Speed DOES NOT KILL.

[95EagleAWD]

From the US DOT itself



Sometimes numbers lie. But we keep them around because they tell the truth more often than not. The NHTSA undertook a two-and-a-half year study that examined 5,471 injury accidents nationwide in order to figure out how accidents were being caused. Government researchers conducted their own evidence gathering at crash sites in order to establish a first-hand account of causation. What did they find? Among other things, that more drivers crashed as a result of crossing the center line (11%) than as a result of speeding (5%). Speeding, in this case, defined by "too fast for conditions," not necessarily above the posted limit.

In accidents where driver error was the cause, speeding also came in last as a causative: the 8% who drove too fast were tied with the 8% who fell asleep or had heart attacks while driving. What's more, the NHTSA's causation percentages are strikingly similar to the percentages found in an independent study conducted by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles. In its study of crashes in 2007, the VDoT found that 2.9% were due to speeding -- dead last -- while 3.8%t were due to drivers falling asleep or falling ill at the tiller.

What will this mean to the politicians setting and revising speed limits based on the "Speed Kills!" mantra? Probably nothing. But it's nice to know, and nice to have the government researched numbers to back it up.


http://www.autoblog.com/2008/12/18/us-dot-report-confirms-speed-not-major-cause-of-accidents/

[JRSC00LUDE]

It'll only take about 5 minutes for some bleeding heart asshat to come in here and say they are wrong.

Speeding is the devil and no committee can ever change that. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

[Supa Dexta]

awaiting the boards county mounties.

[bashir26]

When were the speed limits in Canada made or revised?

[A790]

Originally posted by bashir26
When were the speed limits in Canada made or revised?
I believe they were revised when Canada switched from Imperial to Metric. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though...

[schocker]

I was going to post this in the speed camera thread, makes them sound even more of a cash cow.

[bashir26]

Originally posted by A790

I believe they were revised when Canada switched from Imperial to Metric. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though...

That happened in 1970. Automotive technology changes alot in 39 years.

[Canmorite]

Example A: Germany.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by JRSC00LUDE
It'll only take about 5 minutes for some bleeding heart asshat to come in here and say they are wrong.

Speeding is the devil and no committee can ever change that. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?

fuck the children?

[googe]

well yeah, anyone capable of free thought already knew that going 135 or 111 on highway 2 isn't somehow appreciably more dangerous. its an arbitrary number written on a sign by someone else. everyone else is either stupid or they're profiting from it.

[zipdoa]

Originally posted by schocker
I was going to post this in the speed camera thread, makes them sound even more of a cash cow.

That's exactly what it is, and if any police officer begs to differ, they are wrong. I'm sure safety was the first thing on their minds when they decided to install these cameras, not revenue :rolleyes:

I would love to see the system fail - financially speaking - and not catch one single speeder. I wonder how long it will be before seasoned speeders start investing in those highly reflective liscense plate covers....

[bashir26]

Originally posted by zipdoa


That's exactly what it is, and if any police officer begs to differ, they are wrong. I'm sure safety was the first thing on their minds when they decided to install these cameras, not revenue :rolleyes:

I would love to see the system fail - financially speaking - and not catch one single speeder. I wonder how long it will be before seasoned speeders start investing in those highly reflective liscense plate covers....

The $50 ones from Canadian Tire don't work?

[winefan3]

yea nice post. SPEED DOES KILL

NUMB NUTS

[avishal26]

Originally posted by googe
well yeah, anyone capable of free thought already knew that going 135 or 111 on highway 2 isn't somehow appreciably more dangerous. its an arbitrary number written on a sign by someone else. everyone else is either stupid or they're profiting from it.

You have no idea how many times I've tried to tell people that only to be laughed at. :(

But its good to know that I have actual facts and numbers to back it up now.

:thumbsup:

[hampstor]

Originally posted by bashir26


That happened in 1970. Automotive technology changes alot in 39 years.

It sure has - it went backwards in the 80's and crept forward in the 90's. Not everyone drives a 2000+ vehicle, there are still a lot of cars from that era - speed is a significant factor when you consider the shear amount of bad drivers and shitty ass cars on the road today.

\The speed limit probably won't change until those 2 other factors are resolved.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by hampstor


speed is a significant factor when you consider the shear amount of bad drivers and shitty ass cars on the road today.

