Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

hwybear wrote:

tdrive2 wrote:

haha i wonder what was in the trunk of the car.

Maybee he had a few dozen boston creams for his team mates and couldn't let them go bad.

The weight kept the front tires off the ground, was unable to steer!!

Should carry less doughnuts next time. Or ditch the Boston Creams for some light, flaky croissants.

I didn't actually read all 5 pages, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but even H, or S rated tires can physically handle those speeds, but they are not guaranteed. It takes something like a few hours at 250km/h for a lower-rated tire to begin exhibiting premature wear.

Running a tire at its speed rating is usually safe for continuous hours on end. I had W-Rated summers on my last car, and I don't think I ever took them over their speed limit, but my H-Rated winter tires saw 250-270 several times (on the track), and never had any problems.

Now having said that, while I agree that a hazard in the road could prove dangerous, I will have to make the argument that it is not much more dangerous at 200+ than it is at ~100. I have hit some hazards in my time, and unless you're coming around a sharp enough bend, they'll usually just do damage and not cause a loss of control.

Even on a 1.3L mitsu lancer in Egypt, circa 1999, had two tires blow out at 160km/h (with 13" rims and some extremely narrow tires, so it felt like 240), not even the slightest loss or difference in control.. Just pulled it over, and was glad not to be injured.

More recently, I was in my volvo and hit a massive crater of a pothole on the 401, was driving with the flow of traffic, couldn't avoid it. Dented all 4 rims, destroyed a tire and one of my shocks. Again, no loss of control.

Pretty much the only thing he could have hit and caused damage at that speed would be a spike strip. Sorry bear, but your example about the Concorde is pretty irrelevant here.. Notice the chain of events in your story... That's like saying, he could have hit a nail that shredded his tire and caused it to smoke into and rupture the vehicle's gas tank, causing an explosion.

I think the Concorde incident is bang on in releavance to someone mentioning the unknown dangers and potential for disaster.

Going down the highway or runway.

Tire strikes a metal object.

Tire blows.

End result was a crash of an airliner by a blown tire.

Car blows a tire at airliner takeoff speed can also be a recipe for disaster.

There also appears that you have more than the average joe driving experience and due to that can safely bring a dangerous situation under control with appropriate maneuvers.

I have seen more than one person panic, crank their steering wheel, hammer the brakes when a tire blows, they touch a rumble strip, or even drop a wheel onto the gravel shoulder.

While I agree that inexperience can cause an accident, that can be a leading cause in accidents at any speed. I'm sure that a lot of the people you've seen do stupid stuff like that probably weren't all speeding, or loosing tires (or both). Since this can be a factor in each and every case, we can't say that it is part of the issue here necessarily, any more than drinking and driving is.

BTW: The concorde's takeoff speed is usually around 400km/h.

Bear, I'm not really disagreeing with you in principle here, I'm just saying that the Concorde situation is one where a blown tire resulted in a crash, but not from a loss of control.. It was almost a freak accident, really. If the Concorde had shredded that tire, and the tire did not hit the wing, would it have lost control and ended up on its side? Could the same be said about a car?

It is possible, but is not guaranteed. I certainly hope that the driver had enough skill to be able to handle a car at that speed, and I sincerely hope that those who choose to break the laws and drive in excess of the speed limits know handle their vehicles. I know that this is often not the case, but one can only hope for their own good.

What I am trying to say is that although it is a relatively high speed, accidents are not guaranteed at 250km/h much more than they are at 100km/h. Many people try to make it seem like hitting the slightest bump in the road will send you flying, or throw you off, but the reality of having been there so many times has taught me quite different.[/b]

An Infiniti G35 is a very high caliber car. If this speed was recorder on the Autobahn (in this car) no one would even blink an eye. I'll bet the road was clear and he just needed to top the girl out for a brief second or two. Poor sap had bad luck and got lazered just then. Very bad luck.

I remember topping my old '69 Ranchero out at 193kph on old bias ply tires when I was young and bulletproof, LOL. 250kph in a G35 is WAY safer.

Slyk wrote:

If the Concorde had shredded that tire, and the tire did not hit the wing, would it have lost control and ended up on its side? Could the same be said about a car?

A blown tire on a takeoff likely will not, on its own, cause a crash. Neither will an engine failure if the crew handles it properly. A "V1 cut" (engine failure while on the runway and above takeoff decision speed, in other words, you're committed to keep going) is mandatory training at all airlines in transport-category aircraft. The aircraft has to be able to do it. Not sure why the Concorde went out of control, I haven't read the full details of the crash report. However, a blown tire on an aircraft usually has a tremendous amount of heat and sucking the gear up into the wheel well after takeoff has an excellent chance of causing a wheel well fire. Aircraft on takeoff are steered with the ailerons and rudder; a car only has its tires. Above about 60 knots there is no point in using nosewheel steering on a jet.

Aircraft are also heavier, the risk of colliding with a stationary object on the runway is pretty much nil, and the fuselage rides higher so that the most valuable thing on the plane (passengers) are protected should the tires get blown or the landing gear collapse. Cars are not built for impacts with other objects at 200 km/h or more, even if the tires can handle the speed. I could go on about how many different safety features are included at airports and in the airspace system, since I deal with it every day that I'm at work, but it would take too long and you'd probably get bored. Suffice to say, our roads have none of it.

Going 250 on a closed course is one thing, but on a public highway it is totally insane. Crashing at 120 km/h is probably survivable, particularly on a 400-Series. Crashing at 250 is almost definitely not survivable. Slight errors at high speeds are magnified. Other drivers are too unpredictable. At a relatively higher speed, say 140, you might be able to brake, swerve or do something. At 250, forget it. I wouldn't think of going anywhere near 200 km/h, it's just too dangerous on a road in the GTA, or almost anywhere else for that matter.

I amgonna have to agree with Radar identified.

I think our speeds our to low i think the limit should be anywhere from120-150 and some areas we dont need one.

The problem in ontario is we have no lane discipline some roads are terrible quality, and ot much traffic.

If we wanted a limit like that Toronto could not be the place. Even in germany their autobahn system greatly reduces speeds in urban areas.

The problem with him going 250 is its a public road with others on it. If your going 120 and he is going 250 you cant react fast enough.....

Secondly if you hit a big pot hole yes you could do some serious damage and crash and maybe blow a tire.

Slyk is right though the tire can do more but its only guaranteed to that speed. The officer said his car would conk out but the fact is it was most likely electronically limited. They will only guarantee so much they would have to worry about a law suit.

Although people need to think that he was doing this on the 500 that has 5 wide lanes, concrete median, and brand new ashphalt around there.

I must admit if there was any public highway around toronto if i wanted to go that fast i would pick that strip of road.

Although what amazes me is if he just wanted to test his car for fun why didnt he drive up and down that stretch once or twice to see if there were any OPP at the side of the road....

Haha i wonder what would happen if you got pulled over., The officer says sir you were exceeding 200. " I was preparing for take off."

While i think 150 is a an absolute joke to call street racing and stunt driving when everyone goes 120-130 anyways including Some of ontarios finest that seem to think its cool to drive 165 like its noting and the other officers around the GTA that seem to believe its fine to go 120 and tell people to stay under that.

I think 250 is really starting to approach dangerous. Although i think this has had to much of a deal made out of it what the guy did was wrong and dangerous not doubt about it....

I agree with both of your posts, Radar and tdrive... almost entirely. It's just hard to say that any crash at 250 will be fatal (where's bear with that stat about stopping suddenly from 130), and extremely imminent just as a result of the speed. I agree with EVERY OTHER point. Ontario is home to a lot of really sh*tty drivers too, in general, I see them every single day, no matter what the speed.

