240 km/h sur l'autoroute Ville-Marie !

[Cyrus]

So you propose increasing the speed limit to 240km/h? Good luck with that..

 

No, deleting the speed limit entirely! Imagine how much environmental savings we can make by recycling the aluminium of the signs!

[Davidbourque]

je suis pas convaincu que serait bon pour notre dépense au pétrole

[ToxiK]

Ton analogie n'est pas du tout comparable. Ce que tu dis là serait l'équivalent de dire qu'on devrait augmenter le nombre d'accidents de la route pour sauver des vies, ce qui n'a aucun rapport avec ce qui est mentionné par Cyrus.

 

Oui, je sais que cette analogie n'est pas applicable à notre sujet de discussion. Je voulais seulement démontrer que je ne crois pas au concept d'autorégulation quand nos actions affectent directement les autres.

 

Je suis contre interdire le fast-food dans le but de protéger les gens contre eux-mêmes. Dans cette même optique, je suis en faveur de la légalisation des drogues. Mais dans le cas de la vitesse sur les routes, je ne crois pas qu'il soit sage de laisser les gens s'autoréguler. Il y a trop d'imbéciles, et ce n'est pas uniquement leur vie qu'ils mettent en jeu, mais aussi celles des autres. Même chose avec l'alcool au volant. Si quelqu'un prétend qu'il n'est pas dangereux pour lui de conduire à 240 km/h, pourquoi est-ce qu'un autre ne pourrait pas décider que .08 est une limite trop basse pour lui et que .15 est mieux. Si on ne met pas de limites, il y aura encore plus d'excès, de la même façon que si les meurtres étaient légaux, il y aurait encore plus de meurtres.

[Habsfan]

Je ne veux pas faire l'avocat du Diable, mais sur les Autoroute en allemagne, 35% de celles-ci n'ont AUCUNE limite de vitesse et pourtant les accidents ne sont pas plus fréquents... Bien sûr on s'entends...je ne demande pas de rendre nos autoroutes sans limites de vitesse l'hiver! Mais je me pose la question quand même. Pourquoi est ce que les Allemands sont capable de le faire et pas nous?

[Cyrus]

Je ne veux pas faire l'avocat du Diable, mais sur les Autoroute en allemagne, 35% de celles-ci n'ont AUCUNE limite de vitesse et pourtant les accidents ne sont pas plus fréquents... Bien sûr on s'entends...je ne demande pas de rendre nos autoroutes sans limites de vitesse l'hiver! Mais je me pose la question quand même. Pourquoi est ce que les Allemands sont capable de le faire et pas nous?

 

Je crois que le fait hivernale supporte mon suggestion encore. Prends par exemple l'autoroute enneigee de quelques centimetres qu'on a souvent. La limite sur la pancarte est de 100 km/h. Mais une vitesse securitaire est de l'ordre de 60 ou 70. Personne fait 100 meme si c'est legale de le faire, parce qu'ils vont surement rentrer dans la fossee ou pire. Si les conducteurs quebecois sont assez intelligents de ralentir quand les conditions le demandent, pouquoi seront-eux incapables d'aller plus vite quand les conditions le permettent? Ce, qu'il ne faut pas oublier, le font quand meme, malgre l'illegalite...

[Robertpuant]

Les Allemands sont des citoyens (en général) beaucoup plus ''ordonnés'' que le québécois moyen. Rarement qu'on peut assister à un piéton allemand traverser sur un feu rouge comme le font les montréalais. Ils sont moins portés à faire le fou quoi! Deuxième chose, leur autoroutes sans limite de vitesse sont beaucoup plus linéaires et plates que les nos autoroutes, sans compter l'état de leurs routes. Et puis dernièrement, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Porsche , tu vois où j'arrive avec ça!

[Cyrus]

Les Allemands sont des citoyens (en général) beaucoup plus ''ordonnés'' que le québécois moyen. Rarement qu'on peut assister à un piéton allemand traverser sur un feu rouge comme le font les montréalais. Ils sont moins portés à faire le fou quoi! Deuxième chose, leur autoroutes sans limite de vitesse sont beaucoup plus linéaires et plates que les nos autoroutes, sans compter l'état de leurs routes. Et puis dernièrement, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Porsche , tu vois où j'arrive avec ça!

