food their families require also depends on them getting to work on time. Now, what have you got? You have a group of total fools trying to block normal traffic, and a group of very anxious drivers trying to get around them. Rules? What rules? At this point the entire rule book has gone out the window! No wonder there are no police on the road in the morning. They value their lives perhaps more than the rest of us. They know what's going on out there, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if their preference is to have nothing whatsoever to do with it. By the time you enter the *3rd* hour of your hour-and-a-quarter commute it seems that the rules are no longer dictated by the law, but by raw survival instinct. You are welcome to disagree with me. Meet me on the eastbound 401 between 7:30 and 9:30 a.m. some morning and show me how things are more civilized than they appear. The sad part is that if only those few people who don't know how to drive on the highway were removed, it *could* be civilized. All that needs to be remembered and adhered to is: "slower traffic on the right, pass only on the left. If you aren't passing (expediently), stay on the right." Is that concept really so difficult? --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp}
rob@perle.UUCP (Rob McDougall) (04/28/89)
If low speed limits are there solely for the purpose of reducing
accidents, why not take this to the limit? Lower them further!
Why, we could probably even go back to using horses. Or even
walking!
The point is, cars were invented as a means of getting somewhere
faster. Why do we then impose artificially low speed limits on
those vehicles, especially when it is a very debatable point as
to whether or not these limits actually make the roads safer.
Is anyone aware of whether or not the incidence of traffic fatalities
is higher or lower or comparable to ours in countries without
speed limits on expressways, such as West Germany? It would be
interesting to find out, not that it would make a damn bit of
difference.
If I recall correctly, part of the reason for reducing the speed
limits on our highways was to save energy during the fuel shortage.
Maybe someone should call Mike Wilson, and remind him that if we
drive faster, he'll make more money in gasoline taxes...:-).
--
Rob McDougall Perle Systems Inc; Scarborough, Ontario
nunc est bibendum
UUCP: ....!uunet!mnetor!perle!robrichard@berner.UUCP (Richard Greenall) (04/28/89)
In article <1989Apr27.112604.11727@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> adam@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Adam R. Iles) writes: > >BTW. I don't recall anyone mentioning that the REAL hassle (demerit points) >are given for exceeding the limit by 16km/h, so there's really not too much >of a problem exceeding the posted limit by 10km/h (if you don't mind risking >a fine.) > This works great execept is isnt the fine that I am worried about. When you go get your insurance, they say "Any tickets in the last 3 years?", not "any tickets over 15KM over the limit?". To the insurance companies, a ticket is a ticket, and thou be dammned to eternal poverity if you get a speeding ticket. Richard Greenall
landolt@yunexus.UUCP (Paul Landolt) (04/28/89)
In article <1989Apr27.112604.11727@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> adam@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Adam R. Iles) writes: >In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: > >>To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people >>should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. > >But should they be able to live dangerously around ME? If you want to kill >yourself that's one thing, but if you want to kill me that's another. > If you are afraid of people living dangerously, as other people may be (afraid, that is), then it would be in your best interests, as well as those who wish to travel at a faster rate, to stay in the 'correct' lane. weavers weavetend to weave to get around people who believe it is their God-given right to proceed along in the left hand lane at 100kph. People doing the limit should stay to the right. Common sense. If you are going slower than people around you, then procede to the rightmost lane where you are travelling at a rate suitable for the lane. This really shouldn't be such a hard rule of thumb. It could save a lot of problems if people kept it in mind every once in a while. -- Really: J. Paul Landolt | Some of us are born unto greatness, INTERNET: LANDOLT@Nexus.YorkU.CA | Others see no problem with swiping it! "The opinions expressed are mine. Don't blame the boss. She only hired me"
jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") (04/29/89)