But there are way too many other variables in any collision to say that a certain speed will result in any outcome. I can guarantee that more people have died at lower speeds than at 250km/h (mostly probably just due to the volume of people that drive at 250), but on the autobahn, some people drive well over 250. I have been close to 300 a few times in my travels to Germany, and there are far less fatal collisions there than here. Of course, SO MUCH of that has to do with better driver training, better lane discipline and better drivers in general...

As for the idea that people who aren't from Ontario would have difficulty with an autobahn system, having been on the autobahn, I can tell you that it is well signed, and OBVIOUS once you get there. If you are in the wrong lane, you will literally be scared for your life. The first time I saw a Porsche coming up at warp speed on my tail, I knew I had to get out of the way and figured it out pretty quickly.

I'm still not convinced that the speed+road hazard rhetoric is entirely solid either. Like I mentioned earlier, that really comes down to the driver, and can be a hazard at any speed.

While we're on the topic of road hazards, why the f*** is it that twice so far I've done considerable damage to my car in freaking potholes in this province??? CONSIDERABLE damage! I thought we pay gas taxes so that the province can fix those damn things! I wouldn't even be as pissed about it, but last year, I hit one that did lots of damage, and the damn city denied my claim.

I currently have a claim pending with the province about that one I hit on the 401 recently, and God help me if they don't pay for it...

Slyk wrote:

But there are way too many other variables in any collision to say that a certain speed will result in any outcome. I can guarantee that more people have died at lower speeds than at 250km/h (mostly probably just due to the volume of people that drive at 250), but on the autobahn, some people drive well over 250. I have been close to 300 a few times in my travels to Germany, and there are far less fatal collisions there than here. Of course, SO MUCH of that has to do with better driver training, better lane discipline and better drivers in general...

Sure, we can't say conclusively that everyone will be more likely to crash at 250. That's what we have statistics for:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

That study shows that you are at higher risk of crashing if you are either faster than traffic or slower than traffic. It's too bad that their data does not extend to 70 mph over average traffic speed.

It also shows that risk of injury increases with the change in speed to the fourth power.

Squishy wrote:

Slyk wrote:

But there are way too many other variables in any collision to say that a certain speed will result in any outcome. I can guarantee that more people have died at lower speeds than at 250km/h (mostly probably just due to the volume of people that drive at 250), but on the autobahn, some people drive well over 250. I have been close to 300 a few times in my travels to Germany, and there are far less fatal collisions there than here. Of course, SO MUCH of that has to do with better driver training, better lane discipline and better drivers in general...

Sure, we can't say conclusively that everyone will be more likely to crash at 250. That's what we have statistics for:

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

That study shows that you are at higher risk of crashing if you are either faster than traffic or slower than traffic. It's too bad that their data does not extend to 70 mph over average traffic speed.

It also shows that risk of injury increases with the change in speed to the fourth power.

Cool. I figure that iwith any traffic, its a given that the speed is dangerous (obviously).

Ok, so we all know it's more dangerous to drive fast. But the mere fact that we know this makes us more alert and conscious of the conditions around us. This makes us safer drivers.

Isn't his call a paradox or something? LOL

We still can't overcome the fact that our brains have evolved to accomodate our 15 km/h running speed. The century or so of the automobile has yet to affect us biologically and we just can't process enough things at 250 km/h. That's why track runs are so much safer, because we limit the information we need to process.

Just being aware of the dangers involved doesn't mean you can grow a superbrain.

I just identified a basic problem with police mentality!! They seam to believe ALL brains are alike and perform the same under the same set of circumstances. Through genetic variation, some minds react MUCH more effectively to unexpected circumstances, than others.

Painting all drivers with one broad brush is a mistake many in law enforcement make.

I have been an AutoCad draftsman for over 20 years now. That's longer than Bear has been a cop (if memory serves me). His 15 years or so on the force has given him great confidence when performing his duties. No one is going to change his mind about how he should do his job, based on years of experience. As well, no one is going to tell me that I need to change the way I draw surveys. I haven't even looked at the Surveys Act for years! With experience comes a sense of "what works for you".

I apply the same principal to driving. I've been driving daily for 30 years now. That's a long time to do ANYTHING! If someone is successful at doing something for 30 years, they should be taken seriously. People truly interested in safety should ask that person for tips and suggestions when writing policy. Anyone who drives 30 years ACCIDENT FREE should be given a pat on the back by those interested in safety.

That doesn't happen in this Province. Here, the number of tickets is the indication of whether someone is a good driver or bad. Get pulled over for speeding and you have been labeled a high risk by society (well, the insurance companies anyway) and it just shouldn't be like that!

In 30 years of driving, I can't remember one incident where a speeder negatively affected my progress while going down the road. I can recite DOZENS of close calls by slower (law-abiding) good citizens that have either hit me or caused me to take evasive action.

Anyone who drives 30 years ACCIDENT FREE should be given a pat on the back by those interested in safety.

And free insurance.....Wait, that's only for Hand Models , in bath robes , pointing at newspaper articles, while looking like Jeff Foxworthy...can't type laughing at own jokes.....snort

We need a salt shaker emoticon.....

The problem with that is - how do you tell the skill of the driver? You would have to pull them over first. Some sort of special training that comes with special "I can go faster" plates wouldn't work, as someone else could borrow or steal your plates/car. Officially allowing warnings for those with a 30-year clean record won't work for every case, either. Maybe you started driving later in life and your 30-year driving anniversary coincides with old age and deteriorating reaction time and senses.

Until some sort of technology allows an officer to identify the driver without pulling them over (RFID? biometrics? hmm...), the laws will have to cater to the "average" citizen, weeding out the below average skillset and frustrating the above average skillset. Raising the average skillset to more closely meet our current above-average will take some drastic changes which carry some political backlash. To do it without too many complaints would probably take a gradual plan spanning several decades, and political terms aren't long enough for anyone to follow through on it.

Maybe Fantino doesn't focus on the right issues, but at least he's keeping driving safety as a whole in the minds of the public.

Squishy wrote:

... Maybe your 30-year driving anniversary coincides with old age and deteriorating reaction time and senses.

No doubt about that! LOL. I've adjusted my speed and following distances to suite.

Squishy wrote:

... Maybe Fantino doesn't focus on the right issues, but at least he's keeping driving safety as a whole in the minds of the public.

AGREED! Now that we have every ones attention, we need to replace him with someone who will focus on the REAL problems such as lane etiquette and advanced turn indicator use.

Oh, and don't forget to get rid of s.172

Squishy wrote:

We still can't overcome the fact that our brains have evolved to accomodate our 15 km/h running speed. The century or so of the automobile has yet to affect us biologically and we just can't process enough things at 250 km/h. That's why track runs are so much safer, because we limit the information we need to process.

Just being aware of the dangers involved doesn't mean you can grow a superbrain.

LOL! This made me laugh super hard. Thank you for that.

In all seriousness though, there are so many things wrong with this statement, I don't even know if I want to begin to tackle it. I like the way you're thinking but its just wrong my friend.

To sum up what would probably be several paragraphs on the human brain, I will simply say that we possess way more than the necessary computational power to process at much faster speeds than 250km/h. FYI: There does not exist a computer anywhere that can match the processing power of your brain.

What's ACTUALLY missing is not the biology, it's just the training. The most simple proof? F/A-18 fighter pilots can do mach 1.8 (1900km/h) while processing many different factors from their telemetry equipment, radio, weapons systems, and the environment.

In combat, some pilots can pull several Gs, enough that you would black out if you didn't consciously try to force blood to flow into your brain (by a technique called 'hooking'), all while still being able actually FLY the damn plane.

So please don't tell me that our brains are not powerful enough to drive on a flat surface around obstacles at 250km/h.

