Talon and Civic

http://www.thespec.com/News/article/214013

Thats awsome guys way to keep things on the downlow while this BS street racing cloud passes

Its really great how every accident that now happens is probably because they were street racing What ever happened to the person was just driving like a dumb ass? Glade they mentioned the other car was an Eagle Talon, thats really going to help things out around here

Well, there are probably more DSMs out there driven by typical kids and normal folk that don't even know the DSM Net community even exists... And more that don't care.

Looks like they were BOTH driving like dumb asses. While it may not have been 'street racing' per se, I'm sure each one fueled the other's behaviour. From the sounds of the crash, I don't even want to guess at what the speed was.

Anyone around here missing their Talon??

Who hasn't been posting lately....

A BMW driving recklessly at a high rate of speed causes yet another major accident today on the 427 backing up traffic for miles. As reported on CTV the talking head once again brings up the street racing epidemic. I say we crush the BMW, well whats left of it. Witnesses report that the car was driving at a high rate of speed, lost control, cut across three lanes of traffic and struck a tractor trailer.

Oh and in case you were a stickler for details the driver was a 61 year old man driving by himself....damn punk street racers. Can we please call this crap what it is? reckless driving plain and simple. High rates of speed in and out of traffic,poor road manners, tailgating isnt street racing.

I guess we have to invent a new law to combat people who choose to drive wrecklessly. Let's call it a "street racing law". Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Wait a sec, don't we already have a law that takes into account people who drive wrecklessly? I think so. I believe the charge is called "wreckless driving". How long has that been on the books I wonder? Ever since people started using longer buggy whips to convince the horses dragging their carriage to go faster! Really that long? At least that long. You mean even before these new-fangled horseless carriages came along? Yup, even before that. Those damn horseless carriages!

Apparently the kid got his car back, since it was not modified for racing.....whatever that means... I wonder if it was a N/A model.

S.

“There were driving around the parking lot like crazy, and then they went into Hortons for coffee,” he said.

What exactly is he trying to say here..."They were?". Good to see that the editor caught this little diddy...

Jerry...good point about the old man. I watched three different news programs and not once did they associate "modding" or "tuning" with this old dude. Looked almost like (to me) that the media was annoyed that a 20 something wasn't at the wheel.

The fact that it was a 61 year old man does not add enough juice to the news, and it's hard to make the "street racing" label stick to this story.
I guess the criteria for street racing fromm now on is:
1. the drive must be under 30 years old (I guess I am exampted)
2. they must crash their car at a suspected high rate of speed
there you go, we've got ourselves a case of street racing.

I must add this in, I was just reading an article about street racing on SittyTV

And they have a picture on a van pulled over, I wander if he got charged with street racing...The title of the article is "Police Continue To Crack Down On Street Racers"

I guess as long as you get caught speeding you may be charged with stree racing now.

So, what if you boycott the law? Drive... oh... 25km/h UNDER the speed limit. It'll piss people off but hey, you don't want to get caught for street racing.... as if you were doing 20km/h OVER, you would be.

I could see the headlines.. "Street racer causes 5 car pile up after travelling at low rate of speed." or "Police to crack down on street racers, who are not street racing".

What would you say if you were pulled over?

Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
You: Um... was I street racing?
Officer: No, you were... I mean... weren't speeding.... hmmm...
You: I swear officer, I was only going 20 under...
Officer: Yes, well, um... drive faster next time...

Wow...

That's basically what would happen as they can ticket you for going too slow. Plus, I'll bet you wouldn't last 5 minutes going at that speed. I'd probably fall asleep behind the wheel.

It has to be slow enough to cause an obstruction. The speed limit is a maximum 'limit'. If you're driving 60 in an 80 zone, they can't really say much. If it's 20 in a 50, they might tell you to 'step it up a notch'.

You guys know the media is there to ride the frenzy and create hysteria. Of all the people who were 'speeding through the 50km/h zone', how many were doing below 60km/h? How many were pulled over and ticketed?

The problem with wreckless and dangerous driving is that they suddenly have to prove their case. The police officer usually has to be a witness to it, along with a few others, and provide lots of evidence. Speeding is more like a parking ticket. "There. You're caught. Pay up."