In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: >The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, >but the relative speed difference that causes accidents. I remember reading somewhere that there was a dramatic decrease in American highway automobile accidents (or was it deaths?) when the highway speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. Can anyone confirm? North American roads are not designed for very high-speed traffic. Curves are too sharp, on/offramps are too short, grades are too steep, warning signs are too close to what they signify... The 401 is NOT designed like a German Autobahn (or so my uncle, who has driven in Germany, tells me). So: It just might be much safer to keep to a generally conservative speed limit. >Stanley Chow ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!show%bnr-public -- John DiMarco * We will live in the light * jdd%db.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net jdd@db.toronto.edu jdd@db.utoronto.ca jdd@db.toronto.cdn {uunet!utai,watmath!utai,decvax!utcsri,decwrl!utcsri}!db!jdd jdd@utcsri.UUCP
elf@dgp.toronto.edu (Eugene Fiume) (04/29/89)
In article <89Apr28.142013edt.9324@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes: > >North American roads are not designed for very high-speed traffic. Curves >are too sharp, on/offramps are too short, grades are too steep, warning signs >are too close to what they signify... The 401 is NOT designed like a German >Autobahn (or so my uncle, who has driven in Germany, tells me). > You need roads that, in general, are fairly straight and that don't have a lot of ramps. I guess Highway 400 fits the bill in some stretches. There are lots of fairly dangerous highways in Europe that have very high speed limits. Those along the coast in southern France and northern Italy are good examples--great scenery, but if you turn your head for a split second you'll go for a nice little tumble. It's pretty common to go 150kph on those curvy roads and over 160 on the "real" autostrada's. It's not safe, but it sure is fun. It's a real exercise in humility to be tooling along at your top speed of 170, say, in your nifty little Lancia and be passed so quickly by someone in a real sports car that you are actually sucked toward the passing lane. -- Eugene Fiume Dynamic Graphics Project University of Toronto elf@dgp.toronto.edu
dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) (04/29/89)
In article <89Apr28.142013edt.9324@ois.db.toronto.edu> jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes:> >I remember reading somewhere that there was a dramatic decrease in American >highway automobile accidents (or was it deaths?) when the highway speed limit >was reduced to 55 mph. Can anyone confirm? Actually the recorded result was that the number of accidents **on the limited-access roads** fell, but accidents on surface roads in cities which were adjacent to the limited-access roads rose precipitiously (sp?). As it happened, the highway death rates were collected/reported country- wide and the surface road rates by state, so the effect wasn't noted for several years. Subsequently the justification was changed to fuel economy. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | {toronto area...}lethe!dave 72 Abitibi Ave., | Joyce C-B: Willowdale, Ontario, | He's so smart he's dumb. CANADA. 223-8968 |
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/29/89)
If you are going to be completely utilitarian about it, then when you count accident statistics you also have to count lost time due to slower highway speeds. To do this you need the passenger mile figures, but I believe that somebody once calculated that when the US reduced from 70 to 55, thus making everybody's trips take 25% longer, you actually got a bad result. The bad result comes from taking total passenger hours, taking 25% of that, and expressing it in years of human waking lifetime. Many thousands of lifetimes are being wasted on the roads because of slower speed limits -- more than the number of lives cut short by traffic death. Of course, to the people who die the traffic death, this isn't a good argument! But if you only measure total human life wasted, faster speed limits save lives. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) (04/30/89)
In article <797@mks.UUCP> mike@mks.UUCP (Mike Brookbank) writes: > >With all this discussion of Highway Driving Manners and Mores, what I >would like to know is why drivers can't pay more attention to the rhythm >of traffic and drive accordingly. <apparantly valid reasoning omitted> > >Sometimes, like late at night, it is viable (although illegal), to >travel at 140 kmph because the there is plenty of room between cars and >trucks to travel in the right hand lane and pass on the left. Other >times, like the above example, it just isn't reasonable. So why can't >we all pay more attention, like they do in Germany and Italy, to the >traffic patterns and rhythms and learn to drive as a collective team >rather than little aluminium wrapped egos. The only 2 reasons I can think of are: 1/ political (the politicians have designed our laws in opposition to what I would consider a rather intelligent concept). This (I take the liberty to speculate) is probably due to the preponderence of motorists who lack the skill and/or intelligence to make such a scheme viable on our highway system. 2/ The motorists referred to in 1/ above. --ed {edhew@egvideo.uucp} > Mike Brookbank Phone: (519)884-2251 Ed. A. Hew Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew home: edhew@egvideo.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!egvideo!edhew # I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on floppy around here somewhere!
jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) (05/02/89)
In article <2375@lethe.UUCP>, dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) writes: > ... jdd@db.toronto.edu ("John D. DiMarco") writes:> > >I remember reading somewhere that there was a dramatic decrease in American > >highway automobile accidents (or was it deaths?) when the highway speed limit > >was reduced to 55 mph. Can anyone confirm? > > Actually the recorded result was that the number of accidents **on the > limited-access roads** fell, but accidents on surface roads in cities which > were adjacent to the limited-access roads rose precipitiously (sp?). Ummm. Are those roads parallel to the limited access ones? I.E. were time-pressed motorists using speeding on city streets as an alternative to 70 mph's on the highway? If not then does anyone have pet theories as to why the city accident rates could rise? Here are four of mine: o the driver is used to getting from A to B in 3 hours. The change in the limit now raises the trip to 4 hours, so the driver cuts corners in the destination city to shave a few minutes back off. o the increase in trip time means that the inter-city driver arrives less alert o the change co-incided with some normal increase in accident rates (first snowfall, New Years, etc...) o there has been some other long-term increase in the city accident rate (more urban crowding?) Any other guesses? Anyone have newer statistics? -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear
alayne@gandalf.UUCP (Alayne McGregor) (05/03/89)
In article <1673@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>, kevin@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) writes: > But, and it's a big but, people are generally lazy and will not go to any > extra effort to express an opinion. So in a situation related to the > failings of our government system, the vocal minority might harangue their > MP's into voting for something that the majority really does not want, but > is unwilling to 'go out on a limb' to support. This is the scary part to > me. 'The squeaky wheel gets the grease' is not a valid form of government, > at least in my mind. > > What we need is instant voting capability, or at least a way for the 'lazy' > person to voice their opinion. (I've long since realized the futility of > trying to get these people into action. They will do something about it, > but this usually consists of them reading the paper, shaking their heads > and saying 'someone ought to do something about that.) Maybe the MP on the > net is a really good idea after all :-) How about can.gov.write_your_mp ? > > --- Kevin Picott > NTT Systems Inc. To me, instant voting is synonymous with instant thinking -- in other words, voting without considering all the arguments around a question and all the results of your vote. There is a good reason why governments listen to pressure groups -- they *know* what they're talking about. (This can produce good or bad results, depending on whether the results the pressure groups push for are in the general interest, but the results of instant polls produced without proper discussion can only be worse.) I am a member of a local cyclists' group that pressures city and regional politicians for better cycling facilities (wider lanes, better parking, proper sewer grates), and education for motorists and cyclists so they can share the road. I do not expect someone who drives everywhere to understand the problems I face as a commuting cyclist (although I will agree with them that cyclists shouldn't go through red lights). As a lobbyist, I understand the problems of my constituency and can communicate them to policians in a way that can ensure cyclists have an easier time, without hurting others. I can educate a small group of politicians about this. It's a lot more difficult to educate the entire populace, although we do try. Furthermore, most people don't care about the tiny details that do make a difference to certain groups (like wider right lanes on streets). Why should they be bothered by every change? Certainly, people should be involved if they're interested in an issue. But an uninterested person produces a worthless (to me) vote. Why bother? Alayne McGregor ...!scs!gandalf!alayne ...!dgbt!gandalf!alayne ...!nrcaer!gandalf!alayne (These, of course, are my opinions only.)
dave@lethe.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown) (05/03/89)
Another reason they (death rates) rose on the adjacent surface streets
was that people who had exited the limited-access highway did not see the
traffic as moving much slower than on the highway, and tended to continue
along city streets at 55mph...
Have you noticed this effect in Toronto? I certainly have (;-)).
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | {toronto area...}lethe!dave
72 Abitibi Ave., | Joyce C-B:
Willowdale, Ontario, | He's so smart he's dumb.
