Jump to content

Cop Stories... Anyone Got A Good One?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Come on people! Everybody knows that speed doesn't kill. But rapid deceleration certainly does.

Speed can kill....looky here...........Speed, (methamphetamine), is a potent and deadly drug and has been known to cause numerous deaths......

Lordy, Lordy...I just luv this forum !!!! :Grin-Nod::Grin-Nod: :Grin-Nod: :Grin-Nod::Grin-Nod::Grin-Nod:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

speeding causes accidents and they are mostly deadly and often kill other than the driver.

I don't think those are the facts.

As was said above, it's excessive speed (for the given conditions) that causes accidents. (as opposed to "driving in excess of the posted limit") Trouble there is what's excessive for me/my car/my tires might not be excessive for you/your car/your tires, or Mario Andretti.... 30 mph in snow or ice could easily be excessive speed for the conditions.... Mostly deadly? I doubt that. Often killing someone other than the driver? Yes, even once is too often.

In any case, I find myself wanting to let you know (for reasons which aren't exactly clear to me?) that my habits have changed considerably since I first started arguing with you over this subject some years back.... I often find myself in the slow lane these days, and in no great hurry at all.... When I want to go very fast there are a number of ways and places to accomplish that safely, but I've found -- aside from the odd test drive where I'm trying to trouble shoot something - like performance, or a vibration or test for correction of same -- I don't often feel the need for speed anymore. Last time I changed back to summer wheels I took my car for a quick spurt to about 190 (on an empty road) and immediately backed down afterward. Satisfied. Vib check completed, no faults found. .... but other than that.... not so much speed at all.

When I want to end it all, if I can't take a big beautiful bird for a joyride, I'll nail a bridge at top speed, with nobody else around.... if you read about it, please know that it wasn't an accident, and it wasn't "speeding" that caused the crash. :):biggrin2::lol: --- maniacal laughter fades into silence... :wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... As was said above, it's excessive speed (for the given conditions) that causes accidents. (as opposed to "driving in excess of the posted limit") Trouble there is what's excessive for me/my car/my tires might not be excessive for you/your car/your tires, or Mario Andretti.... 30 mph in snow or ice could easily be excessive speed for the conditions....

Hi again, Mitch - You and a few others have made several references to the relative skill of drivers, of the capability of the car, as if this should provide some exemption to standard speed limits, or perhaps that we should all just be our own judge of what is excessive speed for us alone? Seriously?

It seems that your collective idea is that, rather than each driver driving as safely as they can, the standard should be that each driver maintains only a lowest-common-denominator of safety so that a skilled (self-assessed) driver can avail himself of higher speed? And that there is no connection between increased speed and increased likelihood of an accident? hell, lets even throw in the notion that increased speed brings no extra energy into the equation at all.

These notions may have legs, not just on the road :stirthepot: .

Approach minima are a frustrating impediment to the skilled pilots among us, no? This is not even a self-assessment, we're tested ad absurdum - I've demonstrated NDB approaches before an examiner hundreds of times, executed them thousands, and I'm still restricted to about 500 feet AGL? With RMI's, radio altimetry, & two other pilots monitoring, and I'm still treated like I've got 1000 hrs flying an Aztec with a fixed card ADF. Why do we have to be any safer? Nuts, ehh?

And how about that MEL? They say a Dash-8 can't fly without a 2nd AHRS? on VFR day where the only vis limit is curvature of the earth? With full dual display from the good AHRS, standby AI etc. etc., and all I really, really need is airspeed, altimeter and whiskey compass! Where does this BS end, ehh?

Sorry, couldn't resist :box:

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone that has ever driven SW Marine drive, west of Boundary road to Kerr in Vancouver will understand that speed limits are arbitrary and potentially very dangerous. This stretch of road has a 50 km/h limit and if you actually went 50 you'd be a hazard to all around you! It's 3 lanes in both directions and the natural tendency is to go at least 70 km/h with 80-90 being quite comfortable.

There is some theory of the 85th percentile to set road speeds. Can't find it right now.

There are so many variables in this discussion that we'll never agree. Malcolm is a doddering old guy in a fedora cruising 15k under the limit and Mitch is a hazard to all around him. That's all that's clear to me! :Prayer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's Ok IFG, I asked for it, I'm sure.... I'll try to answer your points...

