Highway Driving

[Moraff]

First, we drive in a 'no fault' system, but I think you will find that in most rear end accidents, responsibility is assigned to the rear ender. There is actually a law that requires you to maintain a safe distance with the vehicle ahead of you. There is no such law saying you are responsible for the distance of the vehicle behind you. And I did specify that I make 'safe' lane changes.

What tboy is referring to is that it is also law that you make a safe lane change. If the 110kph car changed lanes right in front of the 120kph car (leaving them 0 time to react) the 110kph driver will be found at fault for making an improper/unsafe lane change. So in that sense you are responsible for the car behind you.

As for your analogy to professional racing, frankly I don't give Damn, my dear. Last I checked, our highways were not designated as race tracks and my trip down the road was not intended to be a race.

I think he was referring to the courtesy of professional drivers, not the situation of the race personally.

 

[tboy]

Next..If a vehicle is 1/2 km behind me, travelling 20 km/hr faster than I am, it will take him 90 seconds to catch up to me (that's a couple more seconds than 'a couple'). Even if the distance was only 1/4Km, that would be 45 seconds before he was on my tail.

So then, you should be able to go out, pass the slower vehicles, and get back out of the faster vehicle's way in plenty of time no?

If it takes a minute and a half to catch you, then you have plenty of time to complete your maneuver......

Now if they were closer than a 1/2 km, close enough so that they had to brake to avoid hitting you, then maybe they were TOO close for you to pull in front of them?

In addition, maybe the slower vehicle should have accelerated to more than 115 kph to pass the vehicles safely and avoid impeding the faster vehicle?

In the past, it was typically the vehicle in the rear that was found at fault in an accident involving a rear end collision. That is no longer the case. In many and all instances the true cause of the accident is discovered and the charges are laid against the one found to be at fault.

As for ontario being a No Fault province, That ONLY applies to insurance, it does NOT apply to charges being laid. If that were the case NO charges would ever be laid, ever.

Here's a scenario for you: Two vehicles are driving down the road. One is following the other too closely. The front vehicle applies the brakes suddenly and with no reason. The two vehicles collide and cause a major pileup, killing 3.

The police arrive and the drivers of the two initial vehicles survive and are interviewed. The police discover that the vehicle in front slammed on his brakes for no reason other than the vehicle behind was (in his opinion) too close.

Do you REALLY think the police would NOT charge him with reckless driving?

here's a little tidbit:

"The results are particularly encouraging when the ORSAR focuses specifically on commercial vehicles. For example, in the year 2000, tractor-semi trailers represented only 1.4 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal collisions: a 12 percent decline from 1999. Over that same one-year period, these vehicles decreased their representation in all fatal collisions by 14 percent, representing 6 percent of total vehicles involved in fatal collisions. ORSAR also identified that in 71 percent of all fatalities involving trucks, the truck driver was driving properly. And, vehicle defects were present in only 4.2 percent of all vehicles involved in fatal collisions.

(Note: Coincidently, in recent weeks the American Automobile Association (the largest association representing passenger vehicles in the world) Foundation for Traffic Safety released a study confirming that in the United States, as in Ontario, the actions of car drivers contribute more to passenger/commercial vehicle fatalities than do the actions of the drivers of large trucks."

from:

http://www.thsao.on.ca/publications/fallnews2002.html

and

"But you need to do more than just obey the rules. You must care about the safety of others on the road. Everyone is responsible for avoiding collisions. Even if someone else does something wrong, you may be found responsible for a collision if you could have done something to avoid it."

and:

Don’t compete or retaliate. If someone’s driving annoys you, don’t try to “educate them”. Leave traffic enforcement to the police;

Don’t take other driver’s mistakes personally;

anyhow, nothing I will say or do will dissuade those people who think being a dick is the right thing to do....

All I can say is I hope that your actions do not cause any deaths (other than your own)..........

 

[Never Compromised]

Sorry Compromised, but twisting the truth just doesn't make you right.

Just for the record

Nowhere did I suggest I am perfect....

Nowhere did I suggest I wish to dictate to the world...this all started when I said I would not be intimidated by idiots who tailgate.

I have not twisted the truth. I have simply made observations and drawn conclusions based on what you have written.