CANADA. 223-8968 |kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/04/89)
In article <3166@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I believe that somebody >once calculated that when the US reduced from 70 to 55, thus making >everybody's trips take 25% longer, you actually got a bad result. > >The bad result comes from taking total passenger hours, taking 25% of >that, and expressing it in years of human waking lifetime. Many >thousands of lifetimes are being wasted on the roads because of slower >speed limits -- more than the number of lives cut short by traffic >death. Not only does a lower speed limit increase the amount of time wasted on the road, but time = $$$ (eg. a truckdriver, lost productivity, etc.). Then, the gasoline consumption argument for lowered speed limits is silly too, since you WASTE 25% more gas just running your car for 25% longer getting there... -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/04/89)
In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: >The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, but >the relative speed difference that causes accidents. It is also said that the >"slow drivers" cause more accidents for the "fast drivers" than the other way >around. > >To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people >should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. It inspires fear in me to see educated, intelligent people advocating that "SLOW" drivers are the problem on highways. Pardon me, but isn't it the drivers who disregard the law, common sense, and civility who endanger the lives of law abiding (well, relatively speaking, since we ARE talking about speeding :-), courteous drivers? If I am doing 120 on the 401 and some nutcase comes screaming up behind me, weaving in and out of the lanes and slams his brakes on right behind me, which one of us is the dangerous one? According to Mr. Chow's statement, perhaps we should have everyone (including the dangerous, incompetent drivers, and people driving cars which are about to fall apart and are uncertifiable (althought the drivers are perhaps certifiable)) at the same HIGH speed... I believe that we will never be rid of maniacs on the road, so no matter what speed limits you set, there will always be violators. Although I can see Mr. Chow's point, especially when I encounter doddering senior citizens and the occasional inexperienced highway driver. The solution to this (perhaps unimplementable) would be to have better training and license renewals, as well as to instill a sense of responsibility on the roads. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
tim@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Tim Pointing) (05/05/89)
In article <9522@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >In article <3166@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I believe that somebody >>once calculated that when the US reduced from 70 to 55, thus making >>everybody's trips take 25% longer, you actually got a bad result. > >Then, the gasoline consumption argument for lowered speed limits is >silly too, since you WASTE 25% more gas just running your car for 25% >longer getting there... Alas, this argument falls down when you look at the math of the situation. The cars mileage (kilometreage?) goes up as you slow down from 70 to 55. Since the distance you are travelling has not changed, you will will actually use less gas running your car for longer. distance / mileage(mpg) = gas_used CONST / INCR => DECR just my .04 litres worth -- Tim Pointing, DCIEM {decvax,attcan,watmath}!utzoo!dciem!ben!tim uunet!mnetor!dciem!ben!tim or nrcaer!dciem!ben!tim tim%ben@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca or tim@ben.dciem.dnd.ca
mdf@ziebmef.uucp (Matthew Francey) (05/06/89)
In article <9522@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >In article <3166@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>I believe that somebody >>once calculated that when the US reduced from 70 to 55, thus making >>everybody's trips take 25% longer, you actually got a bad result. >> >>The bad result comes from taking total passenger hours, taking 25% of >>that, and expressing it in years of human waking lifetime. Many >>thousands of lifetimes are being wasted on the roads because of slower >>speed limits -- more than the number of lives cut short by traffic >>death. I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that perhaps its OK to let a few more people die (real deaths here) rather than waste a few of these fictious "lives" you have just created? >Not only does a lower speed limit increase the amount of time wasted >on the road, but time = $$$ (eg. a truckdriver, lost productivity, >etc.). ... time = $$$. Yuck. >Then, the gasoline consumption argument for lowered speed limits is >silly too, since you WASTE 25% more gas just running your car for 25% >longer getting there... This assumes that you don't use 25% more gas to travel at the higher speed. I strongly doubt this is the case. [Simple example: air resistance goes with the square of the speed, so just a 25% increase in V amounts to a 56% increase in air resistance. If this is 1/2 the load on the engine, there goes your 25% savings right there.] -- Name: Matthew Francey Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m mdf@ziebmef.UUCP uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf
hiraki@ecf.toronto.edu (Lester Hiraki) (05/06/89)