I tried once....in protest over a speeding ticket for going like 10 over, I drove at the speed limit along a stretch of Burlington Street in Hamilton for several weeks. It is an industrial area, about 4 lanes wide, and full of trucks. I felt unsafe the entire time, with all those huge trucks FLYING by me as I drove the speed limit....

This past long weekend I went to Kitchener and with all this bs about street racing I decided to set the cruise control at 110 km/h, I did not want any problems with the police. Well 99% of the cars and trucks were flying by me, the only cars/trucks that I passed were driving around my speed but they did not keep the same speed all the time.
The only OPP cruiser that I saw was on my way back and of course it was going WAY above the speed limit on the left lane and just behind it, a bunch of cars and trucks following at the same speed, nobody was pulled over.
The funny this is the closer that I was getting to Toronto the faster the cars were going.
It seems like nobody really cares about the speed limit.

I think that is also part of the problem. The speed limits are ignored, because they are a joke. There should be REALISTIC speed limits, then they should be enforced STRICTLY.

Having a ticket for going too slow would probably be another excuse for insurance companies to raise rates.

Ziggy, you're getting a bit too self-righteous. Ask any American, ESPECIALLY those from the Southern States, just how much of a 'Police State' we are. They'll point to all of the people that drive at 5-10mph above the limit like it's the most natural thing in the world, and stare.

Inna States, they NAIL your gonads to the wall for driving 5mph over the limit if they feel like. And that's most of the time. Up here, the police will usually smile and wave.

The speed limits we have ARE realistic. I've never felt that a speed above 120km/h has ever been necessary unless I want to have some fun. That's even being in a hurry. You want some of the people that cause accidents now at 110km/h and BELOW to think they can drive freely at 140+? No, thank you.

I actually like the system that we have. You're pretty much allowed to do as you want, unless the police think it's a bit too much. I think it's worked out more on the positive side for me than the negative side. The police have no way of telling what a driver's capabilities are, until they get their 'psychic' division.

120km/h would be a better suited maximum speed limit on the highways.

40km/h should stay as it is in residential (and we all know soccer moms in their monster escalades ,business men in their audis and trade workers in their vans do NOT obey this CRUTIAL limit).

But then people will go 20 over THAT speed limit... or 40 over that... just because "cops wouldn't pull you over if you're doing less than 19 over..."

That's 139 km/hr...

^^^
They'd have to change the law, maybe only slightly.
Just do the 120 km/h zone diffrently. Write tickets above 120 as if the speed limit were 100 km/h. The first 20 above 100 = no ticket. 21+ over is enforced already, just keep it going.

I have no idea how this would be worded legally so maybe it's not a slight change after all, but I think you get my point.

The "no ticket for 20 over" thing is at the cops' discretion. He CAN charge you with 5km/hr over the limit if he CHOOSES to...but they generally don't bother. If we had REALISTIC speed limits (like 130 on limited access highways), there should be no tolerance...you should be ticketed even if you are going like 133 or 134...

There are also minimum fines at certain speeds over. Demerit points don't start until you've hit 15 over the limit. It's too much paperwork for a cop to charge you for doing 10 over, and most you would get is a $50 fine.

but I am suggesting that if the speed limit was realistic to start with, then fines should be higher and there could be points for as little as 5km/hour over. It would be not THAT different than now, just the laws would match the reality, and it would remove the cops' discretion for like 10 over. Also, you wouldn't have everyone hit their brakes as soon as they see a cop on the side of the road..

Because of inaccuracies in speedometers, radar guns, and environmental variables it would be difficult for the cops to give tickets if they were not over 5km. It would be easy to go to court for someone to have it thrown out by simply adding up the accuracy tolerances with environmental conditions. The cost to the state for writing the ticket and the court cost would add up considerably with no return on the investment. There is also the image factor as speeding tickets for less than 5km over would cause the public to demand the police to recheck their priorities since their time should be spent more fighting the terrible crime going on elsewhere. Of course one would hope the 'common sense" factor would prevail, but in bureaucracies that is rare.

