Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentAuthorWinklovic
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   Speaking of slowing down, I drove to Bismarck, ND last week, doing the speed limit of 75 mph (120 km/h) and got 28 mpg.
   
   Yesterday, on the way home from Bismarck, I set the cruise at 100 km/h and got 36.8 mpg. When I filled up in Pembina, there were still 17 litres of gas left in the tank! There are benefits to slowing down.

   Thankful People: Jimmytufish, Monominto
2. • CommentAuthorFreethinker
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   The accident that GOG witnessed just goes to the point that a moment of inattentiveness, or perhaps outright stupidity, can affect the lives of so many. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are, it only takes a moment for someone else to make you a victim, and in some cases, its for a life changing event. I can't see the victims of this accident, or many others, finding comfort in fault.
   
   Hard to say if speed was a contributor to the cause of the accident, but it certainly was a contributor in the damage, both to people and to property.
3. •  
     CommentAuthorJimmytufish
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   "Accident"?...perhaps we should not use this term when "collision" is more appropriate.

   Thankful People: hbob, smjpilot
4. • CommentAuthorFreethinker
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    

   Posted By: Jimmytufish"Accident"?...perhaps we should not use this term when "collision" is more appropriate.

   
   
   Too true, while it was not deliberate in that sense, its hard to call them accidents.
5. •  
     CommentAuthorGrumpy_Old_Guy
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   This was no accident. Even the media have adopted the words collision and crash as more appropriate.
   
   The kid running the stop sign didn't do it through a moment of inattentiveness, he knew what he was doing. Not only did he speed through the sign, but in my opinion was actually accelerating as he crossed the road.
   
   Charges are pending and I can only hope those charges include dangerous driving, as failing to stop at a stop sign simply does not cover this guys actions.
6. •  
     CommentAuthorsmjpilot
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   it was a "collision decision"
7. • CommentAuthorFreethinker
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   GOG, did you provide a statement to the police?
8. •  
     CommentAuthorGrumpy_Old_Guy
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    

   Posted By: FreethinkerGOG, did you provide a statement to the police?

   
   
   Yes. Name, date of birth address and phone numbers. I told him the Cavalier flew through the stop sign and hit the Civic. I said it was just that simple. He agreed.
9. • CommentAuthorFreethinker
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

    
   An independent witness goes a long way. Its probably little compensation to the victims.
10. •  
      CommentAuthorgrumpy old man
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    I wonder if the kid was not paying attention and decided that he could not stop in time and decided to accelerate in an effort to avoid a collision? No matter, it is still careless driving. Just curious.
11. •  
      CommentAuthorGrumpy_Old_Guy
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     

    Posted By: grumpy old manI wonder if the kid was not paying attention and decided that he could not stop in time and decided to accelerate in an effort to avoid a collision? No matter, it is still careless driving. Just curious.

    
    
    Nope. He lives in Lorette and his family lives across the highway where the crash happened. (His mother showed up moments after the crash). He must have driven across that intersection dozens of times. A completely deliberate action.
12. •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    How can you fail to have time to stop for a stop sign that you know is there? I wonder if he did not see the civic coming at him, or just thought he could beat it.
13. • CommentAuthorFreethinker
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    The press described the driver of the Cavalier as a 20 yr old, and thats what scares the crap out of me. I have 3 18 yr old sons, who like all 18 yr olds, are invincible, the best drivers in the world and think that their old man drives too slow.
    
    I just hope that they learned enough to keep themselves out of a situation like this, either way.
14. • CommentAuthorcams
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    Quote: cherenkov, Mar 27th 2008
    "And if you drive 70 on the TCH in good conditions, I will get pissed at you, unless you're on the shoulder with your hazard lights on."
    
