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