No, I don't think there should be any given exemptions for skilled folk, or better cars. I do think the limits that currently exist on most highways here in Canada, are already set for the lowest common denominator though. And to that, I object. Meanwhile, when I'm alone in my car, and there's nobody around for me to endanger, or I can be sure not to endanger the odd few who may be around, I have no qualms about driving "as safely as I can" at whatever speed I want to and feel safe at. If I get caught doing so (and have been several times in days gone by) I'll take my lumps.

Society has the right to set standards and laws and tell me driving is a privilege, etc.... and I have a right to disagree. (so long as I'm not affecting anyone else!) ....it's like one of those "victimless crime" sorts of thing... like marijuana laws. (who the hell are politicians to tell me what I can and can't smoke? "Tobacco smoke contains benzene, a chemical that causes cancer." is written on my cigarette package... There's no benzene (nor anywhere near the multitude of ugly chemicals found in cigs) in homegrown, yet the tobacco is legal and the dope isn't? Go figure? ....sorry, I digress )

Let me ask you.... If you were blasting around, alone, in your own F-18, and you knew no one had you in their sights, and no one would catch you, or even ever know (consider a magic day with just you in the sky and nobody below but an empty airfield), would you still follow all the rules?

Yes, of course there is some connection with increased speed and increased likelihood of an accident. Things happen faster. (and yes, of course with more energy - ya sod you. ;) ) But if we were serious about eliminating the speed equation from accidents, why would we have any highways at all? Is 100kph on a multilane crowded highway somehow safe, while 100kph on an empty two lane highway isn't?

I think you'll agree that the greatest speed related threat to safety on any roadway is the difference in speed between various vehicles... yet it's only those at one end of the equation who are penalized. That dopey old man with the hat on, going 60 in an 80, should take side roads if he can't/won't speed up. ....same with the clods doing just the limit in the passing lane. (in fact, imo, those guys cause more accidents than most of the guys who want to get past them.)

Anyway, other than adding my voice to those who call for increased speed limits, I'm sure there's nothing I can change about the way things are. And I'm fine with that.... I'll just continue to insist that, as long as I'm not endangering anyone else, or causing anyone any harm in any way, I can do pretty much as I please. (a say "pretty much" to acknowledge there may be something I can't think of at the moment to make such a blanket statement incorrect?)

Beautiful day here, and I have a bunch of outdoor work I need to get at....

Cheers, :b:

Mitch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Let me ask you.... If you were blasting around, alone, in your own F-18, and you knew no one had you in their sights, and no one would catch you, or even ever know (consider a magic day with just you in the sky and nobody below but an empty airfield), would you still follow all the rules? ....

.... Beautiful day here, and I have a bunch of outdoor work I need to get at....

I'll take the fifth on that Mitch :shhh::cool:

The problem in setting the rules is that, yep, you do have to set them for the LCD among us. When you contemplate thousands of people following their "judgement", it's quite hard to have as much confidence in happy outcomes as you might in following the dictates of your own. So we have conservative speed limits on the road, approach bans in the air etc. And yep, they can be a PITA :Furious:, but if you've ever had some responsibility for the actions of other people, you'll understand where they come from.

Much too nice a day for any kind of work, I'm off for a toot on the BMW.

Cheers, IFG :b:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:td:

Just do a little googling to see how common this has become. I once heard the Calgary Chief of police bragging that they wouldn't have to go to the city for more money because they were generating so much income from tickets. Talk about a conflict of interest...

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/virginia-hands-out-6996-traffic-tickets-in-one-weekend-in-an-effort-to-raise-revenue-for-the-state-government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A true user pay system at work. :Grin-Nod:

You know..... when you put it like that, ....I think I'm sorta ok with that. ....so then, the smartest among us - the old codgers with hats who drive nice, or don't drive... AND the clever folks who know exactly how to avoid radar, never have to pay! That could just be alright... :wink_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should manage it like they do in the UK. Speed limits on major routes are variable based on conditions and photo radar is used everywhere. They also use speed averaging photo radar so you can't cheat between cameras. I've spent a lot of time on their major roads and I can't honestly remember one instance where I was cut off or felt threatened by some aggressive driver. Here in the GTA, it happens every other day - at a minimum.