\The speed limit probably won't change until those 2 other factors are resolved.

Yes, because less than 10% is significant. :rolleyes:

The speed limit wont change until they find another method of raising cash.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by Hakkola


Yes, because less than 10% is significant. :rolleyes:

The speed limit wont change until they find another method of raising cash.

Did you miss the bolded text : speed is a significant factor when you consider the shear amount of bad drivers and shitty ass cars on the road today.

Bad drivers, shitty ass cars, speed.

I'm not saying speeding is bad in itself, we all do it.

[SNAATCH]

I've told people this information for years.

[Tomaz]

The best advice given to me:

“I will never tell you not to speed, but I will tell you to never drive outside the abilities of your car, yourself, or the people around you”

If that requires me to potter along at 30km/h on Deerfoot with everyone else or allows me to drive 120km/h on the #1 HWY at 2:30am Wednesday morning, so be it.



Very interesting post about speeding. Makes you wonder why the City of Calgary wanted/wants to lower the speed limit on Deerfoot.

[powerslave]

Originally posted by Tomaz
Makes you wonder why the City of Calgary wanted/wants to lower the speed limit on Deerfoot.

They're concerned for the children.

[Artega]

Roads are designed with a certain speed. It is usually about 10km/h above posted speed limit. The curve radii, spiral lengths, super elevation rate, stopping sight distance, etc all comes from extensive testings on proving grounds, and basic physics. And we apply these values when designing a road. Roads are designed so "typical" vehicles and "average" drivers will be able to navigate safely at the post speed. That is why the autobahn and highways have huge radii compare to roads with lower speed limit.

Extra factors of safety are incorporated into the design because nothing should be built to minimum standard. That is why you're able to drive 90 in a 60 zone "safely".
Most of the time your car won’t be sliding off the road, but are you able to stop safely if something jumps out at the side of the road or if something is lying on the ground? Sight distance is a big factor. Just because you’re able to drive it doesn’t mean you’re able to react in time when you’re going at excessive speed. There’s real engineering behind road design.

I do my share of speeding. I think some roads are designed poorly, but everyone needs to know speed limits are there for a reason. Speed fines are used as a deterrent and if you get caught by a speed camera/red light camera just pay up and be smart about it next time. Just be glad we’re not doing it like in New Zealand and Australia where demerit points will be taken even for speed camera photos on top of the fine. Then maybe you’ll think it’s less of a cash grab but more as a deterrent for dangerous driving…

But then there’ll just be more complaining on beyond….

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Artega
Roads are designed with a certain speed. It is usually about 10km/h above posted speed limit.
Nope.

[Chris101]

Originally posted by Eleanor

Nope.

Well i'm sold.

[BigBadVlad]

"Driving without due care and attention" was the number one cause of accidents in statistics I found from ICBC for a paper I was working on awhile back. Guessing it was around mid 90's I was researching those statistics.

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by Chris101
Well i'm sold.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/speed/graphicsnew/SpeedFlyer2002.pdf

[elesdee]

Originally posted by Artega
Most of the time your car won’t be sliding off the road, but are you able to stop safely if something jumps out at the side of the road or if something is lying on the ground? Sight distance is a big factor. Just because you’re able to drive it doesn’t mean you’re able to react in time when you’re going at excessive speed. There’s real engineering behind road design.

That's exactly what I think. We can all come to a consensus that speed doesn't kill, that the speed limits are way too low, and that driving 160 on highway 1 is perfectly safe.

But when you consider a situation where a deer jumps out on the road in front of you, or another driver unexpectedly swerves into your lane, then speed limits all of a sudden make perfect sense!!

[Gart]

Does it mention where alcohol, etc.. falls into all of this.

And are drunk drivers more likely to speed? or cross over the center line? Or can you both speed - then cross the center line?

[Artega]

The reason 85th percentile of observed running speed is used is to limit speed variance. That is why speed limits sometimes change after being reviewed.

As mentioned in the document provided by Eleanor, roads are designed for speed of 10mph (cuz it's the US) above posted speed limit. This limits speed variance amongst vehicle and thereby reduce probability of collision.
That in line with people saying "drivers going the speed limit should not be in the passing lane." Because it force them to do pass on the right where all the merging and slower moving vehicles are. Which increase speed variance and probability of collision.

Speed does not kill, but speeding will increase your reaction time and braking distance and the few precious seconds that you have to react to something on the road those extra 5m to 10m could mean you tapping the bumper of the semi or being under it.

Have anyone seen the UK road safety ad where they show an example of how 5km/h makes a difference?

[95EagleAWD]

I'm not going to debate that urban speed limits and road design have their place, because they do. 50 km/h in a residential area seems perfectly fine with me.

But on the Yellowhead, heading to Jasper, where there is absolutely nothing on the road or the side of the road, there's no reason I can't drive faster than 110.

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by elesdee


But when you consider a situation where a deer jumps out on the road in front of you, or another driver unexpectedly swerves into your lane, then speed limits all of a sudden make perfect sense!!

No they don't, because people hit animals all the time, even at 110 km/h.

Your reaction time will be slower, yes. You may even be lucky and be by the animal before it's out on the road, because of the faster speed you're traveling.

Animal collisions on the highway are pretty much bad luck. It's a shit thing, for both the driver and the animal, but it'll happen at 80 or 150.

[googe]

Originally posted by Artega
The reason 85th percentile of observed running speed is used is to limit speed variance. That is why speed limits sometimes change after being reviewed.

As mentioned in the document provided by Eleanor, roads are designed for speed of 10mph (cuz it's the US) above posted speed limit. This limits speed variance amongst vehicle and thereby reduce probability of collision.
That in line with people saying "drivers going the speed limit should not be in the passing lane." Because it force them to do pass on the right where all the merging and slower moving vehicles are. Which increase speed variance and probability of collision.

Speed does not kill, but speeding will increase your reaction time and braking distance and the few precious seconds that you have to react to something on the road those extra 5m to 10m could mean you tapping the bumper of the semi or being under it.

Have anyone seen the UK road safety ad where they show an example of how 5km/h makes a difference?

well is it 10mph below what the safety measurements were or is it the 85th percentile? make up your mind :P

they are mutually exclusive, you can't even combine those 2 methods, so at least part of what you are saying can't be true.

your other reasoning is flawed though, although it sounds logical in passing, it isnt correct. as explained in the DOT document:


Will lowering the speed limit reduce crash frequency?

NO. Although lowering the speed limit is often seen as a
cure-all in preventing crashes, this is not the case. Crashes are
most often the result of driver inattention and driver error.
However, if a posted speed limit is unrealistically low, it creates a
greater speed variance (i.e. some drivers follow the speed limit
motorists of a comfortable speed to navigate certain
while most drive the reasonable speed). This speed variance can
contribute to crashes.

following this logic, we can therefore agree that speed variance does not exist when you are the only vehicle for miles, and you shouldn't be ticketed for speeding. instead, cops will camp out behind a sign, wait for you, the lone speeder, who poses no danger to anyone, and give you a nice fat ticket. if they were concerned with safety, they'd focus on drivers causing dangerous situations with variance perhaps, but instead they cherry pick for easy money.

now, you can pull all kinds of hypothetical situations out of your ass where 10km/h makes the difference between a crash or not, but this has no relevance. again, sure the hypothetical situation sounds logical, but it's important to cater to reality. in reality, these types of specific borderline situations simply aren't occurring in any significant numbers, as the studies have shown, so the point is moot. i can just as easily say that by going a little faster, i can avoid a dangerous situation behind me. speeding up reduces the chances that you'll get rear ended just as much as slowing down reduces the chances that you'll hit something. neither are relevant.

[Artega]

Originally posted by googe


well is it 10mph below what the safety measurements were or is it the 85th percentile? make up your mind :P

they are mutually exclusive, you can't even combine those 2 methods, so at least part of what you are saying can't be true.



Both methods are used to determine posted speed limit. The 10km/h design speed is used when the road is in design phase. City will first decide what the road will be classified as, ie. expressway, arterial, primary collector, local....etc. So Deerfoot would be classified as an expressway and Memorial Drive as a collector (depending on where you are). This will give engineers a basis as to which standard to use.

The 85th percentile running speed method is used during review AFTER the road is built. This is where the speed of traffic is recorded then posted speed limit is adjusted where appropriate.