But let's face it, the current system is a bad joke. The "maximum speed limit" is 100, but we PROBABLY won't bother you unless you are going 120?

And who makes the decision whether to bother you or not? Try mouthing off to a cop even if you were only doing 10 over...you WILL get a ticket.

Someone tell me again this is not a police state?

I am just saying lets make the "speed limit" the "speed limit". right now, it is only a number on a sign that may or may not be enforced, depending on whether the cop got laid this morning, whether his coffee was good, as well as a thousand other factors. It is truly a VERY bad joke if you REALLY think about it....

and where does this mentality of "if the limit were 120, we would drive 120 + 20" come from? It comes from this bad joke, because NO-ONE considers the speed limit as a LIMIT. If the limits were REALISTIC, they COULD and SHOULD be strictly enforced. We have the technology. The say most cars now have some sort of black box anyways....so if you want to claim "radar inaccuracy" or whatever, you should be prepared to bring your car's "black box" to court, and have it checked to see if you truly WERE speeding.

You accuse the cops of making this a police state, yet endorse the use of technology to act like 'Big Brother'? Just because you got burned once, Zig, you're losing it again.

They COULD use the 'black box' technique, or even time people on toll roads like the 427, to enforce speeding laws... But they don't, even in the US. Again, it's the bad/drunk/reckless drivers that are dangerous. Not 'speeders'. Like I said before, the cops having it at their discrection probably helps more often than not.

Our limit was raised a bit ago to 110km/h. And yes, most drivers now drive the 'limit +20', because these are the same drivers that drive the posted limit in blinding fog or snowstorms. Hey, that's the posted speed, right?

As a 'green-minded' government, they can't really raise the limits much over 110 because of how much extra fuel it would consume, and the number of drivers 'forced' to keep up with traffic that can't handle it personally.

Good points, Troy, but I would still throw myself at the mercy of technology and a "definite" result, rather than at the discretion of a corrupt individual.

Ever driven on the 407? If you are doing 120 you better be in the slow lane. People pass others who are already doing 140 like nothing.

The last time I was in Toronto, driving back from Niagara Falls I was doing 130 or so, and I was one of the fastest cars on the road. I think only 2-3 were faster than I (a BMW, and mostly kids in the other cars), and the average speed seemed to be 110-120. Same as Los Angeles, as well.

It's coming, Ziggy. Soon enough we won't even be doing the driving...

Troy, that is about what I find as well in terms of speeds. So, I think 130 is a pretty realistic speed "limit", which should THEN be enforced. There should be no "10 over is OK", or whatever...it is the "limit"...

I hate to say it, but with the way most people drive these days, maybe having the car drive itself is the answer...

Of interest is the normal speeds of other places. Case in point:

I lived in Arizona for 6 months. Speeds are mph, and the cops generally allow you 5 over without any complaint. The speed limit in cities, on major roads was 45 (+5 = 50) mph, so about 80. That's decent.

But what was really good was the highways. Once you got past houses (and the signs were posted literally in congruence with the last house, even if it was like 500' from the highway), the speeds went to 80 (+5 = 85) mph. That's 129 (137) kph, and most of those highways were 2-lane each way, non-separated. And even though the population of Phoenix is 1.5M, it was good.

Most important was, I rarely saw anyone speed. And I mean speed AT ALL. It was rare even to see someone doing 90 mph (145 kph). If both lanes are doing 80+, it was comfortable.

It's also interesting to watch the drive to Toronto at 5am, which I've done a half-dozen times last year. It's a different sight to see, with at least two lanes pulling 140. Everyone leaves plenty of space, but everyone wants to get there fast.



It's my personal belief that if the highway speeds were 130 (+10 for accuracy, etc), it would make things a lot better. Stop having "The left lane is fast" and start having "only the right hand lane is slow". There are 4 lanes at points, and three of them should be forced 120+.

Of course, what would we do with all the unemployed officers?

I don't know if they will raise the speed limit to 120km/h. They are already slowing down ontario trucks to 105km/h. Read more here: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...peed_limiters_070702/20070702?hub=Canada