Looking back on your posts, it amazes me that you would rather annoy people and delay achieving your own goals, rather than simply get out of the way. I notice that no other members have chosen to support your stated positions, yet there are members that do find fault with your stated position and your inability to articulately engage in an amusing debate.

 

[Diode]

Its in everyone's best interest to get out of the way.
A bunch of cars travelling at the same speed and in a conga line, is much more likely to result in a multi-car pile up, than a guy who perhaps even speeds up while passing and then adjusts his speed to leave a good amount of space infront AND behind,
People who drive like the crusie control is set, are looking for trouble.
Subtle constant adjustments, is the kee to driving for conditions.
While it is true that truckers can see much further down the road due to their height, its also true that if they get too close, they block your rear view, which is rude.
If someone is assine to tailgate me, I never use the brakes.
I do however wave them off, and if they are still to close, I put my fist in the air.
This usually only occurs in a long line of high speed traffic, where as an almost profesional driver(1250-1750km a week) I'm maintaing speed, but leaving a bigger gap than most.

 

[sailorsix]

Wow, that's almost half!

More graduates of the high school mathematics courses run by Mike Harris and Ernie Eaves.

When does 75% = 2/3? Probably the same time that a zero deficit actually eguals $5 billion.

 

[The Crunge]

Inversely proportional - Number of km/hr over the speed limit and brain cells of the driver.

Inversely proportional - Number of km/hr under the speed limit and brain cells of the driver.

 

[hunter001]

You are quite right Tboy, I would not puposely pull out right in front an appraoching vehicle if it was within close proximity ....

Rule one of passing only do it when it is safe to do so. It made sense that you would check to see if someone else was passing first so really there is no 4.

 

[HafDun]

I have not twisted the truth. I have simply made observations and drawn conclusions based on what you have written.

Looking back on your posts, it amazes me that you would rather annoy people and delay achieving your own goals, rather than simply get out of the way. I notice that no other members have chosen to support your stated positions, yet there are members that do find fault with your stated position and your inability to articulately engage in an amusing debate.

OK lets look at some of your quotes on this thread...

" The average speed is 115 only because you can't get above 45 during rush hour."

As I already stated, rush hour has little to do with 115Km/hr traffic.

"Oh yeah, I get it. Its ok for you to break the law and speed, but you think it is very very very bad for anyone to go faster than you. Talk about being a total jerk."

"You have stated that you speed. So your argument that driver's going faster than you has absolutely no moral authority. Your argument is based solely upon what you, and only you think is right. It appears that in your eyes, society is wrong."

Well, both these comments ignore the fact that the penalty increases substantially with increased speed..as I also stated.

"I notice that no other members have chosen to support your stated positions"

For what it's worth, there are a number of posts on this thread from people who supported my opinion.

And the debate lost its humour with your quote... "There are words that describe people such as yourself. Fascist. Egocentric. Selfish. Rude."
And I am selfish for driving at 115, while you expect the majority to cut a wide swath for you to plow through at 140???

Well, my annoyed friend, only in politics does fiction become truth just because you keep repeating it.

 

[mmouse]

the guy tailgating you is not specifically doing anything that could cause an accident.

I gave up on this read when I read that. Anyone who says that is so fucking braindead they don't deserve to be taken seriously, let alone drive on public roads.

 

[hunter001]

fucking braindead = tboy logic.

For you Hunter!

I see some of my lines in your posts. lol

I wouldn't say brain dead because some of the stuff is quite imaginative at times, tired most of the time. I liken it more to the logic that earth is flat, one can make a compelling argument the world is flat but it doesn't change that fact that it is not.

 

[tboy]

I gave up on this read when I read that. Anyone who says that is so fucking braindead they don't deserve to be taken seriously, let alone drive on public roads.

Spoken like someone who has experience in being brain dead.....

So, if that is true, that simply following too close causes accidents to occur, then I guess there are 178,804 accidents in Toronto everyday because during rush hour traffic EVERYONE follows too closely. Oh wait, there isn't that many accidents? Oh I guess it isn't a direct cause of an accident then.