    MANY people have no idea, but driving at more than 40km/h with hazard lights/flashers on is a direct violation of the HTA Section 37(14):
    The lamps to which subsection (13) applies shall not be lighted intermittently or put into a flashing operation except when the motor vehicle is coming to a stop or standing on a highway or travelling at a speed less than 40 kilometres per hour when it is necessary to do so for safe operation; and when the vehicle is again put in motion or resumes a speed in excess of 40 kilometres per hour the lamps shall no longer remain lighted intermittently or in flashes.
    
    FYI driving on the shoulder is also illegal, I just can't be bothered to look up exactly which section it is. However, a couple years back in the winter when #1 East between #12 and Deacon's was so bad, the semi drivers were sticking to the shoulder instead of the right lane because it was smoother. I didnt personally have a problem with it, and NO ONE drove 3 across so it wasn't that bad. Semi drivers are among the best and safest drivers on the road so I'm confident in their abilities to control their rigs. Sure, you get a jackass sometimes, but they are few and far between in my books. (I commute to Wpg on #1 East btw.. LOTS of trucks)
    
    To all of you who, in reduced visibility, drive at more than 40km/h with the hazards on, you're creating a HUGE problem. While the hazards do somewhat increase others' chances of seeing your vehicle in front of them, they are:
    
    a) annoying and bright... blinding bright lights at night isn't good for night vision ESPECIALLY BLINKING ONES. Your eyes have to constantly readjust to bright and dark and your vision is crippled, therefore dangerous. You use the lowbeams when approaching a car, don't you? Same deal. Don't blind other people on the road!!
    b) a danger to those behind you because they might think you're stopped on the side of the road and may move to the left and go off the road as a result, especially dangerous during winter when the lines or the edge of the road isn't always clearly visible.
    
    Do yourself a favour and shut them off, for yours and everyone else's benefit, unless of course you're stopped or going less than 40.
15. • CommentAuthorcams
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    Passing on the right is NOT legal, but clarification of what that actually means is necessary. I understand that to mean that you can't pass on the right if you have to leave the road to do so, i.e. passing on the shoulder. If it's a multilane roadway, like #1, then passing a car in the left lane whilst driving in the right lane is not against the law as far as I can tell (I don’t speak legalese). I may be wrong, but that's how I interpret it. Without quoting the sections (114 & 115) directly: basically you are allowed to pass a vehicle on the right side if the road consists of 2 or more lanes in the same direction. However, vehicles travelling slower than the flow of traffic (very important point) have to travel in the lane designated by signage, or in the absense of signs, the right lane. They also MUST move to the right lane (if on a multilane road) to any vehicle wishing to pass. While this is de jure in the province, it is NOT de facto within the boundaries of any city I’ve been in; it's a free for all and will never be enforced and cannot be. Also since no official definition of "flow of traffic" is provided in the HTA, I have to assume that in this case, it means the speed of any car on the road that's going the same speed as you. If you're going 100 and the guy going 105 behind you wants to pass, you are legally obligated to move to the right lane to let him by. However, if he chooses to go by you in the right lane, no harm no foul, but please move over as soon as he's out of the way for the sake of the nice folks behind you. In fact, stick to the right unless you're about to turn left, no matter how fast you're going. Pass when necessary and go back into the right. Pretty simple.
    
    Want a VERY quick lesson? Go for a "flight" down any major Autobahn in Germany. They're 3 lanes for a reason people. Slow -> RIGHT, normal -> MIDDLE, passing -> LEFT. You'd think passing a car that’s in the middle lane at 190km/h is sufficiently fast enough to be occupying the left lane, but it's often not. Check the mirror before you go in, there's no one. Check it again about 3 seconds later, there's a Porsche on top of you flashing its high beams. For those perpetrating Autobahn myths, I'll spell it out for you. I lived there for 2 years. There isn’t only ONE Autobahn, it's the German word for highway and there are MANY. They use the word exactly the same as we do ("I drive on the highway," doesn't mean there's only ONE). There ARE speed limits, usually 130km/h, but they're where there have been lots of accidents, where geography and/or road layout determine their need, or for other reasons like proximity to cities/towns. They also have far more traffic density and far worse traffic jams than you could ever imagine (65km long??), and maybe the worst looking accidents in the world due to the high speeds involved. Don't get me wrong, it's a heck of a lot of fun to drive on them, but you have to pay attention!
16. • CommentAuthorcams
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    And finally, Monominto. I have spoken to a few cops, all of whom currently work or worked traffic enforcement. They have all stated that they don't give a crap unless you're doing 10%+ / 10km/h over, meaning over 110 in a 100, but also 60 in a 50, 80 in a 70, etc. It's a waste of their time and the chances of a conviction sticking at those low speeds is lower because of various factors such as tire wear (worn tires make the vehicle slower for the same speed showing on the speedo... more apparent on semis), inaccuracies in their detection equipment etc. Something that's best left to photo enforcement teams in their books. They have bigger fish to fry. Section 95(1) isn't the only one the cops enforce, it's but ONE of 337 sections. I agree that you don't get to where you're going much faster. I've personally done the tests (timing, fuel mileage) and I totally agree with you, but on the enforcement side of things, no one will ever get a ticket for going like 5 over the limit (especially on the highway!!) unless the cop's already having a super crappy day and they are being a total douchebag to the cop after being pulled over. So, no matter what YOUR personal take on the situation is, you are not judge, jury and executioner. You live in the world with all kinds of different people who have all kinds of different personalities, and getting worked up about stuff like this is pointless. I am simply pointing out what the law says. I could care less if some bozo blows by me on the highway. All I can do to ensure my safety and that of the people/animals/cargo in my vehicle is to drive to the best of my ability as safely as I can for the current road conditions and if someone else hits me due to their incompetence, inattention, intoxication, etc, what could I have done about it if I was already doing my best? Nothing. You can't control other people's actions. You also seem to expect Winnipeg to be like a small town or the highway when it comes to traffic. It's not ever gonna be like that. People will cut you off, speed, run lights, stop signs, do all kinds of crap you think is stupid and makes you mad, but that's life. It's completely unreasonable to think they won't in a city the size of Winnipeg or larger.
    
    Sorry for the triple post novel, but I just discovered this forum this morning and I felt it would be better to respond to all the posts/people I feel need responding to all at once.
    
    Cam
17. •  
      CommentAuthorcherenkov
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    Welcome to New Winnipeg, Cam.
    
    When I said: "And if you drive 70 on the TCH in good conditions, I will get pissed at you, unless you're on the shoulder with your hazard lights on." I was half joking. There's lots of sarcasm and tonge-in-cheek stuff in these parts. Just a warning.
18. • CommentAuthorMonominto
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2008

     
    Welcome, Cam, you have certainly made an impression here, at least to me. And thank you for pointing out the various sections of the Highway Traffic Act.
    Still, I have to sleep with my conscience, and look myself in the eye in the mirror each morning, so I'll keep myself to the limits, and behave like a human being while behind the wheel.
    I was driving in Winnipeg today, saw a major number of traffic violations, but wasn't close enough to get plate numbers, but I'm becoming more and more concerned about my safety out there.
    Just wish that more people drove like me. And my dad, he's a VERY good driver.
19. •  
      CommentAuthorStBPegger
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2008

     
    Looks like another cyclist got hit by a car. I guess it has to be really serious before the media picks it up. Curious to know who would have the stats on cyclist accidents.
    
    http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipeg/2008/05/07/5497841.html
    
    A male cyclist was taken to hospital in unstable condition after he was hit by a vehicle in St. James this morning.
    
    Police said the male was hit at Portage Avenue and Berry Street shortly before 8 a.m.
20. •  
      CommentAuthorsmjpilot
    • CommentTimeMay 7th 2008

     
    Why do they say the male was hit... shouldn't it be the <em>man</em> was hit? Male is an adjective. Sorry, pet peeve. We now return to the thread....