In article <1693@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> tim@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Tim Pointing) writes: >Alas, this argument falls down when you look at the math of the situation. >The cars mileage (kilometreage?) goes up as you slow down from 70 to 55. >Since the distance you are travelling has not changed, you will will >actually use less gas running your car for longer. > > distance / mileage(mpg) = gas_used > CONST / INCR => DECR > Yes, the math of the situation...... What everyone so far has failed to realize is that air resistance increases as the *SQUARE* of the speed. Travelling at 115km/h instead of 90km/h takes approximately 25% more fuel. In Olympic cycling, a racer expends 90% of his/her energy just spreading the air in front. The moral of the story is this: at high speeds air resistance dominates over frictional rolling resistance. I am not advocating driving faster or slower. Each will have to decide the value of their time relative to the square of their speed. ================================================================== This signature intentionally left blank. ==================================================================
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (05/06/89)
In article <9523@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: >>The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, but >>the relative speed difference that causes accidents. It is also said that the >>"slow drivers" cause more accidents for the "fast drivers" than the other way >>around. >> >>To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people >>should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. > >It inspires fear in me to see educated, intelligent people >advocating that "SLOW" drivers are the problem on highways. Pardon >me, but isn't it the drivers who disregard the law, common sense, and >civility who endanger the lives of law abiding (well, relatively >speaking, since we ARE talking about speeding :-), courteous drivers? > >If I am doing 120 on the 401 and some nutcase comes screaming up >behind me, weaving in and out of the lanes and slams his brakes on >right behind me, which one of us is the dangerous one? >... An incompetent nutcase is dangerous regardless of whether he drives fast, average, or slow. They come in all forms and are capable of disregarding the law, common sense, and civility at whatever speed they prefer to drive. Similarily, courteous, competent, sensible drivers come in the entire range of preferred speeds. The existance of the (highly visible) fast nutcase class of driver does in no way prove that *all* fast drivers are endangering the lives of the average speed drivers on the road. It seems clear to me that a slow driver usually causes more endangering than a fast driver. Consider: Assume a multi-lane divided highway with a moderate traffic load (i.e. most cars are separated by more than the minimum safe following distance). Assume that there is an large cluster of traffic which is travelling at approximately the same speed (i.e. within a 15 kph range - sufficient that there is some relative motion between these cars). Put yourself as an observer in a helicopter that is exactly pacing the cluster of cars - it is going the same speed. Watch a competent fast driver pass through the cluster. He changes lanes where neccessary to pass, slows down when approaching a clump that he cannot pass, joins the lane that is going fastest, and then speeds back up again when he has gotten clear of the clump. Another car in the cluster might be affected by the fast car if it catches up to a clump just after the fast car has passed it and ends up one car further back in the queue of cars moving by the clump. Otherwise, the fast car does not interact with the other cars. Now, watch the cluster as it passes a slow car. From the helicopter, this looks very much as if the slow car is driving backwards through the cluster, never changing lanes, never adjusting speed to ease his passage through the cluster. The cars in the cluster must arrange to get out of the way of this backward progress. Whenever he backs through a clump, there is not room for all of the clump in the other lanes, so the clump gets dragged backwards for a while, too, until it eventually does get past the slow car. So who is the greater hazard? The fast driver (assuming he is competent and not one of the nutcases described above), assumes the responsibility for ensuring that the difference in speed does not endanger the other cars on the road, which is why he slows to the average speed when it would otherwise be endangering. The slow driver forces the average drivers to collectively (and simultaneously) assume the responsibility for ensuring that the difference in speed does not endanger any of the other cars on the road. While many of the average speed drivers will be competent, there may be some who chose not to be high speed drivers because they feel competent to accept the responsibility for the difference in speed - these drivers are nonetheless getting such a responsibility forced upon them by the slow driver (of course, they are being forced to accept the difference only between themselves and one car, rather than between themselves and many cars, so it is not as bad as the position that they chose to avoid - except that when a clump approaches the slow car, there can quite suddenly be a large number of cars that have reduced speed considerably). In programming terms I consider the danger caused by the fast driver to correspond to a medium scale single program for which a reasonable proof of correctness has been made, while the danger caused by the average cars working their way around the slow car to correspond to a group of small scale but parallel programs each of which has a expectation of correctness, but no proof individually, and certainly no attempt to verify the interaction protocol has been made. -- John Macdonald
jmm@ecijmm.UUCP (05/06/89)