 

Je ne suis pas sur avec le conception de leurs autoroutes. Beaucoup de ces derniers sont d'un conception desuete, typique des autoroutes de premier generation (annees 30), avec des terre-pleins etroits (maintenant ils ont installe des barrieres), manque d'accotements, voies etroites, vitesse de conception faible (genre 100 km/h), etc. Les autoroutes quebecoises en millieu rural par contre sont generalement superieurs avec des terre-pleins assez grand, accotements asphaltes sur la droite, vitesse de conception 130, etc etc. Il n'y a pas beaucoup qui est plus lineaire et plate que la 20 entre Montreal et Levis

 

Mais je dois ajouter que de plus en plus ces vielles autobahnen sont de plus en plus rares avec des refections qui se prennent place (typiquement avec un ajout a 6 voies + accotements), qui sont necessaires a cause de la forte augmentation de circulation qui se prend place du a l'integration europeen.

[Cataclaw]

It's all about perception.

 

A reckless teen that wants to show off how "bad ass" he is will drive fast on a summer road to impress his friends because to him, the perceived risk is minimal. However, the actual risk is far greater than he assumes.

That same teen will be more cautious in winter because his perceived danger is greater.

 

Perception can fool you.. you might think it's safe to drive 260km/h on the highway at 3am when there's nobody, but what happens if a car with burnt out headlights merges onto the highway and you don't see him coming? Or if a deer appears? Or if you blow out a tire because 260km/h is freaking insane? Or if you hit a pothole that's hard to see because it's 3am and you're going 260km/h? Etc etc etc.

 

I've said this before: Male drivers are often bad drivers because they're overconfident. They drive aggressively and think they can outmaneuver every situation that may arise. Unfortunately for the aggressive male driver, the law of probabilities always catches up to them and they get accidents and tickets. Female drivers are often bad drivers because biologically, on average, they lack spatial awareness and sensitive precision control (they often have a hard time staying perfectly centered in their lanes) Frankly, both sexes can exhibit bad driving.

 

When I was a teen with my brand new license, I remember driving fast for a week... until I realized there are stop signs, and red lights, and congestion, and that there's no point in going faster than the speed of traffic because you'll just get stopped at the red light like everybody else. A good driver is calm, cool, in control, responsible and courteous. If you drive 160km/h, you're a bad driver. It's funny how people drive fast or dangerously to show confidence and strength, but in reality, all it shows is impatience and weakness.

 

I'll give you an example: driving on Taschereau Boul. in the south shore, I come to a red light. The light turns green, but I see that the next light, 300m ahead, is yellow and about to turn red. What's the point of accelerating like mad to 80km/h only to have to slam on the brakes at the light, making for an uncomfortable ride and wasting gas? I just go up to 40-50km/h and slowly and smoothly arrive at the light. 50% gas saved and smoother ride for me and my passengers. Another sign of the impatient driver: He/she edges forward waiting for the light to go green. This is the classic sign of the bad driver.

 

 

Anyway, lol.. that was a quite a rambling rant. It's late and i'm tired, what can i say

/never had a ticket or an accident in 10 years of driving, I don't speed, and I still get to where I need to go at the same time (or even before) the guys that do speed and zig-zag through lanes.

Modifié 17 mars 2011 par Cataclaw

[Cyrus]

That doesn't make any sense though. What's aggressive about 160 km/h? Numbers out of context are basically meaningless. I'd say that driving isn't a law of probabilities, accidents don't fall from the sky unless something actually did fall from the sky and land on you, they are more brought about by inattention or some other stupidity factor. I am not even suggesting to drive fast, only to remove the arbitrary limitation. I mean, if you had no speed limit on the highway, would you drive any differently? On my normal commute I wouldn't, even when there isn't any traffic... However going between cities... if you run 160 or 200 on the 401 you save a boatload of time on the way to TO and someone might pass you anyway

 

 

It's all about perception.

 

A reckless teen that wants to show off how "bad ass" he is will drive fast on a summer road to impress his friends because to him, the perceived risk is minimal. However, the actual risk is far greater than he assumes.

That same teen will be more cautious in winter because his perceived danger is greater.

 

Perception can fool you.. you might think it's safe to drive 260km/h on the highway at 3am when there's nobody, but what happens if a car with burnt out headlights merges onto the highway and you don't see him coming? Or if a deer appears? Or if you blow out a tire because 260km/h is freaking insane? Or if you hit a pothole that's hard to see because it's 3am and you're going 260km/h? Etc etc etc.

