spoonek4

Posted speed limit is supposed to the the maximum. Aka. the max speed you are allowed to drive at in perfect condition. You are supposed to adjust your speed and lower it according to the road/weather condition. So the rainy weather, black ice have nth to do with the max limit.

For perfect conditions tho, posted speed limits are definately unrealistically slow, that people just tend to ignore it.
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-21 11:26

speed limit以我既角度黎睇，係綜合各種唔同路面情況(包括路邊有冇泊車，附近有冇民居)，天氣情況，唔同車種而定。當然，天氣同路面情況十分之壞既情況下行得比speed limit慢，呢一個係common sense，但唔知你有冇留意到就係宜家有一個愈來愈大既問題係D人渣車唔理咩種族都好，都愈來愈冇common sense。你都識講most people are reasonable drivers，但問題係好多時都係一小撮冇common sense既不負責任駕駛者o係出面害人害己。好似robbery/sex assault果D咁，有良知/common sense既人都知唔應該做，但硬係有班人走去做架喎﹖

你部車既condition好D，你自己技術好D，當然有時會覺得點解D speed limit set得咁低，就算有突發事件你都避到，但唔係人人/人人部車都可以，意外就係咁黎。speed limit/法例係做俾你去遵守，HK同呢度都有呢D咁既反酒後駕駛/反超速/反非法賽車既罰則同宣傳架﹖但係人地o係度一味宣傳/同罰人一件事，出面D人有冇吸收到/得到教訓呢﹖好多時冇囉！我聽news1130有D 人依然都仲話佢地會飲酒渣車，HK好多人俾人捉完街飛拖完去驗車釘埋牌轉個頭都仲係出去飛到甩轆既，你可以點﹖要住o係度但又唔滿意既話可以唔跟架冇人阻你，睇你負唔負擔得起個後果囉(呢句野對於男人黎講好多方面都apply到LOL)。
   
大佬，某D野人地叫你唔好，你係都要做，人地冇可能唔捉你唔罰你架喎。你守法，人地想罰你黎搶你荷包D錢都都唔成功啦。政治方面攞唔攞著數，有咩所謂姐度度都係咁架啦﹖都係果句，你冇做錯驚咩先﹖

真係好簡單，唔好諗到咁複雜。

BiscottiGelato

speed limit以我既角度黎睇，係綜合各種唔同路面情況(包括路邊有冇泊車，附近有冇民居)，天氣情況，唔同車 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-21 21:07

I have never been debating whether one should do certain things or not, or whether I want to DUI or speeding or not. Not doing certain things doesn't mean that having laws to curb that particular right can be justified. In fact, even for things that is considered immoral, doesn't mean that increasing penalty to unreasonable levels can be justified either.

According to your logic then, if one day they say theft should be sentenced to life in prison, and robbery should be sentenced with death penalty, you would be okay with it? Your response would be 'Just don't do it, then you don't have to worry about the penalties' and 'As long as you don't do it, why be so afraid of the penalties'? I personally think penalty should fit the crime, or the justice system will fail miserably.

The world doesn't work like that. If everybody is insensitive to things that does not directly apply to themselves, who would then in return, support causes that you would care about someday?

I think it's pretty clear where I stand. I am not telling people to be stupid, drink 10 shots and go out and drive 50k above the limit. I am saying the legislation change is imposing excessive penalty without really improving safety, for what really is purely a political cause in the name of safety. The penalty is probably justified for the crowd who intended to cause harm to others, but those probably will do it anyways regardless of the penalty. What the new legislation will do is penalizing people that have cause minimal, or no extra danger to the public at all:

- 40k over at some places is maybe just 10k above what the regular traffics does anyways. You might actually need that kind of speed for lane changes in some circumstances.
- People charged and essentially convicted on the spot via breathlyzer errors.
- Police now have absolute power in deciding whether one is guilty or not, based on the fact that they can now impose penalty at their discretion without going through the court. And we know there are a lot of bad apples in terms of policing in North America.

Higher penalty in the face of higher probability of wrongful convictions, along with unreasonable penalty on unreasonable speed limits (at least a lot of people would agree that many of the speed limits are completely unreasonable). I can't find any positives from this change in legislature at all.

BiscottiGelato

While on the topic of speed limits. Check out the following 2 very common articles as a starter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit
http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm

Do note that take government data with a grain of salt, because for most countries, the following applies and might lead to significant bias:
"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), an organization wholly controlled by major insurance companies, generally advocates for lower speed limits and provides grants to police agencies to obtain speed enforcement equipment, such as radar and lidar guns. Skeptics believe that the IIHS's interest in promoting lower limits and the issuance of more traffic tickets arises out of the industry's interest in increasing motorists' insurance rates, leading to greater profits for its constituents."

