“Interesting Article About Court Appearances. Opinions?”

You don't know that traffic won't flow well at 100 km/h, because traffic never flows at that speed unless forced to by an obstruction ahead. I have been in heavily enforced areas of New York State where interstate traffic flows well at around 110 km/h, including the occasional out-of-state RV doing 90 km/h.

We have no lane discipline because it's not the law. You must keep right when going slower than the flow of traffic, but there's nothing I know of to keep you from going with the "flow" of 120 km/h in the left lane, while someone else behind you wants to pass. As long as you keep them from passing you, you're not breaking the law that states you much turn to the right when overtaken. 'Unnecessary slow driving' doesn't seem like it would apply, either, because you're going with the flow.

Also, speed limits don't always have to be about safety. Drag on a car increases dramatically as you go above 100 km/h. Lots of gas to be saved by having everyone drive slower. If you need to get to your destination at the speed of sound, then you might want to reorganise your life.

And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit!

Squishy wrote:And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit!

Is death penalty a part of Conservative platform? I should re-think whom I'll vote for next election.

Uhhhmmmm yeah.. It's doing a great job of keeping the murder rates down south of the border

Not officially, although Harper did change policy to stop seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty on foreign soil. I think it's still way too much of a touchy subject for them to consider bringing back the death penalty in Canada. Does your post mean you won't be voting Conservative?

I don't support it as some sort of deterrent. I think that there are certain criminal acts that are not worth trying to rehabilitate for. Saves taxpayers the money of feeding them. I mentioned before that I view society as a machine - why keep the broken parts around?

There have been cases where an innocent person was executed. If they're given a life sentence, that can at least be corrected later on.

For me, that's a whole other issue. I don't agree with the system in place in some of the States, because of exactly what you mention. A death penalty should be reserved for cases with irrefutable evidence like the entire act caught on videotape or witnessed by a group of officers. Otherwise, save it for certain offences for repeat offenders (e.g., three armed robberies and we get rid of you). And in those cases, no death row. We schedule you for next friday.

The problem would be defining "irrefutable" and the usual abuses within the system. What if there's only one officer? What if the tape is grainy? Where do you draw the line?

As for killing people over armed robberies that didn't involve any injuries.... I don't think I need to outline the reservations, especially since anything can be called a "weapon." My riding gloves are "weapons" because of the kevlar knuckles.

Not many people agree with my views on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't see the death penalty making a comeback anytime soon, anyways.

I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.

I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.

Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.

Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

just my 2 cents

hwybear wrote:I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.

I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.

Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.

Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

just my 2 cents

And the bleeding hearts shall bleed some more......."but we can reform him, we have the ability......".

I hear ya 'bear.

Squishy no.

That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.

A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".

No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.

Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.

Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.

Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.

Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.

No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.

For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.

try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.

hwybear wrote:Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

The way I see it... personally I support capital punishment in certain cases... if someone commits an act of first-degree murder, they shouldn't be given ANY chance of parole. Certain other offences should warrant life in the slammer, none of this 25 years with hope of release after 15, but because you spent a year at the Don Jail we'll release you with time served.

If someone is going to be released out into public again, they should complete a full rehabilitation program before release. Otherwise, if they're a risk to re-offend, the only thing they'll do in the penitentiary is learn more anti-social behaviour (they're surrounded by other criminals) and commit another crime the second they're out. No rehab completion = no release. Also if someone gets into fights or does other stuff while in prison, re-arrest them, try them and extend the sentence!

Oh here's another thing that got me going: While I support presumption of innocence and human rights, etc., giving Kelly Ellard a fourth shot at trial was asinine. Both she and Warren Glowatski should be spending the rest of their life in the Crowbar Hilton. He spent a mere 7 years in jail for killing someone!! That's not even a slap on the wrist. What kind of BS is that?

tdrive2 wrote:Squishy no.

That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.

A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".

No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.

Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.

Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.

Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.

Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.

No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.

For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.

try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.

TDRIVE NO!

No car has a most efficient speed much higher than 100 km/h. Low RPMs do not equal "most efficient" - there is a formula based on piston velocity and stroke length that calculated the most efficient engine speeds. Can't remember it right now, but for most cars it is in the 2200-3000 RPM range.

I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.

Personal experience.. In Europe, where the speed limits are generally more reasonable, I rarely found myself doing more than 5 over the limit. Over here I literally have to force myself not to do more than 20 over on most streets, with 2 exceptions..

1) School/park zones when the kids are out

2) 3-4 streets where the speed limits have been reasonably set for a change.. Actually it's funny.. They lowered the speed limit to 40 on my street recently and nobody goes over 40 anyway.. Talk about a waste of tax dollars.

Now south-western US is pretty sweet. Over there I also rarely find myself doing more than 5 over. We're too nannyish here.

Squishy wrote:I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.

Actually you're referring to several different studies. The one on surface streets was done for the US FHWA by Parker et al in 1992. Their conclusion, as you said, was that changing speed limits on surface streets by as much as 20 mph had a minimal effect on speed or safety. The one regarding freeways that you're citing was done by the IIHS, which has been historically opposed to speed limit increases. (Gee I wonder if being funded by insurance companies has anything to do with it.) It tried to paint a picture that, if you raise speed limits, people will just go exponentially faster; however, the methods it used were somewhat questionable.

The IIHS study has been disputed. The NHTSA and several other gruops found that raising the speed limit, while it did bring speeds up slightly, it was not by much. It actually promoted greater compliance with the speed limit. In Saskatchewan, for example, a study found that raising the speed limit by 10 km/h resulted in a 4 km/h increase in the average speed. In Michigan and Texas, raising the speed limit by 10 MPH resulted in a 3 MPH increase in the average speed. In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit.