# Speed kills your pocket book



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

Video advocating increasing speed limits: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=21e_1379033844

What do you think?


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

There are a lot of highways where you would be a public nuisance if you went as slow as the speed limit. As the video says even when you are following a cop they do not follow the limits on these types of highways. Although some places in the US are even worse where they have a tendency to build highways through towns rather than bypass them and you get highways constantly alternating between 55 mph to 25mph. Speeds seem to make more sense in Europe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I agree with raising speed limits and then stepping up enforcement for truly unsafe speeding. Also, enforcing keeping the passing lane clear--this one is a huge problem in the GTA and is very dangerous.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I agree with everything posted here thus far. There is a rapidly growing traffic camera industry that thrives upon artificially low and politically manipulated speed limts. Their official rhetoric is "safety", yet they do nothing to prevent people from speeding, only photograph them after the fact. They have also been hiding evidence from motorists, such as cropping the photo tightly around your car, so that the evidence of other cars possibly confusing the camera is hidden. Lots of reading on this website and many others like it. Don't believe the rhetoric. It's a huge scam/tax ripoff and nothing more.

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

If speed cameras are used, they shouldn't be hidden. You could have a camera every few km reading plates, and use the time interval to calculate average speed.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Speaking of "speeds kills your pocket book," it's worth noting that the fuel economy of most cars starts declining above 50 mph (80 kph). For every 5 mph (8 kph) over that, you're effectively paying another 7 cents per liter. So raising the speed limit from 100 kph to 120 kph on the highway would amount to a "tax" of $0.175 per liter.

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's a good point, brad. I usually only drive about 110 on the highway. Trying to drive 120 is less fuel efficient and would require a lot of maneuvering around other cars.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The fuel economy is a good point but it depends on the car and what speed it is designed to cruise at... Many many countries have a speed limit of 130kmh and I honestly think that is the sweet spot... Let's be honest.. most Canadians already cruise at 120-130kmh. At 110kmh most healthy brains get bored and aren't as alert as 130kmh. While I enjoy the autobahn, the wide range of speed is not ideal and it is expensive/dangerous to cruise above 150kmh. In the snow however, all the AWD SUVs shouldn't be cruising at 120kmh either because their brakes aren't better than anyone else's...


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I don't usually agree with brad but that's a great point. I had never thought of the tax angle of allowing greater speeds. I noticed the same thing in the US where there were some hwys with 75MPH limits and I wondered why. For CDN highways 110 burns enough gas as it is. You can almost feel the hole burning in your wallet when you go 120.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

If all you care about is efficiency, why are you driving a car in the first place? Why do we make bullet trains and air planes go so fast? A sportbike barely burns any fuel at higher speed because it is designed for speed. Typical cars are designed to get good EPA rating at 110kmh because they are tested at 110kmh with the a/c off in perfect conditions etc etc. The size of the wheels, the engine, the transmission, the aerodynamics all play a role... A car can be efficient at 130kmh if it it designed to be.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I noticed the same thing in the US where there were some hwys with 75MPH limits and I wondered why.


I don't think that was motivated by a back-door revenue grab, though: the higher speed limits are mainly in the western states, where distances between towns are far and increasing the speed limit can mean the difference between a 5 hour journey and a 4.5 hour (or less) journey.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

In Alberta all the 400 style highways are 110. Regular country roads with a reasonable shoulder are 100. Everything is hunky dory.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

mode, I understand that cars can be designed to cruise relatively efficiently at higher speeds, but drag is proportional to velocity squared. Higher speed = higher drag.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

m3s said:


> Typical cars are designed to get good EPA rating at 110kmh because they are tested at 110kmh with the a/c off in perfect conditions etc etc.


See EPA's actual test protocols here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> mode, I understand that cars can be designed to cruise relatively efficiently at higher speeds, but drag is proportional to velocity squared. Higher speed = higher drag.


If everyone only drove around at 50kmh we would drive smaller cars with smaller wheels and engines for that purpose (as they do in some countries) If you want to pull a heavy trailer you will get better mileage with a diesel truck than a small car... Any car will burn more at 130kmh, but you can design a car to be more efficient at 130kmh.

I am well aware than 80 kmh is safer and more efficient than 110 and I am well aware of air drag.......... so why do you draw the line at 110? Why don't we drive around at 50 kmh then?



brad said:


> See EPA's actual test protocols here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml


What is the number on the sticker on the showroom floor based on? Why is it sometimes much different than real world numbers? Lots of cars have great efficiency on the sticker, but not so good in stop and go traffic with the a/c on or when you have to pass a few times on the highway. An M3 is more efficient than a Prius on a race track for example.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Revenue from speeding tickets are a very important source for all cities, towns and municipalities.
To the extent that they pay the traffic cops _extra overtime_ in order to go to traffic court when issued tickets are challenged.
There are huge budget gaps in almost all city/town budgets that are currently being patched up by using traffic ticket revenue.

That said, if those sources of revenue are stifled, how are they going to make up the deficits?
I would like to know what other taxes need to go up in order to compensate for that.

Are they going to raise property taxes? Increase the HST? Toll roads? Impose additional local sales taxes?

You can't simply make hundreds of thousands of $$ of traffic ticket revenues disappear from city budgets without a clear, transparent plan in front on the residents on how that revenue will be replaced.

Of course, they could cut spending, but remind me when that happened last :rolleyes2:

Those that are advocating for reduced revenue from traffic tickets should be prepared for alternative forms of taxes.
Because that is what speeding tickets are - they are a tax on stupidity and non compliance.
Those that break the limit pay the tax.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

As taxes go, traffic fines leave much to be desired. For one, they are very costly to collect. I think their primary purpose to promote adherence to traffic laws rather than to raise revenue.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

andrewf said:


> For one, *they are very costly to collect.* I think their primary purpose to promote adherence to traffic laws rather than to raise revenue.


Now that's a good point! We have had several threads about the high salaries of the cops..... I have also seen rampant threads on auto forums about "how to defeat speeding tickets in court" Either it takes too long to go to court, or the cop doesn't show because they are too busy etc

I know everyone is tired of hearing about Germany but the difference in policing speed is night and day. The cops don't hide in places where they know they can catch people speeding. There are many camera traps in reasonable places with reasonable speed limits. You can either pay them or lose points.

You would think mass chaos would then ensue? No, I feel much safer driving in Germany and when I see a cop I don't worry he will ticket me for no good reason either. If I do something dangerous like ignore a red light, sure, punish me hard... I drive 130kmh and I'm not endangering anyone. Trust me.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> I think their primary purpose to promote adherence to traffic laws rather than to raise revenue.


Of course, that is the way it _should_ be so, but it aint so.

Starting this Jan, let us say _everyone_ starts driving _exactly_ at the speed limit.
There will be a huge, gaping hole in all municipal/city budgets.
The right thing to do in that case would be to reduce the number of cops, but that won't happen.

I am all for road safety as well as tax efficiency.
But let's be clear on where the missing revenue is going to come from and/or which services are going to be cut/eliminated.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Call me crazy, but I suspect there's not much left after the cost of enforcement.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Call me crazy, but I suspect there's not much left after the cost of enforcement.


But you are saying the same thing, innit?
If the _proceeds _from enforcement were to disappear, would the _cost_ of enforcement also disappear?
Methinks not.
So which type of new tax will fill the gap?

IMHO, these public spirited campaigns to reduce speed enforcement and perceived victimizing of drivers are misguided.
They are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> That said, if those sources of revenue are stifled, how are they going to make up the deficits?


Perhaps they can make up by ticketing other infractions. For example the "stay right except to pass" law rarely seems enforced on the highways as far as I can tell because I often get stuck behind some guy cruising in the left lane. That, plus things like tailgating, unsafe lane changes, etc, could all be ticketed.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

We could have the cops doing more productive things but that would upset several industries. Just like "speeding" is a required for tax revenue, crime is also required for a profitable law industry. As are health problems for big pharma. It's all about the money money money.

I have no problem with 50kmh in town, but in Canada they post the 50kmh a km or more before the real town. This is where the cops like to hide at night like bandits. I remember getting a speeding ticket coasting into town in the middle of the night when nobody was around... modern day highway robbery.

In Germany if there is 1 km between towns you can do 100kmh, but most people don't even drive that fast because 100 is more than reasonable. It's the school zones and 30kmh zones where they overtly enforce the limit.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

That video was well done. Unfortunately the maker missed one of the best things about faster limits: *fewer cars on the road*. 
If I get to work 5 minutes faster, that's one less car out there for 5 minutes of rush hour. 
Multiply that by each and every car and volume is substantially reduced.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Has anyone else noticed some key areas where limits were lowered soon after stunt driving laws were brought into Ontario?
This "50 begins" sign used to be a "50 ahead" sign. It is at the bottom of a long downhill grade in a rural area with no obstructions or anything to impede flow or cause distractions. If you crested the previous hill doing the speed limit (80km/h) and didn't use your brakes, you'll be doing exactly 100km/h when you pass this sign due to the grade (in my car). Then, you will crest the hill ahead which slows you to about 55 km/h. Over the hill ahead is a little ida where the 50Km/h begins sign used to be. 
It was perfect. You could save fuel and your brakes. Now, you have to brake or risk a stunt driving charge and vehicle impoundment. 









Funny too - I was just looking that up on google maps. Just over the hill is an OPP cruiser pulling someone over.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

andrewf, the stats are all there. All you have to do is look for them. I even posted a link above. It's about revenue and there's plenty to go around for the camera companies, various levels of govt and finally the police dept. They hide/remove speed limit signs, create artificially low speed "zones" and then have a car hiding around the corner in one of their "zones" at 9AM Sunday morning. Yeah, keep the kids safe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

hystat said:


> That video was well done. Unfortunately the maker missed one of the best things about faster limits: *fewer cars on the road*.
> If I get to work 5 minutes faster, that's one less car out there for 5 minutes of rush hour.
> Multiply that by each and every car and volume is substantially reduced.


Unfortunately, congestion doesn't really work this way. A highway lane can handle a certain number of vehicles per hour, regardless of speed. Travelling faster actually requires more headway (in seconds), so driving slower can actually mean more road capacity.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

The drivers are doing this to themselves...thundering down neighborhood streets at 80, running stop signs in school zones...just ask Violet Liang's family.
It is _indeed_ about kids' safety, at least in the neighborhood streets and school zones.

Sure, the camera companies are taking a cut, but is that any worse than the cut the cops are taking?
All those sunshine list salaries and benefits we keep hearing of...
There is also a huge bureaucracy set up by cities and towns - with hordes of paper pushers, "justices of peace", prosecutors, and other useless, mindless jobs that are supported by this industry.

Any public spirited campaign to increase speed limits in neighborhood streets will be met with strong resistance from local residents and parents.
Who would like to volunteer to make that case at the next Townhall meeting?


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Unfortunately, congestion doesn't really work this way. A highway lane can handle a certain number of vehicles per hour, regardless of speed. Travelling faster actually requires more headway (in seconds), so driving slower can actually mean more road capacity.


I'll second that. My father spent a couple of decades working on traffic-flow theory (he was the head of R&D at the NY Port Authority) and this was one of the main findings of his studies.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

^ In addition to traffic engineering theory, it sounds silly as well to say _the faster you drive, the faster you will get there_.
You will get *somewhere* faster for sure, but it is not where you were going.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> ^ In addition to traffic engineering theory, it sounds silly as well to say _the faster you drive, the faster you will get there_. You will get *somewhere* faster for sure, but it is not where you were going.


I've learned that on the autobahn is doesn't make a whole lot of difference how fast you go because there is always construction and fuel stops or something to slow you down anyways. 110kmh is just mind numbingly slow.. and 130kmh doesn't burn much more fuel in a good aerodynamic car (underbody panels etc) If I want to get somewhere fast though, a motorbike is proven to save a lot of time while using less fuel.

If we want to talk about the waste of gas from speed, we should also note that needless waste of fuel from stop signs compared to roundabouts and yield signs. Using your brakes to slow down to 50kmh long before the urban city starts and then having to accelerate up a hill is also a needless waste of fuel. Speeding a bit down a hill to get up the next one can save fuel.

If this is all about saving the kids, then why do we apply the same limits to all road conditions? Motorcyclists are keenly aware of how much your stopping is reduced on wet or cold pavement, but most cars drive at the same speed regardless of the road conditions.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I didn't mean that in an absolute sense of Speed = Distance / Time.
_Of course_ the faster the speed, the less the time.
I meant in a practical sense for most North American highways and streets.

Raising speed limits will not make people arrive faster for the most part.



m3s said:


> If this is all about saving the kids, then why do we apply the same limits to all road conditions?


I am not saying we should.
Of course, speed limits within neighborhoods and school zones should be lower than highways.
Anyone that suggests otherwise is smoking something funny.

I am sorry if I clumped together several different themes in my previous post.
Here are the _separate_ issues I am raising:

- Drivers are bringing this excessive speed enforcement upon themselves by their behavior, esp. in neighborhood and school zones.
Viola Liang's case was just the most recent incident - there are scores of such incidents every year.
Just because fatalities are down YoY does not mean we don't need enforcement and/or raise limits in neighborhood and school zones.

- The assumption that doing 130 in a 100 zone is the same as doing 80 in a 50 zone is _wrong_.
50 zones are often schools and neighborhoods.
Yeah, yeah I know there are some highways and wide open streets that are marked 50, but that's a different matter (see next point below)

- The revenue raised from speeding tickets is a significant component of all city budgets.
It supports the very highly paid jobs of cops, justices of peace, paper pushing bureaucrats, and hordes of other administrative staff.
So _obviously_ a big part of speed enforcement is the revenue angle.

If, by whatever means, revenue raised from speed enforcement were to be reduced significantly, what other form of tax is going to compensate for the deficit.
Residents and property tax payers need to know that - there should be a clear, transparent plan around it.
It is not acceptable to raise property taxes and/or sales taxes by n% to compensate for lost revenue from speed enforcement.

Anyone that recommends reduced collection from speed enforcement (either by raising limits and/or by reducing enforcement) should also clarify how much more in taxes they are _personally_ willing to pay to offset the lost revenue.
And be prepared to sell that idea to the rest of the residents.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Unfortunately, congestion doesn't really work this way. A highway lane can handle a certain number of vehicles per hour, regardless of speed. Travelling faster actually requires more headway (in seconds), so driving slower can actually mean more road capacity.


I don't think it's linear like that on most roads. If we're talking 400 series highways, then the data is probably pretty good from that source. But as an example, the "lobster trap" effect of some industrial parks at 4 pm is a different story. 
At a point on some roads, congestion causes congestion. 
To avoid the beginning of congestion is to avoid *any *congestion on some roads.

There are two spots on my drive home, that if you tried to go the speed limit, you would be upside down in the ditch. One decreasing radius curve at 60k is a full out drift. Another 80km/h hairpin would not be survivable at any more than 50km/h.
I must be getting old. I have actually thought about calling to see what's involved to have the limits lowered. lol


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Speed kills your pocketbook

Here is a video on the propaganda war being waged against drivers in BC.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

kcowan, isn't that the very video that triggered this thread?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

LOL @kcowan. Excellent video!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Confirmed--it's the same video.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The herding effect will make drivers stupid & drive @ stupid speeds.

High tech could easily make the roads safer i,e., satelites could stop vechiles driving above certain speeds & or speed of vechile could be tracked & appropriate speeding tickets be sent out & if not paid the vechile could be simply shut down.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> LOL @kcowan. Excellent video!


Yes I thought it was worth repeating with apologies to those diligent thread followers.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

lonewolf said:


> The herding effect will make drivers stupid & drive @ stupid speeds.
> 
> High tech could easily make the roads safer i,e., satelites could stop vechiles driving above certain speeds & or speed of vechile could be tracked & appropriate speeding tickets be sent out & if not paid the vechile could be simply shut down.


You make good points, lonewolf.
Already many top companies are working on driverless cars, incl. Google, Nissan, Tesla, and others.
I believe that is where the future is...we already have cars that can self park, therefore, entirely driverless cars is the future.

There is too much human error involved in driving these days, incl. distracted drivers, over-aggressive driving, road rage, etc.
If/when that happens, speed limits will be a moot point.

In the meantime though, I see the clamps tightening around those that do not follow speed limits.
Rental cars fitted with speed trackers, insurance companies "encouraging" customers to fit driving behavior monitoring devices in their cars to get "discounts", and speed enforcement getting more and more aggressive by cash-strapped cities and municipalities.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ I don't think speed limits will be totally moot, especially outside of limited access highways. Motorcycles will never be fully autonomous, and there will still be pedestrians and cyclists sharing the roads.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Further to what I said above about speed limits in school zones:

_*Scarborough students issue speeding tickets*_
_One driver who got caught Thursday morning said she didn’t know the speed limit was 40 km/h.
"I was in such a rush to get to work that I missed it," said Kin, who did not give her surname.
...
"Basically, people are driving way too fast, even in school zones," Const. Clint Stibbe said._

http://www.citynews.ca/2013/09/19/scarborough-students-issue-speeding-tickets/

I can attest to this from personal experience in my own neighborhood.
Morning and afternoon, people nonchalantly ignoring strong signs, no U-Turn signs, etc.
And of course thundering down the school street at 60, 70 or even 80 kph.

Any attempt to increase limits in school zones will be met with strong resistance from local residents and parents.

Videos like the one posted above that sneer and make fun of stricter speed limits in school zones, using asinine quotes from TV cartoons, are only funny to watch.
But in truth they are nothing more than trolls.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I don't think my car is capable of speeding..... :biggrin:


----------



## liquidfinance (Jan 28, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I agree with raising speed limits and then stepping up enforcement for truly unsafe speeding. Also, enforcing keeping the passing lane clear--this one is a huge problem in the GTA and is very dangerous.


I will just echo this point and add that it can often feel unsafe if you do go just the speed limit. 

Keeping the passing lane clear. Good point. But Drivers in the center lane will not allow large vehicle over to allow oncoming to traffic to enter merge. Large vehicles sit in the middle lane everyone else wants to be in the passing lane. The few doing the limit sit in the inside. Trucks sitting in the middle land can be as much of a problem as people in the passing lane.


There are countless problems.

Probably the only speed limit which makes sense is 40km within a school zone.


----------



## SpIcEz (Jan 8, 2013)

Some European countries have found ways to help with those problems.

- Trucks ride in the right lane ONLY.
- Trucks are not allowed to pass EVER.
- NO trucks within city limits (even on highways) during rush hours.


----------