Originally posted by googe

your other reasoning is flawed though, although it sounds logical in passing, it isnt correct. as explained in the DOT document:

following this logic, we can therefore agree that speed variance does not exist when you are the only vehicle for miles, and you shouldn't be ticketed for speeding. instead, cops will camp out behind a sign, wait for you, the lone speeder, who poses no danger to anyone, and give you a nice fat ticket. if they were concerned with safety, they'd focus on drivers causing dangerous situations with variance perhaps, but instead they cherry pick for easy money.

now, you can pull all kinds of hypothetical situations out of your ass where 10km/h makes the difference between a crash or not, but this has no relevance. again, sure the hypothetical situation sounds logical, but it's important to cater to reality. in reality, these types of specific borderline situations simply aren't occurring in any significant numbers, as the studies have shown, so the point is moot. i can just as easily say that by going a little faster, i can avoid a dangerous situation behind me. speeding up reduces the chances that you'll get rear ended just as much as slowing down reduces the chances that you'll hit something. neither are relevant.


Why wouldn't borderline situations exist?
Everytime you get into a near miss it's a borderline situation. It wouldn't be a near miss if you were going just a little bit faster. It might not even happen if you were going even slower.

Now I'm not here to debate whether speed really kills, because I don't believe so, but I want to educate people that there are reasons why speed limits are imposed. Police do their job to enforce the speed limits. It's like if there no repercussion for robbing a bank, why wouldn't you do it? Same goes for speeding. If there's no chance for you to get a ticket why wouldn't you speed.

There are 3 E's in road safety, Engineering, Education and Enforcement. Each is important in its own right to make sure the road is safe for everyone.

[Artega]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


No they don't, because people hit animals all the time, even at 110 km/h.

Your reaction time will be slower, yes. You may even be lucky and be by the animal before it's out on the road, because of the faster speed you're traveling.

Animal collisions on the highway are pretty much bad luck. It's a shit thing, for both the driver and the animal, but it'll happen at 80 or 150.

It is really just a luck thing, cuz there's really no control for it. Those land bridges on the trans canada on the way to Lake Louise are trying to reduce the amount of collisions between drivers and wild life. Those things aren't cheap and it probably saved a few lives.

It's especially dangerous at night time. I'm only talking about non-illuminated rural highway. You can only see as far as your headlights will shine and usually that's not enough distance for you to react if there should be an obstacle on the road. At 110km/h you will need approx. 250m for stopping sight distance (TAC, 1999) Your head lights will probably give you 150m. The government is not gonna impose a law that you have to reduce the speed limit at night. So you get to choose the speed you think is safe. I'm not gonna start driving at 80km/h on the highway at night, but that's a risk I'm accepting.

[bart]

speed doesn't kill. people crashing into things kills.

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Hakkola


Yes, because less than 10% is significant. :rolleyes:

The speed limit wont change until they find another method of raising cash.

To serve and collect :D


Originally posted by SNAATCH
I've told people this information for years.

:werd:


Originally posted by Tomaz
The best advice given to me:

“I will never tell you not to speed, but I will tell you to never drive outside the abilities of your car, yourself, or the people around you”

If that requires me to potter along at 30km/h on Deerfoot with everyone else or allows me to drive 120km/h on the #1 HWY at 2:30am Wednesday morning, so be it.



Very interesting post about speeding. Makes you wonder why the City of Calgary wanted/wants to lower the speed limit on Deerfoot.

WTF? Lower the speed limit on Deerfoot? I must have missed that part. :nut:

Very true on driving outside the abilities of your car. An 88 Camry is a lot different than an 06 Benz. You'll feel all the rattles in one but super smooth in the other.


Originally posted by bart
speed doesn't kill. people crashing into things kills.


:werd: x2

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by max_boost


WTF? Lower the speed limit on Deerfoot? I must have missed that part. :nut:



It was a big question after there was a saftey review done on Deerfoot this year.

[broken_legs]

If you increase the speed limit you will have retarded people that will drive even faster than they were before.

If the speed limit was 160 on hwy#2 people would still drive that fast in the snow. Furthermore 99% of Albertans agree that you don't "need" snow tires because it only snows for a couple of weeks. I believe these are also the same people I pull out of the ditch every couple of weeks.


Yeah some cars can go faster safely, but the bottom line is that safety on the road all comes down to THE DRIVER.

Everyone on Beyond is obviously a pro so I would never question anyones ability here, but would you agree that every other retiree, asian, soccer mom, girl doing her makeup and driving in high heels has the same ability to navigate the road at 160 km/hr???

[thrasher22]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Everyone on Beyond is obviously a pro so I would never question anyones ability here, but would you agree that every other retiree, asian, soccer mom, girl doing her makeup and driving in high heels has the same ability to navigate the road at 160 km/hr???

Exactly. It doesn't mean that (all) of these people aren't fit to drive, but a soccer mom isn't expecting someone in a bmw to pass her at 170km/h on deerfoot. Speed limits are for everyone's safety, not just yours.

Anyone who says speed doesn't kill is an idiot. I've been in car accidents at 30km/h and at 80km/h, and one of those hurt a lot fucking more... There are too many unpredictable factors on the road, if I'd been speeding when I crashed at 80 I would have A)crashed into a lake B) slid into oncoming traffic C)rolled when I hit the barrier. All of these = death.

[rage2]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Everyone on Beyond is obviously a pro so I would never question anyones ability here, but would you agree that every other retiree, asian, soccer mom, girl doing her makeup and driving in high heels has the same ability to navigate the road at 160 km/hr???
They can't even navigate the road at 50km/h, so should we enforce a city wide 50km/h limit?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by rage2

They can't even navigate the road at 50km/h, so should we enforce a city wide 50km/h limit?

Touche.

I feel like arguing this here is an argument set up for failure, but i'll try anyways. lol

The point I'm going for here is that there is a sort of accepted level of driver competency that we have to accept. Not everyone has lightning fast reflexes grabbing flies out of the air while double clutching sliding sideways through rush hour traffic 2 feet off someones bumper. Not Everyone can drive at 50 km/hr in a straight line. (see Canadas worst driver?) Somewhere in the middle (proabably 100 km/hr) most people are safe and comfortable with their existing skill sets operating a motor vehicle. You can't expect everyone to perform at the elvel us Beyonders do, and they can't expect everyone else to drive at 50 just because a few people can't go any faster. We all drive at the speed that's easiest and safest for everyone.


And I will go one step further, to those who are complaining about the revenue grab from speed cameras and enforcing speeding laws:

I am a fellow speeder. I speed always, everywhere all the time. Cities, Highways, Dirt Roads, Driveways, Parking Lots, put me in a vehicle and I will speed. My feeling is that 95% of speed traps, ghost cars, photo radar minivans etc are pretty obvious and if you're driving over the limit you should probably have a heightened awareness of your driving environment. Sooooo, if you're constantly getting tickets, it just proves that you really shouldn't be driving that fast because you aren't paying enough attention to whats going on around you.

Not saying that the people here are complaining because they've been busted, I really have no idea. I'm just saying if you're such good driver why should you care? You should be able to use some conscious awareness to spot traps if driving that fast is easy and safe.





:burnout:

[Power_Of_Rotary]

i dont quite get if these survey numbers are refering to accidents, or deaths caused by speeding

also does the numbers include speeding with other factors included?

[AltimaCoupe]

I speed all the time.
to those who argued Germany as a better sistem with the Bahn: I would prefer to see the speed limit increased, but I would also want a more difficult driving exam in order to get a driver's license.

[rage2]

Originally posted by broken_legs
The point I'm going for here is that there is a sort of accepted level of driver competency that we have to accept. Not everyone has lightning fast reflexes grabbing flies out of the air while double clutching sliding sideways through rush hour traffic 2 feet off someones bumper. Not Everyone can drive at 50 km/hr in a straight line. (see Canadas worst driver?) Somewhere in the middle (proabably 100 km/hr) most people are safe and comfortable with their existing skill sets operating a motor vehicle. You can't expect everyone to perform at the elvel us Beyonders do, and they can't expect everyone else to drive at 50 just because a few people can't go any faster. We all drive at the speed that's easiest and safest for everyone.
OK point noted, if that's how it should be done, great. Now, some data. The average speed of drivers when I'm on deerfoot is around 120. You can debate this all you want, but drive 100km/h on deerfoot on a clear day and see what happens (it's fucking scary lol). Same goes for Crowchild south of downtown, 80km/h, but on a clear day, the average is around 110. Shouldn't we look at raising the speed limits in those areas where most drivers are comfortable at cruising at that speed safely or should we lower limits on deerfoot for the sake of "safety"?