Keywords: In article <1693@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> tim@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Tim Pointing) writes: >In article <9522@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >>In article <3166@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>I believe that somebody >>>once calculated that when the US reduced from 70 to 55, thus making >>>everybody's trips take 25% longer, you actually got a bad result. >> >>Then, the gasoline consumption argument for lowered speed limits is >>silly too, since you WASTE 25% more gas just running your car for 25% >>longer getting there... > >Alas, this argument falls down when you look at the math of the situation. >The cars mileage (kilometreage?) goes up as you slow down from 70 to 55. >Since the distance you are travelling has not changed, you will will >actually use less gas running your car for longer. > > distance / mileage(mpg) = gas_used > > CONST / INCR => DECR > Many years ago, I used to weekly travel between Waterloo and Toronto. I took advantage of this to test the validity of the above formula. On different trips, I did my best to maintain a constant speed througout. At higher speed, this was possible, but presumably the improved mileage while I was forced to lower speeds was somewhat balanced by the reduced mileage while I was accellerating back up to the desired speed. Anyway, the results I ended up with (from memory and they were somewhat rough at the time - this is not a true scientific measurement) were: Speed Mileage Comment (mph) (mpg) I use metric now, but this was looong ago. 95 24 I was young and foolish then. 85 26 75 26 65 25 55 24 It was hard to maintain a speed this slow (limit - 15). My conclusion at the time was that the folk knowledge that high speed means drastically lower gas mileage was not true for me. My car at the time was a 5-speed manual, 2 litre, smallish car (Toyota Corona). This was in the days of the large automatic-transmission American battlestar. I concluded that for such cars it could quite likely be true that they had a similar looking mileage curve except the peak was at 55 mph instead of at 80 mph as seemed to be the case for my car, and that by 70 mph they could be falling off fast. This made it particularily annoying to me when a few years later, the speed limits were dropped from 70 to 60 "to save gas". The saving in gas from reducing speed limits, was soon overwhelmed by the much greater saving in gas from the great downward shift in average car size. If the change in car size had come first, the reduction in speed limit would have had almost no effect in gas usage. (Of course, without the general conscience having been pricked by the official concern expressed by the drop in speed limit, the car style transition might have been dramatically less marked.) -- John Macdonald
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/07/89)
In article <1989May5.211750.17968@ziebmef.uucp> mdf@ziebmef.UUCP (Matthew Francey) writes: > I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying that perhaps its OK to >let a few more people die (real deaths here) rather than waste a few of these >fictious "lives" you have just created? You responded to a followup to a followup to a followup that had my words only in part. I pointed out that this is purely a utilitarian argument, calculating the total savings for everybody. But it does apply in the more general case. For example, if there were a mode of transport that were instantaneous, but it had 10% more deaths than highway travel, I think we would switch to it. Likewise, if it turned out that we got no traffic deaths if everybody went 10 miles per hour (and we would get very few, if not none) does that mean we should all go 10 mph? Or 20 if we're safe then? We do have to set the tradeoff at some point, and that tradeoff really is one between human time wasted on the road and human life wasted on the road. You can't equate time and lives directly, but there is some point where you weigh one over the other. If 70 years are wasted for each life saved, we might think it's worth it. If 500 years are wasted, we might not. Like it or not, we do quantify human life this way all the time. Our own, and other people's. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
eric@becker.UUCP (Eric Siegerman) (05/07/89)
In article <2009@egvideo.UUCP> edhew@egvideo.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >In article <797@mks.UUCP> mike@mks.UUCP (Mike Brookbank) writes: >>So why can't >>we all pay more attention, like they do in Germany and Italy, to the >>traffic patterns and rhythms and learn to drive as a collective team >>rather than little aluminium wrapped egos. > >1/ political (the politicians have designed our laws in opposition > to what I would consider a rather intelligent concept). This >(I take the liberty to speculate) is probably due to the preponderence >of motorists who lack the skill and/or intelligence to make such a scheme >viable on our highway system. > >2/ The motorists referred to in 1/ above. But why do North American drivers differ in this from Europeans? I assume we're no less intelligent, so we must just be less skillful. The above quote hints at the answer, but doesn't state it explicitly: I think we have a vicious circle here, in which our laws themselves discourage people from thinking for themselves (or, at least, fail to encourage them), and then our lawmakers are forced to base future decisions on the fact that the people don't think. I believe that in Germany, although there are no set speed limits on the Autobahns (or weren't; they were talking about imposing them), one can (could?) still be cited for driving too fast for conditions (road, weather, traffic, etc.). Such an approach permits, indeed requires, police officers to exercise their own judgment as to whether a driver is going too fast. This sort of thing is unthinkable here -- police don't *make* laws, they just enforce them. We're so afraid of possible police excesses that we insist everything be written out in advance; we put as much distance as possible between the making of a legal decision and its enforcement, in hope of reducing the amount of the process which is open to individual bias. The only problem with this is that it reduces the motorist's freedom of choice as well, and thus his need to learn to choose wisely. One no longer has a legal inducement to choose a safe speed, since one won't be punished for driving at an unsafe speed per se. In good conditions, one is forced by the law to drive frustratingly below the maximum safe speed (reasonable behaviour is illegal), but in bad winter conditions, the law will ignore even people who are driving dangerously fast (unreasonable behaviour is quite legal); in neither case does the law match well with the real needs of the situation, and in neither case does it reward wisdom, only pattern-matching (white sign on the roadside vs. speedometer). In short, in Germany the police and the populace trust each other to act reasonably (at least a little bit), and the law rewards reasonableness. Here, we don't trust each other at all; the law sometimes punishes reasonableness and other times ignores it, rewarding only unthinking submission. Is it any wonder people don't bother to think? Of course this discussion has ignored other potent reasons for driving safely, like not getting killed or killing others. It's the law's effect on behaviour that concerns me here. -- Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. eks@kneller.UUCP, eric@becker.UUCP, ...!utzoo!mnetor!becker!kneller!eks
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (05/08/89)
If only people read what I post! In article <9523@watcgl.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) writes: >In article <440@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow@bnr-public.UUCP (Stanley Chow) writes: >>The research that I have seen tend to say that it is not the absolute speed, but >>the relative speed difference that causes accidents. It is also said that the >>"slow drivers" cause more accidents for the "fast drivers" than the other way >>around. >> >>To summarise, low speed limit does not reduce accidents. Even it does, people >>should be allowed to *choose* to live dangerously. [...] > >It inspires fear in me to see educated, intelligent people >advocating that "SLOW" drivers are the problem on highways. Please read what I posted. I made no such claim. I tried to point out that it is the *speed differential*, not the absolute speed that causes accidents. I also pointed out that supposedly, different groups of drivers cause accidents differently. Nowhere did I pass judgement on which group is right or wrong. If you feel like a tirade against speeders, just do it. Why do you have to drag me into something I did not say? > [...] Pardon >me, but isn't it the drivers who disregard the law, common sense, and >civility who endanger the lives of law abiding (well, relatively >speaking, since we ARE talking about speeding :-), courteous drivers? > Please note that I merely refered to two *relative* groups - the fast drivers and the slow drivers. Nowhere did I suppose that that anyone is or is not speeding. Even if someone *does* speed, that does not, by itself, mean he "disregard the law, common sense, and civility ..." Common sense embodies a lot more than driving below the speed limit. What is your definition of a "courteouse driver" that lets you equate courteouse driving with driving below the speed limit? >If I am doing 120 on the 401 and some nutcase comes screaming up >behind me, weaving in and out of the lanes and slams his brakes on >right behind me, which one of us is the dangerous one? > Depending on the traffic flow at the time, either of you can be the dangerous culpit. For example, driving 120 on the leftmost express lane when all the other lanes are packed and moving faster would be consider by most poeple as dangerouse to others. For example, driving an the left lane at the same speed as the right lane when someone else wishes to pass would be considered dis-courteous and dangerous. >According to Mr. Chow's statement, perhaps we should have >everyone (including the dangerous, incompetent drivers, and people >driving cars which are about to fall apart and are uncertifiable >(althought the drivers are perhaps certifiable)) at the same HIGH >speed... > Please note that your conclusion does not necesaryly follow from my statement. It is entirely possible for slow drivers to keep right and fast drivers on the left lanes. Ontario already have such rules. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.
kevin@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Wallace B. Wallace) (05/08/89)
In article <2477@gandalf.UUCP> alayne@gandalf.UUCP (Alayne McGregor) writes: > >To me, instant voting is synonymous with instant thinking -- in other words, > You've got me on this one. The big problem is how to get people to vote *responsibly*. If I were asked for an instant decision knowing all of the facts in the situation I feel quite confident that the decision would be correct due to the workings of the subconscious mind. If, however, I were asked for a decision on an issue I knew nothing about I might as well pull out a coin for just as accurate a reply. Some people do not even realize this! (The old ego trips in when a pollster asks a question which you know nothing about. Can't let him know you don't know everything.) >Certainly, people should be involved if they're interested in an issue. >But an uninterested person produces a worthless (to me) vote. Why bother? > >Alayne McGregor This is really what I am advocating too. But, there are many issues that I would be interested in if I *knew* about them. On reflection, instant *voting* would be a disaster, but having a list of issues available on which one could express an opinion is a more sane solution. Lines of communication to find out these things exist, but only if (1) You know exactly how to use them and (2) You have the time to monitor them for issues of interest to you. (1) is not difficult, but (2) is almost insurmountable. If a list of issues were made available in an easily monitored source (such as a newspaper, or "your own personal information centre") then (2) could be eliminated. To put this in your situation, how many more cyclists do you think are out there who would support your issues if they only knew about it? --- Kevin Picott NTT Systems Inc.
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (Kim Nguyen) (05/09/89)
In article <478@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow) writes: >If you feel like a tirade against speeders, just do it. Why do you have >to drag me into something I did not say? Heh, who's on a tirade against speeders? *I* often drive above the speed limit... NOW who's not reading what someone else posted?! :-) >> [...] Pardon >>me, but isn't it the drivers who disregard the law, common sense, and >>civility who endanger the lives of law abiding (well, relatively >>speaking, since we ARE talking about speeding :-), courteous drivers? >> > >What is your definition of a "courteouse driver" that lets you equate >courteouse driving with driving below the speed limit? Whoa! Where did I say courtesy = below speed limit driving? Courteous drivers often speed... >>If I am doing 120 on the 401 and some nutcase comes screaming up >>behind me, weaving in and out of the lanes and slams his brakes on >>right behind me, which one of us is the dangerous one? >> > >Depending on the traffic flow at the time, either of you can be the >dangerous culpit. True. But I was working under the assumption that I am not a dangerous left lane bandit. >Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA Sorry for the apparent obnoxiousness of my comments, but you seemed to imply that slow (ie. speed limit) drivers were the dangerous ones (which WOULD have indicated to me that you like to speed an awful lot and get annoyed at speed limit drivers -- which I feel is not justified!). I was trying to point out that speeders are more likely to be discourteous (since they're in a hurry) than are slower (speed limit) drivers, and hence more dangerous. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) (05/09/89)
In article <3201@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: > We do have to set the tradeoff at some point, and that tradeoff really > is one between human time wasted on the road and human life wasted on > the road. > You have to remember that some folks out there *enjoy* driving. I see no reason to endanger them just to *lower* the amount of time they drive (and enjoy themselves). Therefore when we implement Brad's scheme we'll have to root out those people and build them special ultra-low-risk roads with strict speed limits and sweeping padded curves. While the rest of us (who think of driving as a chore) buzz along like bats outta Hull on the fury of the open road the driving enthusiasts can sit back, relax, and have some _quality_ time in their cars. (Spice with a smiley or twelve.) -- ___ __ __ {utzoo,lsuc}!censor!jeff (416-595-2705) / / /) / ) -- my opinions -- -/ _ -/- /- No one born with a mouth and a need is innocent. (__/ (/_/ _/_ Greg Bear
mike@mks.UUCP (Mike Brookbank) (05/16/89)
In article <485@becker.UUCP> eric@becker.UUCP (Eric Siegerman) writes: > >But why do North American drivers differ in this from Europeans? >I assume we're no less intelligent, so we must just be less >skillful ... I think the skill factor and social driving conditions play a major part in European driving largely due to the conditions of the road and the physical geography of the country. In North America, for the most part, the roads are flat, have low gradiant factors, are wide and have a very good visibility rate. (Especially here in Southern Ontario!). In Italy, the mountain roads are very narrow, have a very sharp turning radius an very poor visibilty. The city or town streets were built with horse travel in mind and only VERY recently (past fifty years) have they tried, unsuccessfully to modify the roads try and accomodate automobile traffic. This means that the average Italian driver MUST pay attention to the road and his fellow drivers because if he doesn't he is likely to drive over a cliff and plunge two thousand meters. So my point is that its not so much driver vs. driver as driver vs. geographical limitations and because these limitations are not forgiving the average Italian driver is far more skilled than the average North American driver. I think this point can be extended to regions within North America as well. I have found that northern drivers (ie people who deal with the snow, freezing rain, etc) are on average better drivers than southern drivers. I have also found that mountain drivers are better than non-mountain drivers. What I think would go a long way in solving the problem of driving skills is a compulsory advanced driving course offered maybe five years after you have obtained your licence. This course would teach you controlled skidding, precision handling, how to effectively use your gears for stopping, etc... Maybe we could even get the insurance companies to back this program by offering lowered rates. Think the'll go for it? Naaaah! -- Mike Brookbank Phone: (519)884-2251 Mortice Kern Systems Inc. UUCP: uunet!watmath!mks!mike 35 King St. North BIX: join mks Waterloo, Ontario N2J 2W9 CompuServe: 73260,1043