The logic as so many of you fail to realize is that two objects travelling in the same direction at the same speed will NEVER contact one another unless an outside influence is applied. In this case an idiot slamming on their brakes for no reason........

[quote} tboy, last month while driving I saw you speeding up and slowing down as another car was trying to pass you. I then saw you accelerate to at least 50kM/hr above the speed limit as he was trying to pass you.

Based on my observations alone, the Police should go to your place of employment, arrest you in front of your piers, handcuff you and put you in jail for racing. Your car should be towed and impounded (you will have to pay $1000+ even if you are found not guilty). Your license should be suspended. Your insurance will go up. Your reputation will be damaged (okay maybe not yours). Even if the charges are dropped, people will always wonder ... but I'm sure they already do!
[/quote]

Problems with your example: 1) you don't have ANY specifics 2) You don't have any real information (ie: licence plate, make and model of vehicle, colour, time, location) so no, the police would do none of those things you suggested.

Your example is the perfect definition of what the police wouldn't respond to. For your information there is a law against filing a false witness report. So anyone who would do so out of malice would be putting themselves at risk for a charge of their own.

As for your other examples:

I'm against ANY law that bypasses due process and allows potentially permanent punishment/damages to occur to a suspect without a Judge first involved.

So, you're against pulling DUI drivers off the road too? The racing law is NO different, in each case the police stop the driver by either suspicious driving indicators (weaving etc) and in the case of "racing" they clock the vehicle or use radar to determine speed (aka collect evidence), impound their vehicle (unless there is someone else present who can drive it), ticket the driver (and suspend his licence automatically) and or arrest him (if he is legally impaired) and or take away his driving priviledges (24 hr suspension if he "blows a warning") .... how is this ANY different than the racing laws?

physiologist

When did I attempt to study the biological functions of living organisms and their parts????

I think you mean PYSCHOLOGIST lol....and I apologize, I missed the part about ""I hope he eventually learns that most cops are actually the good guys".

WHAT! Based on your tboy logic, I'm guessing that 50% of the cars on the road right now are guilty of racing. Cars are always adjusting speed for a hundred valid reasons, which to a witness may look like pacing. Are all these people racing - NO! Thank God that we have Judges and Police that apply common sense!

Nope, two or more individual vehicles not directly interracting with each other other than normal traffic flow is NOT racing. Two or more vehicles, related to each other by their direct interraction IS and can BE construed as racing.

For example, since you missed the point, if vehicle a is driving at 50 kph and a vehicle pulls into the lane next to it and also does 50 kph, that is not racing. If vehicle a is doing 50 kph and then a vehicle pulls into the lane next to it and does 60 kph, and then vehicle a matches that speed and or increases its speed to 65, and vice versa, then THAT is racing.

Another example: two vehicles are stopped at a red light. The light turns green and they both accerate at a modest pace to the speed limit. That is not racing and the cops wouldn't look twice. If the same two vehicles both accelerated extremely hard when the light turned green, without squealing of tires, and slowed when they reached the speed limit, that CAN and often DOES attract the attention of the police and often results in a racing ticket.

If you don't know the difference then I don't think I'm the one that shouldn't be driving.....

If the witness was creditable, then Police must act, but the actions and charges need to be appropriate and due process must occur.

Obviously the witness was credible otherwise the police wouldn't have acted.

Going to the kid's school and taking him out in handcuffs was unreasonable.

Not to say anyone wasn't 100% truthful but I have a really hard time believing that a kid was taken out in handcuffs for racing. They don't do that when they actually catch someone in the act so unless there was extenuating circumstances, I doubt they did that......(no offence to whomever posted the original story).

Again tboy, just focus back on the example of discussion and not your EXTREME and ill-relevant exaggerations.

I am simply responding to your statement that "the witness is an asshole" and your only grounds for that is because they reported the incident. On what other grounds do you consider him (or her) an asshole?

What proof do you have they exceeded the speed limit? What stunt? "I do not doubt for one second" - what YOU have your bigoted opinion based on no information! THIS IS VINTAGE TBOY LOGIC.

You see, I don't need proof. I am only stating my opinion and from my common sense (dictated by years of experience and direct knowledge) I highly doubt anyone would complain to the police about as you say "two cars travelling down the road side by side". Something else must have happened to draw attention to them.....

So at this point tboy, I know you are going to make this into a personal attack. You will call me names, maybe question my parenting skills, perhaps criticize my grammar or spelling. Your response will exaggerate the facts and ignore common sense. You will try to be witty and you will try to act superior to the rest of us. But you will fail.

Again, you show just how much you DON'T know......and as for ignoring common sense? You seem to be doing quite well at that on your own, you don't need me to help you along......

As for me acting superior, hmm maybe you have an inferiority complex that you have to deal with?

 

[Diode]

The problem with left lane bandits is two fold.
1) They cause traffic to bunch up.
This is why goveners on trucks makes little sense.When two 18 wheelers are side by side, and one is @ 100 the other 105 it take forever to pass, and strangely in MHO puts the truckers in more danger, rather than a quick pass, or a smart slowdown by the right lane driver.
People passing at higher rates of speed, make determined and crisp movements that don't effect other drivers.
2)As stated, yes the penalties for speeding increase as you exceed the limit.
But I'd suggest that doing 80 in a 40 zone is ALWAYS reckless while 140 in a 100 zone is (in good weather and good traffic) quite safe.
But the thing I get from most Left lane bandits is that THEY and ONLY they know what the right speed is.
Bull-Shit. It's quite possible my friends that some of us happen to be far better drivers than the rest.
Some of us have expeience in All weather conditions in all provinces and states from Yellowknife to the Yucatan
Europe? You bet. Trucks, cars sure.
So if you feel safe at 118 then stay there, but don't be so dammed arrogant as to keep people waiting.
If I'm being overtaken, I always move over or sometimes (eeeeeks) speed up.
The goal of a Highway is to keep cars moving...not block them.

 

[tboy]

I see some of my line in your posts. lol

I wouldn't say brain dead because some of the stuff is quite imaginative at times, tired most of the time. I liken it more to the logic that earth is flat, one can make a compelling argument the world is flat but it doesn't change that fact that it is not.

Once again, hunter has nothing to add to the topic so he just goes about bashing me...

 

[tboy]

Rule one of passing only do it when it is safe to do so. It made sense that you would check to see if someone else was passing first so really there is no 4.

Of course it would make sense but obviously someone who would purposely impede another driver doesn't make much sense now does it?

 

[tboy]

If I'm being overtaken, I always move over or sometimes (eeeeeks) speed up.
The goal of a Highway is to keep cars moving...not block them.

Something many fail to realize and it is obvious from some in this thread that they just don't get it.

For the life of me how anyone (in their right mind) can advocate stomping on the brakes as a method to voice your displeasure about someone following too close.

It boggles the mind that anyone can be that stupid......

 

[Diode]

Something many fail to realize and it is obvious from some in this thread that they just don't get it.

For the life of me how anyone (in their right mind) can advocate stomping on the brakes as a method to voice your displeasure about someone following too close.

It boggles the mind that anyone can be that stupid......

It is stupid. Again the ONLY reason to hit the brakes is to avoid hitting something else.
You`re not even supposed to slow down when exiting the HWY until you hit the exit ramp.

 

[Moraff]

Example:
tboy, last month while driving I saw you speeding up and slowing down as another car was trying to pass you. I then saw you accelerate to at least 50kM/hr above the speed limit as he was trying to pass you.

Based on my observations alone, the Police should go to your place of employment

Nope, you provide no details so the cops have nothing to act on.

But the truth could be that I simply don't like you, so I lied.

Which would leave you open to being charged yourself when that came out.

I'm against ANY law that bypasses due process and potentially allows permanent punishment/damages to occur to a suspect without a Judge first involved.

So then we need to get rid of the laws governing impaired driving, being towed for being illegally parked, carrying/using a lethal weapon.....

Why create a unique law for racers? More people die at the hands of sleepy drivers than racers, why is there not a unique law that by-passes due process for them?

There is - Driving while Impaired - it doesn't just mean alcohol impaired it means suffering from ANY impairment to your driving ability be it sleep deficiency, drugs....

What about; lane weavers, people that drive through red lights, people who make aggressive lane changes without signalling, people who pass on the highway shoulder?

Reckless driving comes to mind.

tboy, just focus back on the example of discussion and not your EXTREME exaggerations. Going to the kid's school and taking him out in handcuffs was unreasonable. There was no solid proof a crime was committed, no-one was hurt, no damage was done. We have no knowledge of this kid's prior crimes, or whether he was aggressive or disrespectful of the Police, so we can't consider this in our discussions. The appropriate action would have been to sit down with the kid and his parents and discuss the situation. If the Police still believe charges need to be pressed, then at that point they should do it.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot more to the story than we've been told. The cops wouldn't IMO take a kid out in handcuffs for a racing violation. Either there's other offences or he smart-mouthed the cops too much.

As well, I'm also sure they didn't just march in there and charge him. In addition to the witness' statements I'm sure the cops got the truth out of the two students involved as I'm pretty sure they didn't have matching stories about what when on.

Parents and society have a responsibility to teach kids right from wrong. Not just hang them without proof. This could have been a valuable teaching opportunity for the kid and an ideal opportunity to build a positive relationship between youth and the Police.

Certainly do, and apparently the parents failed to impress on their sons that racing is not something you do in a car. So apparently we need the law to step in.

And guess what, it was a valuable teaching lesson. If you screw around you're gonna get caught and this is the punishment for getting caught. I'm sorry but giving them a frowning and letting them go isn't going to teach them any respect, it'll just teach them that they can get away with stuff.

 

[Moraff]

The problem with left lane bandits is two fold.
1) They cause traffic to bunch up.
This is why goveners on trucks makes little sense.When two 18 wheelers are side by side, and one is @ 100 the other 105 it take forever to pass, and strangely in MHO puts the truckers in more danger, rather than a quick pass, or a smart slowdown by the right lane driver.

Governors don't prevent the right lane driver from slowing down to let the passer past more quickly. Assuming there isn't other traffic behind the 100kph truck, not slowing down is lack of courtesy on his part.

People passing at higher rates of speed, make determined and crisp movements that don't effect other drivers.

Not sure what you're meaning here.

2)As stated, yes the penalties for speeding increase as you exceed the limit.
But I'd suggest that doing 80 in a 40 zone is ALWAYS reckless while 140 in a 100 zone is (in good weather and good traffic) quite safe.

For the most part I agree with you here which is why I thought the new law should have been 50% over the posted speed limit, not 50 kph.

Bull-Shit. It's quite possible my friends that some of us happen to be far better drivers than the rest.

While I doubt the majority of drivers are as good as they think they are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are. Doesn't mean that everyone around you is a good driver and can handle you doing excessive speed maneuvers around them.

 

[Diode]

Governors don't prevent the right lane driver from slowing down to let the passer past more quickly. Assuming there isn't other traffic behind the 100kph truck, not slowing down is lack of courtesy on his part.

True. Ever seen it happen?

Not sure what you're meaning here.

Quicker drivers don't really bother anyone else, hell all they do is pass you

For the most part I agree with you here which is why I thought the new law should have been 50% over the posted speed limit, not 50 kph.

True. But 20% in school zones
30% on city streets
50% on Two lane highways
100% on 400 series hwys.

While I doubt the majority of drivers are as good as they think they are, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are. Doesn't mean that everyone around you is a good driver and can handle you doing excessive speed maneuvers around them.

Ha. That's the point. IF veryone followed the simple rule: Slower traffic keep right. There is NO NEED for high speed manovers, I'll just pass you on the left. Simple

 

[King Elessar]

If I'm passing people in the passing lane, I will move over to let someone faster pass me when it is safe and convenient to do so. I will not cut anyone off, or force my way over just because someone wants to pass me. When I have safely executed my pass, I will move over. He has a right to pass me, and I don't have a right to continuously drive in the left lane - only to use it for passing.
However, IF, during the course of my passing cars, said driver behind me decides to not maintain a safe distance ... he will continue to wait until I have made my disgust of his driving clear. I have a right to use that lane for passing, and he does not have a right to force me out of it, regardless of how fast he's driving relative to me, or to drive within a car length or two of my vehicle at highway speeds.
Tailgating is dangerous. Wait your turn.
Do not use the left lane for driving - only for passing.