So insurance companies pays funding to police (gov't), and the insurance companies likes higher insurance rates and more tickets. Go figure.

spoonek4

I have never been debating whether one should do certain things or not, or whether I want to DUI or speeding or not. Not doing certain things doesn't mean that having laws to curb that particular right can be justified. In fact, even for things that is considered immoral, doesn't mean that increasing penalty to unreasonable levels can be justified either.

According to your logic then, if one day they say theft should be sentenced to life in prison, and robbery should be sentenced with death penalty, you would be okay with it? Your response would be 'Just don't do it, then you don't have to worry about the penalties' and 'As long as you don't do it, why be so afraid of the penalties'?
BiscottiGelato 發表於 2010-9-22 12:17

你再咀嚼一下我既論點先.......anyway唔好將D野諗得咁複雜囉真係！我諗我俾人叫吹波波但係遇著部機壞既機會仲細過中649 既.....唔好講頭獎，二/三獎﹖我做份工成日要渣車4圍去，個license對於我黎講算緊要喇卦﹖冇左個牌我都好大獲，但係我真係唔擔心喎LOL！....

點解俾我諗到個不知情既情況下衰十一既case...頂LOL!

BiscottiGelato

你再咀嚼一下我既論點先.......anyway唔好將D野諗得咁複雜囉真係！我諗我俾人叫吹波波但係遇著部機壞既機 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-22 19:52

The machines are very crappy ga... Obviously it doesn't actually detect alcohol as in the ethanol directly. The detection is indirect, so it can mistake a lot of other things as ethanol. How they used to go around it is to do remeasurement with a more accurate, but less mobile machine at the police station before putting you under serious hurt. Or for the most accurate method, a blood test. With the new legislation, I don't think they need to do that anymore. To make matter worse, it's much easier to have an artificial high reading than an artificial low one. That's why it used to be very easy to fight a DUI charge unless they do a blood test on you right after. Now the cops can go above the court... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathalyzer#Common_sources_of_error

Saw an interesting link on speed trap on MSN front page (yes I left the IE front page and never changed it).

Worst cities to get nabbed for speeding
http://autos.ca.msn.com/editors- ... tid=25669147&page=2

Cited Boundary near Marine as one of them, and captioned
"Boundary Rd. has a 10 per cent grade at the south end of the drive. Cops hide and operate laser near the bus stop at the bottom of the hill near S.E. Marine Dr. To maintain a speed of 50 km/h (30 mph) continuous braking and/or lower gearing is required. Engine braking is prohibited. This is an unfair trap. Shame on the Vancouver cops for this trap."

spoonek4

落果條大斜你會唔會踩多兩腳brake/拖波丫咁﹖佢地主要係驚D 貨櫃車嘈住民居囉我覺得，但我未見過人o係果度俾人捉用engine brake LOL。明知果度成日捉車既你又會唔會渣快先﹖除非你真係sunday driver得咁緊要就真係幫你唔到！

cremedelacreme

From now on, when I go out dinner with my hubby, either he drinks, and I drive home.  Or we both don't drink!  Although, it sounds very inconvenient, but then it is for the sake of everyone's safety.

BiscottiGelato

落果條大斜你會唔會踩多兩腳brake/拖波丫咁﹖佢地主要係驚D 貨櫃車嘈住民居囉我覺得，但我未見過人o係果度 ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-22 23:16

為捉車而慢 vs 為 safety 而慢, 兩回事. 事實係 the limit is too low, hence they always set trap there to cash grab. In fact, I think it's so dangerous to set a speed trap on that particularly down hill section consider how they like to jump in front of traffic, causing a lot of panic brakes. Even if they don't jump out of traffic, people will do sudden slow down when they spot the cops. You know very well that 90% of the people there dont' drive 50km/hr, the speed differential causes a lot more danger than what used to be a uniform 7/80 down the hill that everybody does.

Anyways, if you really like to drive 50km/hr there every time, good for you. I applaud you if you follows the law to the dot and is happy the way things are. I personally is a lot more opinionated in regards to legislations and policy, and I believe that's what a democratic system is about.

With that many posts, I think any people who put in a good effort to understand my viewpoint would've understood my point already. Whether they agree with it or not, due to valid reasons or just 為反對而反對 it's up to the individual and I have no more to add. Out~

spoonek4

touch wood....以好似我咁飛仔既人渣咁耐車仲要成日o係條路上面一張speeding ticket都未收過.......

BiscottiGelato

touch wood....以好似我咁飛仔既人渣咁耐車仲要成日o係條路上面一張speeding ticket都未收過....... ...
spoonek4 發表於 2010-9-23 14:19

Same thing. I never robbed anyone, nor do i encourage it, in fact i despise it. Doesn't mean that I'll support them if they decide to impose death penalty for robbery convictions.