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by rage2

OK point noted, if that's how it should be done, great. Now, some data. The average speed of drivers when I'm on deerfoot is around 120. You can debate this all you want, but drive 100km/h on deerfoot on a clear day and see what happens (it's fucking scary lol). Same goes for Crowchild south of downtown, 80km/h, but on a clear day, the average is around 110. Shouldn't we look at raising the speed limits in those areas where most drivers are comfortable at cruising at that speed safely or should we lower limits on deerfoot for the sake of "safety"?

Yes. I absolutely agree with you that if that was the average speed it should be changed, I just don't agree with you that it is. Now let me explain my point of view.

I drive a speed limited company vehicle that beeps at my whenever i go over 116km/hr. I drive on the deerfoot and highway #2, and highway 22, and 22x, and 16 and hwy 1 and hwy 40 basically everywhere in BC and AB

I rarely get passed and I drive a constant 110-115km/hr. I drive this fast in snow, rain, daylight dusk/dawn, up hills, dopwn hills, around corners etc.

The vast majority of vehicles I see are ones that I am passing.

In Calgary on the Deerfoot, I'm passing 95% of the cars no matter what time of day it is. I drive in the fast lane and i seem to move pretty fast relative to most of the traffic.

On Hwy2 I'm passing 90% of the cars except for the corridor between airdrie and calgary. I find people drive exceptionally fast in that one area.

All other highways, I rarely get passed. I just drove to Kamloops today and not a single vehicle passed me in 6 hours of driving.

When I do get passed it's not by someone doing 120km/hr, they are usually doing 125-140 guessing becuase they go flying by.

Just my observations.

[88jbody]

speed just makes the bad drivers and who ever they take down with them be hurt worse. it doesn't kill the driver error causing the crash does

and as long as people only use the left lane when passing this would be less of an issue

[googe]

Originally posted by broken_legs

the deerfoot

:facepalm:

[khtm]

The safest way to drive is WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. It's been proven that people the drive "the limit" when everyone else is 15 kph over the limit are more dangerous than speeders.

[Mckenzie]

I remember when I was doing drivers ed, I would cruise along deerfoot at 110-120 just to keep up with the pace of traffic and my instructor did not flinch or say a word to me. Young Drivers was more about flowing with traffic than obeying a stupid sign, whether you were going slower or faster than the limit.

My view is that not all people are able to handle driving faster than 110 because they are crap drivers and as was mentioned, you would just have people doing stupider things at higher speeds.

In Europe, we were on a private toll highway in France / Spain that had a 130k speed limit. The difference EVERYONE knew how to drive on it and use the passing lanes for passing only, etc. They would cook along at like 150+ but everyone was on the same page. My honest opinion is when you are driving that fast, you are almost forced to pay attention to the road! (Is 110 to sleepy / slow?).

All in all, I hate tickets, but realistically, it is my dues / taxes to the government for all of the illegal crap I do in a car on a daily basis. If I get a ticket a year, so be it. I run 2 stop signs each morning before I even drive 200 m in my car, speed on deerfoot when it is safe to do so and will cruise a littler faster on the crowchild / stoney trail type roads as well. I have made speed runs on highways that would have my license taken away as has anyone with a car and I'm sure there are other things I have done and not been caught for, like anyone else. I dont speed in residential areas though. I guess it is just a payment for having a bit of freedom in my car. :D

[Eleanor]

Originally posted by rage2
They can't even navigate the road at 50km/h, so should we enforce a city wide 50km/h limit?
No, we shouldn't give them licenses in the first place ;)

[msommers]

I remember when I was doing drivers ed, I would cruise along deerfoot at 110-120 just to keep up with the pace of traffic and my instructor did not flinch or say a word to me. Young Drivers was more about flowing with traffic than obeying a stupid sign, whether you were going slower or faster than the limit

I really wish our government would make it mandatory that, anyone wishing to aquire a driver's license pass a LEGITIMATE driver's ed course first.

[Tomaz]

Originally posted by msommers


I really wish our government would make it mandatory that, anyone wishing to aquire a driver's license pass a LEGITIMATE driver's ed course first.

100% Agree

If there was more enforcement on teaching, maybe there would be fewer bad drivers out there. The only catch is trying to get rid of the people who can drive well, but choose not to.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by broken_legs

the deerfoot


Originally posted by googe


:facepalm:

wudido? :dunno:

[v2kai]

ohhhh you mean 'deerfoot':facepalm: