speeding> do you?

[Doc]

.'s just lucky. Next year, all TC inspectors will be issued tasers!

[Rockie]

Doc and Rockie...this is getting childish.

So lets be real men and post pictures of your dicks so everyone can decide who is the better man.

I'll already concede that everyone's is bigger than mine. At my age the fact that it still works at all is cause to celebrate.

[Rockie]

I'm curious what Air Regulations and SOP's you ignore because you don't agree with them. You can't possibly agree with them all so how do you deal with that?

Now we are getting somewhere - a comparison to being a professional - that is a whole different kettle of fish.

As a pilot, whether commercially or even when just for giggles, I beleive we should all follow the rules and regulations. WHY the perceived duplicity? Cause those rules are written in blood. Whether you like TC/FAA or not, 99% of our flying rules, SOP's etc are based on some factual analysis of something bad that happened - they don't always get it right but the intent is good. Our rules at least contemplate that the individuals are proficient and professional - not LCD schmucks. They are not arbitrary rules written by hand-wringing apron holders in city hall. TC aviation is head and shoulders above TC roadways IMHO.

When I drove trucks for a living - it was always "on the numbers" ALL THE TIME. Why? Because I was paid to do a job and that is what was expected of me as a professional driver - follow ALL rules - no interpratation. Plus, driving 60,000l of fuel around does make one much more aware of their own mortality. When someone else is paying me to do a job I do the job the way they want/expect - period.

The original question was:
The ?? is do you as a pilot with your perceived enhanced ability to judge speed /time/ distance relationships speed on a regular basis.

A better comparison isn't too ALL pilot rules - compare it to the 250 speed limit.

You go first Rockie - tell us why you follow that rule AND why that rule makes sense. The qualifiers as to when and where that must be followed will point out where it does not apply which will point out why the arbitrary speed limit of 100/110 ALL of the time is arbitrary and ridiculous.

If that doesn't make sense answer this - WHY is it okay to speed a little? Others here have said that 110/115/120 in a 100 is okay - its excessive speeding that is wrong. By your argument - breaking the law is breaking the law - period - no room for interpratation. Those laws are there for my safety AND the safety of all other drivers. I have to question that duplicity.

That to me sounds like nothing more than a very subjective interpratation of the rules to fit their personal opinions. If that is the case, then my type of subjective interpratation is every bit as valid - it has to be or all of us are wrong.

Is it okay to do 110 in a 100?

1. Highway rules, just like Air Regs, are written in blood too. It is for safety reasons that we have speed limits. Maybe you don't notice all the accidents and deaths attributed to excessive speed but law makers have.

2. I'm not surprised that you drove your truck on the numbers because you are professional. Now why can't you bring the same professionalism to personal driving? You don't see a difference between personal and professional aircraft operation so why should you driving a car?

3. 250 knots approaching an airport below 10K is in effect at all times as is 200 kts below 3000 ft, making it in your parlance arbitrary. The only time 250 kts is not applicable is on departure (except YYZ of course), and that is because airplanes are diverging away from the crowded airspace not toward it. This rule does not apply to military aircraft but a particular group may have their own parallel regulation that they must follow. I follow it because it is the rule, and the fact that I agree with the reasoning has nothing to do with me adhering to it. On the roads I also agree with the rule and follow it which seems to bug the hell out you.

4. Yes 110K traffic mixed in with 100K traffic is OK with me. 120 mixed in with 100 traffic is getting uncomfortably disparate. Over 120 is not safe. That is not to say that 180 on the 400 series highways wouldn't be OK too if you were all by yourself (provided you were willing to pay for the clean up out of your estate when you smear yourself). But you're not alone on the highway are you? What you're not grasping is that the rule is put there for the benefit of everyone on the road. You might call it arbitrary, but it is a compromise between reasonable speed and reasonable safety. It would be wonderful if guys like you could have your own highway and your own speed limit, but I'm sorry to say that's not the case. You're stuck with us.

If you don't like the rule then lobby your local politicians to change it. Deciding for yourself what rules apply to you is what is arbitrary.

[Rockie]

Here's something that I maybe should have said to begin with. I've never been a really fast driver even in my youth, but when my son was born many years ago I made a deliberate decision to get very conscientious about driving. I was going to be as safe as I could be for his benefit. After he got older I didn't see a reason why I shouldn't be just as conscientious all the time.

Hopefully that clears up why I am the way I am about driving.

[Cat Driver]

My last speeding ticket was around 1997 or so, I was doing 110KPM in a 90 KPM zone on the Trans Canada highway at around 5:30 AM...me and the Cop were the only two vehicles within fifty miles and it was daylight and the road was dry..I was speeding and payed the ticket ...was it dangerous? of course not.

As to TC and me ...well kids the truth is I have charged TC with non compliance to the rules on two separate occasions a few decades apart and both times they were found guilty.

TC has never charged me with non compliance to the rules....

Score so far ::

Me two.

TC::

zero.

So go chew on that for a while.

[FamilyGuy]

1. Highway rules, just like Air Regs, are written in blood too. It is for safety reasons that we have speed limits. Maybe you don't notice all the accidents and deaths attributed to excessive speed but law makers have.

2. Now why can't you bring the same professionalism to personal driving? You don't see a difference between personal and professional aircraft operation so why should you driving a car?

3. 250 knots approaching an airport below 10K is in effect at all times as is 200 kts below 3000 ft, making it in your parlance arbitrary. The only time 250 kts is not applicable is on departure (except YYZ of course), and that is because airplanes are diverging away from the crowded airspace not toward it.

4. Yes 110K traffic mixed in with 100K traffic is OK with me. 120 mixed in with 100 traffic is getting uncomfortably disparate. Over 120 is not safe.

If you don't like the rule then lobby your local politicians to change it. Deciding for yourself what rules apply to you is what is arbitrary.

1. - I agree that highway rules are written in blood but disagree as to the result. It's the traffic light stop sign mentality - politicians only respond when the deaths are either large in # or tragic.

2. - I am professional as a driver - remember the checks I said I do to my equipment. How many other drivers do that? I have kids too, when they are in my car the limits go down - way down. Not for their saftey per se but because of the distractions they cause and to set a better example - socially responsible law abider (til they figure out what matters on their own).

3. You partially got it but missed the answer that matters to this topic. NO speed limit inbetween airports! It's not arbitrary at all that it exists around airports below a certain altitude - feet per second closure vs. VFR's and ATC requirements. Why can I do 400kts at 6500' enroute? No traffic congestion perhaps? Same arguement for 130 under certain conditions.

4. Totally subjective opinon - which is all I've heard so far - which is all I suspect I'll ever hear. This is where all counter arguements fail - speeding ( no matter how much) is either illegal and unsafe or it isn't - no room for any personal interpratation in between the two. If 140 is unsafe then so is 101 - period.

5. I already stated the fix - graduated licensing to super license. I'm not joking. Rather than ignore the problem deal with it. Train people to do safely what they are all ready doing unsafely.

I've driven in every Province except Newfoundland and the 2 territories - coast to coast - from Tofino to across the Confederation Bridge. South the Gulf of Mexico. In eastern Europe - although I missed my chance to drive the Autobahn . I've been on road courses and drag strips - I've even been around the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve - only once and really slow . (missed out on a chance to try Shannonville too)

I've driven farm trucks, little trucks, huge trucks, big cars, sports cars, old POS cars, new POS cars, clapped out brand new rental cars of all makes, various Mustangs since 1969 (69 Mach 1 428 SCJ 8 - nothing like enough horsepower to put the front floormats in the back) on, some fine German cars (love BMW's), superbikes to drag snowmachines that do 100 in a 1/4 mile.

I've driven in snowstorms where the snow drifts were coming over the hood of a 4x4, fog so thick I had my head out the window looking down to see the lines, ice storms where the gravel shoulder was the only traction, dust storms that permanently dulled the paint, thunderstrorms where I hoped the car wouldn't be picked up by a twister and over semi frozen lakes with open water all around (go slow there I dare you)

I've done 20 miles in 10 minutes (side by side), had tie rods break, blown engines, left transmissions on the road (literally).

I've had all manner of idiot drivers try to kill me - at ALL speeds - the worst of which always seem to be in major Cities.

In all of that I've never put a wheel wrong or had an accident.

You want to tell me I'm too immature or inexperienced to know what speed is safe for me in what condition. You're going to tell me that I can do 110 but not 130? Really.....

[Rockie]

Family Guy


I would be careful about that 250 kt thing. Unless you are departing or have special permission you cannot exceed 250 kts below 10K...period. You can get creative about your definition of "departing" and how far it extends, but you do so at your own risk. The regulation used to say "on departure when cleared above 10,000 feet", but that's been removed. Look it up, the reference is CAR 602.32 or AIM RAC 2.5.2



I'm pleased and somewhat reassured that you are the second coming of Christ when it comes to operating a vehicle. But why are you not capable of understanding that you share the road with mere unpredictable mortals without a fraction of your skill and blinding talent? Professionalism, if you want to use that word, extends beyond doing a walkaround on your car. It means driving responsibly and defensively when out on public roads. I'm guessing your clean accident history is because everyone else is getting out of your way and you have more than your share of luck. You remind me of my Dad when he used to drive right through this one yield sign without looking or slowing down. He used to say "Ive never hit anybody yet", and sure enough he never did.