 

I've said this before: Male drivers are often bad drivers because they're overconfident. They drive aggressively and think they can outmaneuver every situation that may arise. Unfortunately for the aggressive male driver, the law of probabilities always catches up to them and they get accidents and tickets. Female drivers are often bad drivers because biologically, on average, they lack spatial awareness and sensitive precision control (they often have a hard time staying perfectly centered in their lanes) Frankly, both sexes can exhibit bad driving.

 

When I was a teen with my brand new license, I remember driving fast for a week... until I realized there are stop signs, and red lights, and congestion, and that there's no point in going faster than the speed of traffic because you'll just get stopped at the red light like everybody else. A good driver is calm, cool, in control, responsible and courteous. If you drive 160km/h, you're a bad driver. It's funny how people drive fast or dangerously to show confidence and strength, but in reality, all it shows is impatience and weakness.

 

I'll give you an example: driving on Taschereau Boul. in the south shore, I come to a red light. The light turns green, but I see that the next light, 300m ahead, is yellow and about to turn red. What's the point of accelerating like mad to 80km/h only to have to slam on the brakes at the light, making for an uncomfortable ride and wasting gas? I just go up to 40-50km/h and slowly and smoothly arrive at the light. 50% gas saved and smoother ride for me and my passengers. Another sign of the impatient driver: He/she edges forward waiting for the light to go green. This is the classic sign of the bad driver.

 

Hahaha, I love doing that one... I roll around maybe in 3rd gear and then sail right past when it goes green. On a boulevard near me though, the limit is 50 and the lights seem synchronized at 80, which is a reasonable but illegal speed. Probably the engineers weren't talking to the city councillors or some BS like that. So either I go slow and get the green, or I go fast and get all three greens at once (not that fast really, basically speed of traffic)

 

What I basically am trying to say goes the same for any law or public policy issue. Any law or regulation should have some merit behind it. Does it do something that is good, does that good outweigh the negative effects, is the cost resaonable. Speed limits in rural areas seem to have no effect on road safety, and limits in general seem to have no effect on actual travel speeds of vehicles either (see MTQ studies, FHWA studies). Tickets for behaviours not inherently dangerous certainly have a negative effect on those that receive them and on use of police resources. I fear that the growing of this "speed kills" ideology, and that is what it is, is pushing driver education away from a skill or common-sense based approach and towards a regulatory, black and white side, where people are staring at the speedometer, and when it is below a magic number, think everything is fine, with results that can be deadly.

Modifié 17 mars 2011 par Cyrus

[Cataclaw]

That doesn't make any sense though. What's aggressive about 160 km/h? Numbers out of context are basically meaningless. I'd say that driving isn't a law of probabilities, accidents don't fall from the sky unless something actually did fall from the sky and land on you, they are more brought about by inattention or some other stupidity factor. I am not even suggesting to drive fast, only to remove the arbitrary limitation. I mean, if you had no speed limit on the highway, would you drive any differently? On my normal commute I wouldn't, even when there isn't any traffic... However going between cities... if you run 160 or 200 on the 401 you save a boatload of time on the way to TO and someone might pass you anyway

 

The greater the speed differential, the greater the risk of accidents. If the average car is going 100km/h and you're going 160km/h, it's trouble, even if the road is very quiet. If somebody merges or does some surprise maneuver, you'll have less time to react if you're going 160km/h. It's impossible to argue that higher speeds don't equal higher risk. It's sheer mathematics, physics and reality. You might consider yourself a very good driver, able to handle those risks, but that's highly subjective and other drivers might not agree with your assessment. Making that biased judgment call is essentially an inconsiderate gesture towards all other road users. You're increasing the risk of accident to others in order to satisfy yourself. It's selfish in my opinion. And don't tell me "there's nobody on the road" sure, 99% of the time perhaps, but what happens if some guy has burned out headlights and doesn't know it, and he merges onto the highway. Suddenly you crash into him because you were going too fast to have time to react. It just seems selfish and inconsiderate to me, not to mention it's a colossal waste of gas.

 

I'm not saying drive 100km/h on the highway.. i do 110-115km/h myself, because that's the speed of traffic. I go the speed of traffic, +/- 5km/h. It's the large differences in speed that cause problems. I've seen so many accidents in Portugal where cars in the fast lane were doing 180km/h and the slow lane was doing 80km/h.

Modifié 17 mars 2011 par Cataclaw