What gets me is when people who would get very upset if they heard about pilots breaking safety limits on purpose, feel it's okay to rail at the notion that their own intentional breaking of safety limits might be questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 100Km/h speed limit was imposed during the oil crises in the 70s as that was the most economical speed to drive. today the gearing of most cars ensures that 100Km/h (60M/h) is the most economical speed to drive. nothing more nothing less. That is why you alwas here that mileage will decrease x amount per Km/h above 100.

Back to the other argument. SPEED requires qualifiers to kill. Speed unto itself does NOT kill. An outside force other than speed needs to occur. That could be braking to hard, entering a corner at speed, or just making an input to the steering causing a loss of control. in other words inducing a force to change the current state of energy. Thnk Newton. For you pilots flying a big metal tube at 500 Mph through the air...What happens when you suddenly pull back on the control column? A force is created that is likley to cause an accident. SPEED did not cause it as that same act will cause an accident surely at slower speeds as well.

I do not think anyone should get special consideration WRT skill or vehicle but some common sense has to prevail as to what the limits are and why they are imposed.

Now consider that vehicles in the 60s and 70s had inferior handling to todays automobiles. That is whn the limits were first imposed so the limits have nothing to do with "Safety" and more to do with economics.

I also challenge anyone to even come close to the speed limit on the 401 during Rush Hour. Not gonna get near 40 let alone 100. And Mitch....The Right lane is usually the fastest these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A conflict only if the tickets were for imagined speeding, as long as some (and in YYC there are lots) of people who feel it is their right to speed, I have no problem with the police budget being supplemented by that revenue vs increased taxes for the rest of us. A true user pay system at work. :Grin-Nod:

I don't agree.

The police are supposed to be out there protecting the public. When they recieve revenue from tickets , this happens...

POLICE SPEED TRAPS ARE REVENUE-RAISERS

Instead of making their presence felt throughout the roads as a deterrent to dangerous driving practices, the police act merely as government revenue-raisers. This is easily proven by observing and analysing their methods. For instance, whenever a well-marked police vehicle is easily seen on the road, the behaviour of motorists immediately and dramatically changes. They slow down to the speed limit and drive very safely and carefully. In other words, there is no doubt whatsoever that the greatest deterrent to unsafe driving is a visible police presence on the roads.

POLICE USE ENTRAPMENT - NOT ENFORCEMENT

So what do the police do? The exact opposite! They hide behind bushes and billboards with radar and laser guns and book speeding motorists, gathering tens of millions of dollars per year in revenue from infringements. If the police really wanted to stop speeders, the mere presence of marked police cars on the roads would achieve this immediately, but of course this does not produce any revenue.

And why do police persist in using unmarked cars? The obvious and only logical explanation is that this also allows them to raise revenue by booking motorists who would certainly not be speeding if the police had made their presence felt by patrolling in marked cars. In other words, what the police are doing is entrapment, not enforcement, purely for the purpose of collecting revenue.

One can often see police spokesmen in the media touting the enforcement of speed limits by using cameras, but of course this is utter nonsense. For instance, the police would not dare to claim to be enforcing the law by taking photographs of masked bandits fleeing a bank, then looking to arrest them one month later. Enforcement means preventing the continuation of an offence at the exact time that the offence is detected.

When a cop pulls you over for speeding and gives you a ticket on the spot, that is enforcement. But when a cop or a speed camera takes a photo of you speeding and allows you to continue this behaviour for a month until you get the infringement notice in the mail, that is not enforcement, but entrapment and revenue-raising.

Any revenue should in no way , shape or form , benefit police departments.

If you want to read something really scary , read this...

http://www.infowars.com/americas-roads-have-been-turned-into-a-revenue-generating-surveillance-grid/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Mitch....The Right lane is usually the fastest these days.

I can vouch for that. I often make better time during rush hour than the tailgaters in the left lane, all while keeping a safe distance, allowing my fellow drivers to make lane changes, and trying my best to do nothing that would get someone else's BP running high.

There's too many nuts out there. I saw two guys having a road rage battle the other day in moderately heavy traffic. Weaving across lanes and cutting each other off repeatedly with hand gestures out the window to go along with it. Finally one of the idiots got off at an exit where the other bonehead couldn't follow him because he had shot over to the left lane - again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What gets me is when people who would get very upset if they heard about pilots breaking safety limits on purpose, feel it's okay to rail at the notion that their own intentional breaking of safety limits might be questionable.

Uh-oh.... izzat me yer talkin' about? ....if yes, what safety limits did a pilot break that I got upset about? :huh: ... if no, please disregard. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JO.I see this EVERYDAY. I now have a pattern to my travels on the highway, and it works. I get on a WC and remain in the Right Lane until Mississauga Road This is normally the fastest lane. From Mississauga Road it slows down due to all the merging Traffic so I move Left one lane to the Middle and remain there until Mavis. Then at Mavis I move all the way Left as for some reason the people getting on the highway at Mavis are complete Morons. This is where I see ore near misses that anywhere else. After passing Hwy 410 I move back Right all the way. Again the fastest lease congested lane and also the lane that means I do not have to make another lane change. Had I stayed in the Left lane from the start I would have been about 1-2 minutes behind due the the falacy that it is the FAST lane and everyone wanting to be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simply revenue generation. If speed alone kills then police cars should never be allowed to speed. .... That would be dangerous.

Son, I pulled you over because you we're doing 180 kph...Thanks Officer...I wasn't"t planning on driving the whole hour...

Son, Why were you driving 180kph......Officer I was slowing down....

Dork

Autobahn.....so much for the speed kills argument...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dork:

The Autobahn Has a speedlimit within the limits of any city. the only area left without a limit is on the open highway between cities. Speeds are higher for certain but so it the quality of the driver training. If you have ever noticed on the Autobahn people DO NOT drive in the left lane. They PASS in the left lane then move back to the right to allow faster traffic to pass. Isn't that a novel idea? Consider that this is also covered in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that all vehicles will travel in the right lane EXCEPT TO PASS.

The biggest problem here is that everyone is in such a damned hurry, then they want to talk on their phone or text or eat cerial or reaad the paper....and the list goes on. A small percentage are actually spending 100% of their time DRIVING.

Sorry a bit of a tangent there.

I stand by the statement that SPEED does NOT kill. Speed increases the severity of an accident that would likley not have occurred had the driver maintained control of the vehicle in the conditions at the time. That means the limits imposed by weather, vehicle, driver and other drivers on the road.

Most accidents I see on a daily basis (there is always at least one) occur at speeds under 60Km/h. Fender benders.

What the police NEED to concentrate on are these: Failing to signal, Following too close, aggressive driving, illegal lane changes (crossing solid lines or passing on the shoulder), Red Light runners (or stale yellow), Large tractor Trailer combinations in the LEFT lane (pet peeve), Distracted driving and some other of the smaller offences under the HTA. If those are all obeyed 100% of the time then accident rates would drop and speeds could safely increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so right!!!

Unfortunately, those most guilty of

"Following too close, aggressive driving, illegal lane changes (crossing solid lines or passing on the shoulder), Red Light runners (or stale yellow), Large tractor Trailer combinations in the LEFT lane (pet peeve), Distracted driving and some other of the smaller offences under the HTA".

are, in fact, the serial speeders. OK, and drivers wearing baseball caps too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so right!!!

Unfortunately, those most guilty of

"Following too close, aggressive driving, illegal lane changes (crossing solid lines or passing on the shoulder), Red Light runners (or stale yellow), Large tractor Trailer combinations in the LEFT lane (pet peeve), Distracted driving and some other of the smaller offences under the HTA".

are, in fact, the serial speeders. OK, and drivers wearing baseball caps too.

I think that's absolutely right. ...."most guilty" of all of the above. And... I'll bet... most of those would probably answer they're pushed to those measures by other dopes. ...and some would be right.

I see (I suspect we all do) both ends of the bad driving scale all the time.... there's bad slow, and bad fast. Both cause accidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have followed drivers going BANG ON the speed limit through a subdivision. Driving very cautiously...Then run a STOP sign. WTF. There is not point system where you can build them up in one place and lose them in others.

Also of note, Cops WILL pull you over if you are driving at or below the speed limit and driving in a very cautious manner. This is a prime identifier of an impaired driver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...