One of the reasons I drive as responsibly and as safely as I can even when I'm alone in the car is because you might be right beside me with all of your kids on board.

You're welcome.

Please let some ego out of your head and show the rest of us the same courtesy.

[FamilyGuy]

Well that was 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Do you have any logical counter arguement other than there are other cars on the road?

We've established that - it's part of the "circumstances" that would dictate speed. Rush hour on the 427 isn't a good place to push the limits. The #1 between Dog River and Bumblefuck Saskatchewan - which is perfectly flat - straight - and vacant seems to me to be okay.

Does that meet your test of when it's okay - since you say it's okay sometimes - but only when you say so right?

[flyinphil]

Do you have any logical counter arguement other than there are other cars on the road?

Is there any other reason? Anything you do to jeopardize others is unacceptable.

[Rockie]

Family Guy

How did you get the world to revolve around you like that?

And if my post really took you two minutes to read then that explains a lot of things.

[Doc]

Speeding is, by definition, driving at a speed over the posted limit. We all do that. Beyond that, WGARA?

[...]

7 pages on speeding...obviously a subject that has reached many on here.

Speeding kills.

Drunk driving ain't any better.

Exercising common sense, courtesy and above all road/airmanship when behind the controls of a car or airplane...makes for a safer environment.

Share the road folks!

[FamilyGuy]

It would seem there is no logical debate to be had here.

The holyier than thou crowd is correct - its okay to speed a little - when they decide so (although they haven't stated any firm criteria us mere mortals can use daily).

From now on I'll make sure I stay in the right lane doing the numbers while your pope mobile passes me - lemming that I am.

Please excuse my over inflated ego for thinking there was any other answer - the mighty have spoken.

Whatever - good fun during the down time.

[flyinphil]

What is there to debate? It has been determined that excessive speed yields a higher kill ratio on the highways so limits have been put in place. Those limits are governed by law. Most of us live within the intent of the law with minor deviations for such thing as instrument error, temporary distractions, etc.

I would like a little more free cash but there are those pesky law things that keep me from knocking off a 7-11 or maybe a bank.. Capice?

[FamilyGuy]

[quote="flyinphil"]What is there to debate?
quote]

Why is 120 okay, according to some, but anything else is "unsafe". I agree you're either pregnant or you're not. I don't see any middle ground to their argument either. That is what is debatable - or duplicitious.

[newpilotwife]

I beg to differ, the centre lane is where you should be driving - left lane for passing, right lane for getting on/off hwy, and with sufficient space between cars, alertness and courtesy, allowing cars to switch lanes wouldn't be a problem.

Reminds me of my last trip to TO, when the hwy & drivers were working well, it reminded me of a well-choreographed dance - it was a pleasure to watch and the drive was relaxing. Other times it was a blood-pressure raising hwy to hell with everyone seemingly a candidate for worst driver.

I call it poaching lanes -- ever noticed that most people in canada want to drive in the centre lane -- to coin a phrase -- WTF -- just look in your mirror and you will usually see the centre lane is always the busiest -- just means you have cut off the other 2 lanes -- human nature is a funny thing and the "sheep" syndrome is so true

[BoostedNihilist]

.

[FL_CH]

Finally someone brought that up!

Add to this >$1/L fuel prices, and, like I said, you will NOT see many people driving anything over 130 for extended periods of time - way too uneconomical.

[flyinphil]

This pretty much sums up our discussion:

7 in 10 Canadians speed despite dangers: report

Last Updated: Sunday, November 11, 2007 | 11:33 AM ET
The Canadian Press

Most Canadians will freely admit to exceeding the speed limit from time to time, but when it comes to just how fast they drive, they underestimate their true speed and delude themselves into thinking their behaviour really isn't that bad, says a new report by Transport Canada.

A chain-reaction crash in Brampton, Ont., killed two women on Oct. 6. The drivers of two cars, who were not hurt, have been charged with criminal negligence causing death.
(CBC)
Based on a survey of 2,002 drivers conducted in 2005 and 12 focus groups held across the country, the report finds most Canadians consider speeding to be dangerous and believe it leads to an increased risk of collision, injury or death.

However, seven out of 10 Canadians admitted to doing it anyway, while an additional 11 per cent said they speed but only on highways, according to the executive summary of the forthcoming report, a copy of which was obtained by the Canadian Press.

