In just one hour, 10 out of 12 in the pack busted for street racing.

You even have a BIG flashing radar-activated 40 kmph speed sign just up the road from where you live. That, and a driveway right at that sign where the Wellington County OPP like to sit and beam west-bound and north-bound traffic. Which begs the question, why risk it?
That sign is on a different road than the one I'm talking about. In that location it goes from 60 to 40. The other entrance to town is an 80 down to 60 and then a turn onto the 40. The way I take drops directly from an 80 to a 40. Most people go 100 in the 80 so they'd be 60 over if they hadn't slowed down when they pass my house (which is right where it changes). There are no signs on that road saying the limit is changing 300m ahead or the town is coming up. The other 2 entrances have warnings that the limit is changing, tell you you're entering the town, and ask you to slow down and drive carefully and one has the blinky sign that always blinks 40 unless you pass it at like 30. It doesn't flash for my bike though.
 
That sign is on a different road than the one I'm talking about. In that location it goes from 60 to 40. The other entrance to town is an 80 down to 60 and then a turn onto the 40. The way I take drops directly from an 80 to a 40. Most people go 100 in the 80 so they'd be 60 over if they hadn't slowed down when they pass my house (which is right where it changes). There are no signs on that road saying the limit is changing 300m ahead or the town is coming up. The other 2 entrances have warnings that the limit is changing, tell you you're entering the town, and ask you to slow down and drive carefully and one has the blinky sign that always blinks 40 unless you pass it at like 30. It doesn't flash for my bike though.

Ok, but you live in the area. Do YOU need warning signs to tell you the speed limit changes? And even for others, were they to actually DO the limit without adding their own perceived forgiveness margin, even a speed limit drop without prior warning wouldn't put them into HTA172 territory. The problem here is that people presume that doing 10 or 20 over is ok. If in doing so they get nailed at a drop in speed limit, in part for not reacting in time to the newly posted limit, where does the problem really lie?
 
If in doing so they get nailed at a drop in speed limit, in part for not reacting in time to the newly posted limit, where does the problem really lie?

In our speed limits. I had no issues sticking with the speed limits in the south-western US, in South America and in Europe, but that's because they were reasonably set. I'd literally look at the speedo and say to myself "holy **** I'm doing the limit :shock:" That is very weird for a resident of Ontario where engineers have no input in speed limits as they are determined by politicians and bureaucrats. Our speed limits are routinely 20-30km/h lower than they should be.
 
In our speed limits. I had no issues sticking with the speed limits in the south-western US, in South America and in Europe, but that's because they were reasonably set. I'd literally look at the speedo and say to myself "holy **** I'm doing the limit :shock:" That is very weird for a resident of Ontario where engineers have no input in speed limits as they are determined by politicians and bureaucrats. Our speed limits are routinely 20-30km/h lower than they should be.

65mph is 105 kmh......so that's the closest neighbour and the most common state speed limit on highways. In Europe many highways are 120kmh max and in the UK it's 70mph which is 112 kmh (strictly enforced). So our closest neighbour is 5kmh over our official limit but way more strictly enforced and most of us travel at 20kmh over with no problems. I don't really see the problem. Our posted highway speed is lower by 5kmh but if the pay off is having it raised by 4kmh and ALSO having it strictly enforced I'm not sure anyone would be happy.
 
65mph is 105 kmh......so that's the closest neighbour and the most common state speed limit on highways. In Europe many highways are 120kmh max and in the UK it's 70mph which is 112 kmh (strictly enforced). So our closest neighbour is 5kmh over our official limit but way more strictly enforced and most of us travel at 20kmh over with no problems. I don't really see the problem. Our posted highway speed is lower by 5kmh but if the pay off is having it raised by 4kmh and ALSO having it strictly enforced I'm not sure anyone would be happy.

I've seen roads that would get slapped with 80kph limits in Ontario just because get 70-75mph in NV. As for the U.K... I'm not talking about some fascist surveillance society that's not even a part of Europe. Many European nations are showing a bit of reason, even though I have to admit that there is a growing nannyism trend :(
 
killerkeith - Maybe that could be the case.... geez....regardless, vehicle impound for doing what those guys did seems unreasonable. You know part of me wishes they'd just stick a GPS limiter on everything, so that no one could speed. I mean if they really think it is safer (which I don't think is the case)..... do it.... just don't come crying when you lose traffic ticket money and accidents increase.

As far as those pictures... ya same ones I have seen for 10 years. OK it can happen... you can also get hit by lightning while taking a shower. Yes Turbo will post up evidence of it (bike killing a driver) happening here in Ontario after a dude went into a tankslapper due to poor road surfaces and lost control.... 4 years ago or so. Fact is the number of other road users killed because of a motorcyclist's actions are negligible. Cyclists probably kill more people.... yet you don't see them getting their bicycle impounded.

Now - distracted hands free cell phone talking drivers..... geez, dunno, but I'm sure they kill WAY more people.

PUNISHMENT DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME.... that's all I am saying.


bicycles do not get impounded only because it does not bring any revenue
do you people still believe that impounding is about your safety, and not about your money?
wait till THEY start looting your property... then it will be to late to go back
 
I wouldn't make it a blanket 50-over. I'd work on either a straight formula of 50% or more over, or do brackets. 20-over in a 40 or less zone. 30-over in a 50 or 60 zone. 40-over in a 70 or 80 zone. 50-over in a 90 or 100 zone.

While I understand the basic principle behind why one would want to do something like that ...

As long as we have speed limits that are unnecessarily low, then such a scheme would result in excessive and unnecessary punishment for doing something that is not particularly dangerous.

I have a LONG list of roads that have inexplicably low speed limits.

McLaren Road south of 124 to where the conservation area entrance is, for but one example. Runs between two gravel pits. Only a couple of driveways in a couple of kilometers. Straight. Good visibility. There's hardly any traffic on it. But it's a 60 zone. WHY? (I'm not talking about the section south of the conservation area - that's a different matter.)

It ought to be an 80 zone, even to be consistent with other Ontario roads, and I wouldn't feel particularly at any undue risk going 100 there (hypothetically, of course - same is true of most 80-posted roads). It makes NO sense. So why should that be a HTA 172?

60 zone in an urban/surburban street with plenty of driveways etc, FINE. But this one defies logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom