Beware Government Misinformation

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by ChrisJHC

What about “Speed Kills” (on the road).
Umm, no it doesn’t!
It does exacerbate the consequence of an accident, but by itself speed doesn’t kill.

(And to make it obvious, I’m not recommending that anyone break the speed limit or drive faster than warranted by the prevailing conditions)

Umm... sorry, no. Energy varies with the square of the increase in speed. A collision at 100 Km/h is four times as deadly as one at 50 Km/h. Drive faster than the law allows, and you reduce your margins. A collision that can be avoided at one speed, either by braking or swerving, may not be as avoidable at a higher speed. It's the reason speed limits exist. Also, due to increases in automobile safety brought about by Ralph Nader's activism, a collision can be survivable up to about 37 Km/h. Hit something at 57 Km/h, and you're done. Therefore, by strict definition, speed kills.

Ontario used to have photo-radar. As soon as it was removed, some drivers seemingly went nuts overnight. Driving on a highway these days seems more like road combat. Try to make a lane change, and someone will invariably be screaming up alongside you.

There was a time, when the autobahns in Germany had no speed limits. The death toll was terrible. Speeding increases the risk of collision. That was something I had to learn when I was young.

If everyone on the highways drove at the speed limit, there would be far fewer "accidents".

Nomad

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

Umm... sorry, no. Energy varies with the square of the increase in speed. A collision at 100 Km/h is four times as deadly as one at 50 Km/h. Drive faster than the law allows, and you reduce your margins. A collision that can be avoided at one speed, either by braking or swerving, may not be as avoidable at a higher speed. It's the reason speed limits exist. Also, due to increases in automobile safety brought about by Ralph Nader's activism, a collision can be survivable up to about 37 Km/h. Hit something at 57 Km/h, and you're done. Therefore, by strict definition, speed kills.

It's absolutely true that speed exacerbates the outcomes of a collision, but the actual cause is rarely due to speed itself. If everyone moves at the same speed, and doesn't zig-zag around, then you can have traffic going very fast with few problems. It's the idiots who think the rules don't apply to them, and who speed (or go way too slow), weave through traffic, tailgate, etc. which are the cause of accidents.

But you're absolutely correct that an accident taken at 100km/hr is magnitudes worse than one at $50km/hr.

Originally Posted by Nomad57

If everyone on the highways drove at the speed limit, there would be far fewer "accidents".

Completely agree. Sadly, too many people think speed limits are mere suggestions.

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It's absolutely true that speed exacerbates the outcomes of a collision, but the actual cause is rarely due to speed itself. If everyone moves at the same speed, and doesn't zig-zag around, then you can have traffic going very fast with few problems. It's the idiots who think the rules don't apply to them, and who speed (or go way too slow), weave through traffic, tailgate, etc. which are the cause of accidents.

But you're absolutely correct that an accident taken at 100km/hr is magnitudes worse than one at $50km/hr.

Completely agree. Sadly, too many people think speed limits are mere suggestions.

As you say, it's rarely due to speed itself, but it does happen. In 1969, I was driving a friend's roadrunner.... and had to pay for the damage. My grandfather used to call it, "learning money" (translated from his native language).

I suspect that most people who speed believe themselves to be superior drivers, and thus entitled. Maybe some of them are, but no matter how good you are, there's always the time when Joe Doofus suddenly appears in front of you, and there are no options. I once had a vehicle that was six weeks old when some guy tried to turn left into a parking lot, only to discover that there was a chain across the entrance. I was towing a boat, and could not stop. I was compensated for the damage to my car, but it was never the same again. Then, I discovered the damage to my boat trailer...

Terry

[Sand crab]

Back in another life I had a Porsche, actually 3 different ones at different times. I regularly drove over 140 mph. I once got clocked at 192 but they didn't catch me until a week later when a cop saw me pumping gas in that car. That's a story there. When you are going that fast your senses are really tuned in to the environment and you can read and see all the variations that may or may not come into play. I'd run it up to near WOT for a short while and then back it down. I didn't do it in rush hour but it was a rush. I lived in Montana back when the speed limit was "reasonable and prudent" and that's what the speed limits used to say. Those were good times. My best longest ride was 400 miles through Wyoming in 4 hours. But there's almost nothing in that state worth slowing down for. Except Jackson Hole.
The moral of the story is speed doesn't kill. Idiots driving too fast is another issue.

