newest photo radar

[sailor]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

Are you saying you have never sped?

I call BS...

He probably takes bus

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Hey I just want to do my part to pay for the arena.

[sailor]

Originally Posted by ETOWNCANUCK

Hey I just want to do my part to pay for the arena.

So may be Hipp55 want to be the owner of new arena?

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by sailor

So may be Hipp55 want to be the owner of new arena?

Maybe he is.

[Tactical Lever]

Doesn't really bother me if someone goes slower, but it courteous to facilitate, an easier safer pass, for swifter traffic. Not everyone has the reflexes, and driving skills, not to mention, there could be mechanical factors at play as well.

No matter the speed you go, drive predictably, and always pretend the vehicle in front of you just may drop the transmission in the middle of the road or lock up all 4 wheels.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by Hunter1602

If you drive in Calgary which as your info I'm assuming you do, north of the Anderson turn off there is a minumum posted speed sign on the Deerfoot. True....

Don't drive the Deerfoot much, especial south of Glenmore... out of curiosity, what is the minimum posted there?

Here's some other side notes

115(s) TSA

I will assume you meant 115(2)(s) (115(2)(q) also applies). Those are the provision for a minimum speed limit I alluded to before. If there is not posted minimum, it doesn't apply.

2(1)(a) use of hwy rules and regs

Really?

2
(1)A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) notwithstanding that a speed limit is prescribed by or pursuant to the Act or any other Act in respect of a highway, drive a vehicle on that highway at any rate of speed that is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the following:

(i) the nature, condition and use of the highway;
(ii) the atmospheric, weather or other conditions that might affect the visibility of the driver or the control of the vehicle;
(iii) the amount of traffic that is or that might reasonably be expected to be on the highway;
(iv) the mechanical condition of the vehicle or any equipment on the vehicle;

That is the part that says speed limit be damned, you will not drive too fast for road conditions (or weather, etc). I think you were looking for 2(1)(c):

(c) drive a vehicle at such a slow rate of speed so as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic then existing on a highway except when it is necessary to do so for the safe operation of the vehicle or to comply with Parts 1 and 2.

The key being normal and reasonable; if normal is defined as what everyone else is doing, then driving 110 in 110 zone would get you a ticket. So is driving >80% of the posted maximum unreasonable? I don't see why it would be.

22(2)(b) TSA

You and I must be looking at different version of the TSA... mine says "Current as of August 15, 2012". There is no 22(2)(b) in mine and section 22 is about the makeup of the "Alberta Transportation Safety Board".

All things considered, I will stand by my assertion that there is no law against driving 90 km/h when the limit is 110 km/h.

ARG

[Ronji]

Originally Posted by blackpheasant

Are you saying you have never sped?

I call BS...

Ditto

[Rusty P. Bucket]

This WILL come to Canada and sooner rather than later - the technology is evolving to make the cameras and sensors small, easily hidden - and the scum that infest our gov't, law enforcement and judiciary - will make maximum use of it. (It's for your own safety dontchya know, ka-ching $$$ ka-ching$$$ ka-ching$$$).

But I truly believe that people's driving habits are devolving. This is going to come to the same head as it has in the big cities too: you will have the slow pokes and senile stubfarts (like Yours Truly) trying to share the road with pasty faced ignernt youngsters that think they own the road because they were born with a lead foot and turd between their ears. The carnage is mostly speed related and most of it is preventable.

I regard photo radar as a tax on stupid people...and though I don't pay as much as most - it is money that I would rather spend on guns or booze.

[Hunter1602]

At the end of the day... I'f smokey they bear wants to pitch you for something, there's so many laws and acts and provisions that he can get ya for something!

cheers

[DiabeticKripple]

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

All things considered, I will stand by my assertion that there is no law against driving 90 km/h when the limit is 110 km/h.

ARG

You even put it in your post, 2(1)(c), because on deerfoot you will be impeding traffic if you are going 20 under. There is just too much traffic to do it.

[Hunter1602]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

You even put it in your post, 2(1)(c), because on deerfoot you will be impeding traffic if you are going 20 under. There is just too much traffic to do it.

D.K is right.

[sharpstick]

Under normal circumstances and weather conditions, WHY the h3ll would you only drive 90 on a 110 hiway? But if you do choose to be that person, at least obey the other law that states "SLOWER TRAFFIC USE RIGHT LANE" Nothing is more frustrating then some A..hole doing 90 in the left lane when he is not passing anyone in the right lane and has the ballz to give you the finger for coming up on his azz. I drive hiway 2 almost weekly and I doubt there has been more than a couple times when I have not came across this situation... And I guarantee in most cases, these idiots do it just to be idiots. Too bad they wouldn't start ticketing these people. If you're not passing someone, stay in the right lane, especially when someone is coming up behind you. It's not up to you to control everyone else's speed, that's what we pay the cops for.

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

You even put it in your post, 2(1)(c), because on deerfoot you will be impeding traffic if you are going 20 under. There is just too much traffic to do it.

But there are plenty of roads where you could drive 20 under without impeding traffic, therefore no offense. On the other hand, it is always an offense to exceed the maximum speed limit.

ARG

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Originally Posted by sharpstick

But if you do choose to be that person, at least obey the other law that states "SLOWER TRAFFIC USE RIGHT LANE"

Hey now! One hijack per thread!

ARG

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by sharpstick

Under normal circumstances and weather conditions, WHY the h3ll would you only drive 90 on a 110 hiway? But if you do choose to be that person, at least obey the other law that states "SLOWER TRAFFIC USE RIGHT LANE" Nothing is more frustrating then some A..hole doing 90 in the left lane when he is not passing anyone in the right lane and has the ballz to give you the finger for coming up on his azz. I drive hiway 2 almost weekly and I doubt there has been more than a couple times when I have not came across this situation... And I guarantee in most cases, these idiots do it just to be idiots. Too bad they wouldn't start ticketing these people. If you're not passing someone, stay in the right lane, especially when someone is coming up behind you. It's not up to you to control everyone else's speed, that's what we pay the cops for.

Well, if you drive a vehicle that tops out at 120 kph or less, do you make it scream just to get 5 or 10 miles down the road? Maybe, you are pretty shaky behind the wheel, and just are not comfortable going that fast. I'd rather see someone make it safely, rather than push it, or hang up their keys because they don't drive 100 mph any more.

And I totally agree about hanging out in the left lane, it used to really get my goat, driving a certain stretch that I could pass on, save for the fools in the oncoming lane, being brain dead in the passing lane. The next good spot was about 15 km down the road.

Originally Posted by Au revoir, Gopher

But there are plenty of roads where you could drive 20 under without impeding traffic, therefore no offense. On the other hand, it is always an offense to exceed the maximum speed limit.

ARG

Absolutely!

[Faststeel]

Originally Posted by Bigdad013

And I doubt it ever will. To easy to vandalize. Not to mention the costs involved in running power to such locations

And Hipp55, this idiot speeder will not be paying your idiot taxes, got to catch me first...Haha

Looks like something that would be solar powered. FS