Drivers underestimate speeding, experts say

Drivers surveyed admitted to an average speed that was 12 kilometres per hour higher than the limit on major highways, 10 km/h higher on two-lane highways or country roads, and seven over on residential streets.

It's fair to assume the real numbers are considerably higher, experts say, because most drivers underestimate the extent of their speeding and consider it to be benign.

Those drivers believe they are technically speeding according to the rule of law, the report concludes, but not in a way that endangers either themselves or others — even though they are quick to condemn other speeders as dangerous.

"People don't see themselves as the problem, they see others as the problem — I'm OK and you're the bad guy," said Raynald Marchand, the general manager of programs for the Canada Safety Council.

"That's pretty human, it's the same with people with regard to cellular phones — I'm OK when I'm using mine but that guy over there, he's the problem."

The report suggests the biggest problem group of drivers is the 30 per cent who speed more than average, and don't believe their speeding translates into a greater risk of an accident, injury or death.

They're labelled two ways, either as risk-takers or pragmatic speeders. Risk-takers enjoy the thrill of high speed and defying authority, while pragmatic speeders consciously drive aggressively when they believe they have reason to, such as being in a hurry.

Speeders oblivious to dangers

The report suggests public education campaigns should focus on this hard-to-reach group because they pose a considerable danger to themselves and others, but seem oblivious to the risks until it's too late.

"People speed and they don't think [an accident] is going to happen to them. And most times, nothing happens, and they build on that thinking that nothing will ever happen," Marchand said.

Even if speeders are in perfect control of their vehicle, their speed will haunt them in the event that another driver gets in their way and causes an accident, he added.

"When you look at collision crashes, speeding itself is often not the actual cause of the collision, however, speeding is always an aggravating factor in the collision — the occupant would've been less injured or would've survived if they had been closer to the speed limit," Marchand said.

"The physics are unforgiving to the speeding driver."

1,300 Ontario speeders caught

Ontario recently targeted its most aggressive drivers with a new law that imposes tough penalties on anyone caught exceeding the speed limit by 50 km/h. Their licence is immediately suspended for a week, their car is towed and impounded for seven days, and if convicted, they face a fine of between $2,000 and $10,000.

After five weeks of what has been dubbed a "shock and awe" campaign, more than 1,300 drivers have been caught, a number that has shocked even police.

But some experts believe the focus should be on reducing the speed of all drivers, even if it's just marginally.

Brian Jonah, the director of road safety programs at Transport Canada, said the chance of an accident resulting in a fatality is reduced by one per cent with every five km/h reduction in speed.

Provinces, territories asked to make roads safer

While that may not sound like much, a small slowdown in everyone's speed would translate into many lives saved and reduced injuries in accidents, he said, considering that 2,725 drivers were killed and over 212,000 were injured in 2004, the most recent year that statistics are available.

An appeal is going out to the provinces and territories to draft plans to make the roads safer, and Jonah said he would be happy if the auto industry also did its part, by changing the way it markets vehicles.

"We're trying to deter manufacturers from using ads for their vehicles that rely on speed and power, those kinds of advertisements could glorify dangerous driving."

The full Transport Canada study is to be publicly released within the week.

The poll that contributed to the report's research was conducted in March and April 2005 by Ekos Research Associates, and is considered accurate within 2.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

© The Canadian Press, 2007

[Hedley]

Transport Canada, said the chance of an accident resulting in a fatality is reduced by one per cent with every five km/h reduction in speed.

Clearly, the speed limits should all be reduced to zero kph. That would be safe. Who can object to safety? Not me!

[BoostedNihilist]

.

[flyinphil]

Very good guys. When facts destroy your argument, post idiotic remarks!

[flyinphil]

Transport Canada, said the chance of an accident resulting in a fatality is reduced by one per cent with every five km/h reduction in speed.

Clearly, the speed limits should all be reduced to zero kph. That would be safe. Who can object to safety? Not me!

I'll make an exception for you hedley. Go as fast as you want big guy!

TC can claim you a hazard on two counts...

[Hedley]

No, really. In the interests of safety, we should get rid of all cars and trucks.

Are you arguing against safety? How can it be "idiotic" to argue in favour of increased safety, as I clearly am?

[Rockie]

No, really. In the interests of safety, we should get rid of all cars and trucks.

Are you arguing against safety? How can it be "idiotic" to argue in favour of increased safety, as I clearly am?

As you very well know Hedley, there is a big difference between "100% safe" and "safer". You drive a car and fly a plane, by your reasoning since you are already unsafe you might as well go all out and be dangerous. Is that what you are or do you have limits?

I'm pretty sure you don't really believe the hogwash you said here, but somewhere somebody does.