[Sand crab]

And a pic:

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Nomad57

There was a time, when the autobahns in Germany had no speed limits. The death toll was terrible. Speeding increases the risk of collision. That was something I had to learn when I was young.

Nomad

while i don't disagree totally with the theme of your post, i have to say the above is wrong.

firstly, there are still autobahns in germany with open speed limit. i've driven on them recently.

secondly the death toll was (and still is) actually less on these sections.

open speed works in germany for a number of reasons, but probably not suitable for many other countries.

cheers,

[Joh.Ghurt]

Originally Posted by chrisr

open speed works in germany for a number of reasons, but probably not suitable for many other countries.

Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger!

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by Joh.Ghurt

Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger!

Ja, aber soziale verantwortung ist der schlüssel

cheers,

[RaymondR]

Undoubtably their biggest lie is "We are using your tax dollars wisely".

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Undoubtably their biggest lie is "We are using your tax dollars wisely".

Almost as big (and as silly) as "the private sector is always more efficient" or "markets can solve all problems."

Straw men and stereotypes are never a good way to discuss an issue.

[wiseman]

hi CHRISR in regards to life jackets in oz it clearly states boats 4.8 mtr and under you must wear an approved pfd. but it also states for larger vessel if solo you must wear an approved pfd when travelling at night, when crossing a sand bar, or when condition deems ie travelling during reduced visability fog etc

[Nomad57]

Originally Posted by chrisr

while i don't disagree totally with the theme of your post, i have to say the above is wrong.

firstly, there are still autobahns in germany with open speed limit. i've driven on them recently.

secondly the death toll was (and still is) actually less on these sections.

open speed works in germany for a number of reasons, but probably not suitable for many other countries.

cheers,

Chris,

I stand (sit?) corrected. I was quoting an article I read in Stern (or Quick?) long ago. I drove from Switzerland to Mannheim in 2001, and on that road, the limit had been imposed. I was given to understand that all autobahns had the limit. That didn't stop some guy in a Mercedes from zipping by me like I was standing still. I talked to a cop about that, and he said, "Yes, that goes well 99 times, then on the 100th time, they lose their license".

Terry

[chrisr]

Originally Posted by wiseman

hi CHRISR in regards to life jackets in oz it clearly states boats 4.8 mtr and under you must wear an approved pfd. but it also states for larger vessel if solo you must wear an approved pfd when travelling at night, when crossing a sand bar, or when condition deems ie travelling during reduced visability fog etc

without wishing to make too much of the matter, that is not quite right here. the only time the law in nsw requires to wear a l/j on a jessel > 4.8m is when crossing a bar.

there may be different laws in other states, and my bad not to mention i was specifically thinking of nsw.

but my point was that the nsw govt radio ad conveniently ignores this and incorrectly portrays it as a blanket rule...grrrr

cheers,

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by skipmac

In the US you can call an IRS help line with questions about your taxes BUT they state clearly that the advise given is not guaranteed correct and if wrong, you will be held responsible if you act on that advise.

Yep! And the GAO did an audit of their help line one year and found it gave out incorrect information about 50% of time!

"Sorry we told you the wrong thing, but its YOUR fault!"

[Montanan]

FYI:

OHIP coverage while outside Canada
Find out what OHIP covers when you’re temporarily outside Canada.

Reference link: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ohip-cov...outside-canada

Away for more than seven months
If you plan to be outside Canada for more than seven months in any 12-month period you can keep your OHIP coverage for up to two years if you:

have a valid health card
make Ontario your primary home
will be in Ontario for at least 153 days a year in each of the two years immediately before you leave the country

Before you leave, take the following items to the nearest ServiceOntario centre to make sure your OHIP coverage stays active:

your health card
proof of residency (e.g. mortgage, lease or rental agreement, property tax bill, valid driver’s licence)