F/A-18 fighter pilots can do mach 1.8 (1900km/h) while processing many different factors from their telemetry equipment, radio, weapons systems, and the environment.

Not downplaying your points but jet pilots don't have to worry about hitting an animal 3/4 the size of some cars, moose in northern Ontario ring a bell. I do agree with the fact that the human brain is capable of much more then what we use it for, but those pilots you mentioned are better then average physically and mentally are they not.

I think that we can agree that there are those of us who would welcome driver testing and qualifications beyond the basic license, but as long as the few, boneheads that they are, treat driving as something else to do while talking on the phone, eating breakfast, shaving, reading the paper...etc then we are stuck to ride the road with them.....

I was referring more to "natural" abilities. Sure, you can take advanced driver training courses and tone your skills for several years. But when we talk about public roads, we have to consider the average driver - not a trained performance driver. For the average driver, just knowing that they are more likely to wreck at 250 km/h will not make them a safer driver without training and experience to back it up.

Reflections wrote:

Not downplaying your points but jet pilots don't have to worry about hitting an animal 3/4 the size of some cars, moose in northern Ontario ring a bell. I do agree with the fact that the human brain is capable of much more then what we use it for, but those pilots you mentioned are better then average physically and mentally are they not.

I don't disagree, with the logic, and physically they might be in better condition than you or I (in order to be able to not DIE when they pull 9g turns), but mentally, there is really no difference between one person and the next. The brain is CAPABLE, we just lack the training to handle those speeds.

There are obstacles in the sky for a fighter pilot though, large birds, missiles, choppers, other fighters, the enemy, etc. But I'm just being facetious now.

But squishy if you want to talk about "natural" abilities then based on your argument, any speed above 15km/h is too fast for the average person's skills.

Our brains learn. We learn quickly. That's what makes us powerful as a species. We adapt quickly. We don't need to change physiologically because we have all the mental tools and range to adapt to nearly every condition we are faced with. As a result of this, a person who spends all their time walking at 1km/h, will be a little out of their element running at 15km/h. Likewise, the more time you spend doing 1900km/h, the more adept you will be at handling and processing information at that speed. Obviously there is a little variance from person to person (which is why we have good and bad racing drivers) but the argument against speeding is DEFINITELY not one of biology or physiology.

If theere was no speed limit, there would be issues as a result of people driving a marked departure from the normal, whether the normal was 50 or 250. The issue here is that everyone drives the speed limit, making it the normal, and they think its BECAUSE that is a safe speed. The reality, IMO is that it is a safe speed because its the norm, not the other way around. I'm sorry if my explanation seemed a bit confusing.

So to summarize, I agree that driving at a different rate of speed, whether it be faster or slower, than the normal is dangerous (obvious reasons), but I disagree that the speed in and of itself is a hazard.

I guess some of it would depend on the car and driver too, but in the numerous times I've driven that fast, it hasn't been as blurry as everyone makes it out to be. I've shaken a steering wheel at 245km/h to see what would happen and guess what? Not a whole lot happened. The car moved like it would if you shook the wheel at 120. Kind of anti-climatic. However, this was always in cars with nice wide wheels, low stances and a pretty solid suspension setup, so it might be different in something with narrower than 255 series rear tires... who knows.

But squishy if you want to talk about "natural" abilities then based on your argument, any speed above 15km/h is too fast for the average person's skills.

Considering the skill of the average driver, can you really disagree with that?

It takes us about 10 years to learn to walk without bumping into things, to look where we're going, not to walk backwards without knowing what is there. It takes some people longer than that to learn to run fast without tripping over obstacles. Our brains may be able to eventually handle massive amounts of information at fast speeds, but the speed at which we adapt to it is slower than an animal born with the ability to run at 100 km/h. How quickly we can learn to adapt is what separates bad drivers from jet pilots.

I agree, and obviously the development of our bodies and brains over our lifetimes has some effect on how we learn and adapt, but if we do take longer to become comfortable with higher speeds, its because we spend less of our lives at those speeds. Conversely, those animals are used to it because they spend such a great deal of time at that speed. Not because their brains are more special, they're just more accustomed to it.

Some people never learn to walk without bumping into things. Or, for that matter, drive without bumping into things. I think a lot of the people simply do not have the aptitude to operate a motor vehicle, many of the people on CWD being an example. (By that, I'm not referring to Bookm.) They couldn't drive a nail. Take, for example, Michael from season 2 of CWD. Definitely above-average intelligence but zero ability to drive. He's dangerous even at 5 km/h. Some people can go 160 km/h with a high degree of safety. They have the inherent ability to handle it, or have a lot of skill and practice. It all depends on the individual, but only a fraction of drivers could handle a car at over 200 km/h on even a lightly-travelled highway.

You're probably right. I guess better driver education could definitely help.

Reflections wrote:

F/A-18 fighter pilots can do mach 1.8 (1900km/h) while processing many different factors from their telemetry equipment, radio, weapons systems, and the environment.

Not downplaying your points but jet pilots don't have to worry about hitting an animal 3/4 the size of some cars, moose in northern Ontario ring a bell. I do agree with the fact that the human brain is capable of much more then what we use it for, but those pilots you mentioned are better then average physically and mentally are they not. :

This site is awesome all factors being thrown in good discussion folks....need a thumbs up icon.....**looking around**...hope our "finger model" doesn't hear that

On a side note here....if you ever get a chance to watch "Jet Stream" series on Discovery channel, do so...it's all the factors a CF18 pilot has to go through to get their "F18" wings

hwybear wrote:

On a side note here....if you ever get a chance to watch "Jet Stream" series on Discovery channel, do so...it's all the factors a CF18 pilot has to go through to get their "F18" wings

"Jet Stream" is a good show. The highlight is that the pilots have received substantial training and the equipment is much more sophisticated and reliable than what we have on a car. People without the ability get washed out. We don't do that with driving. You just keep taking the test until you pass, like Michael from CWD. Once you've got your license, you've got it pretty much for life and have to really mess up in order to lose it. By that time, the damage is already done. Meanwhile, every six months most airline pilots have to go through a Pilot Proficiency Check in a simulator just to keep their license valid. (Not sure how often the military does it, I suspect the same interval.) Then there's a yearly Line Check where you're observed by a Training Captain actually flying the plane during a regular flight, plus recurrent ground school, etc. The aviation industry takes safety very seriously. How many drivers take driving half that seriously?

As far as people driving certain speeds and what not, there is no room for people to hold everything up at busy airports. Air Traffic Control sees to that. So there's no real equivalent of hogging the passing lane or driving too slow at most airports.

Every commercial air operator (as well as the military) has Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), telling pilots how to operate the aircraft, etc. It's very proceduralized. You need to be able to recite and your SOPs in your sleep. That way, you know what to expect and other people know what to expect from you. On the road, there is nowhere near that level of predictability. Many car drivers just do whatever the heck they want and most of them don't have a clue as to how their driving affects other motorists.

Now how sweet would it be if licensing for cars was this rigorous but you could drive however fast you see fit?

I'd personally love to see the German driver licensing system brought to Canada and a lot of our over-regulating of driving scrapped. 100 km/h speed limit, good grief...

How do you guys feel about mandatory retesting or at least retesting after any ticket that accumulates a demerit point? I think a good portion of the problem drivers can't even pass our current licensing test anymore. They've gotten used to doing it "their way" and can't remember how they passed the test at 16.

Bringing over the German licensing system just might explode the used car market and kill our domestic automakers after half the country loses their license.

Radar Identified wrote:

I'd personally love to see the German driver licensing system brought to Canada and a lot of our over-regulating of driving scrapped. 100 km/h speed limit, good grief...

+1