Agreed its a moot point but we all know this is a hypothetical scenerio anyways so some possible side effects are being brought up. I think it would be seriously something they would do if they ever raised the limit.
Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit
- Thread starter chrison
- Start date
Agreed its a moot point but we all know this is a hypothetical scenerio anyways so some possible side effects are being brought up. I think it would be seriously something they would do if they ever raised the limit.
Abso-smurfly!
No way they'd let the penalty scale slide up with any limit increase. They have budgets to meet.
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
But it sounds that'd you'd support it and that's what matters. I think EVERY argument for raising limits can be easily shot down for NO CLEAR BENEFITS by the skeptical politicians or enough anti-speed lobby 'donations'. But then you go and drive on 400 series and just about ANYWHERE in the world... AND? - Sure enough, MOST people want to drive fast - not 200 km/h fast, but REASONABLY FAST on high speed roads (generally 120-140 is most observed around the world on high quality roads). We are no different - except we do this ILLEGALLY and count on super-wide officer tolerance. (20kmh+)
Yes, but you will have a choice of going at whatever speed you want, to maybe up to 130km/h LEGALLY. that's the whole point. Freedom of choice, freedom of burning more or less....
With our current average speeds, we are clearly showing that the number on the speed limit signs is NOT what contributes to our safe roads. That would be the case IF we all drove 105-110 (ie. within a reasonable tolerance). With most of us driving between 120 and 140, we are proving that those speeds are truly safe - here as well as anywhere in the world.
I would call it hypocritical to attribute safety to "Whatever we're doing seems to be working" if we're ALL breaking that law significantly, yet contribute to some impressive stats. That is the reason for: www.stop100.ca
Yes, my wording mistake, still working on the content. Comment appreciated.
I've described my reasoning on another forum so I'll share it here for dissection.
To answer your question - no, it will VERY LIKELY NOT INCREASE TO 160km/h - because 120 or 130 is MUCH CLOSER to a very reasonable highway limit (while 100 is rather rare, nearly unseen anywhere in the world). Remember, 60MPH was set due to oil crisis, not safety back in 1976. www.stop100.ca. Consider this:
Scenario one - are you saying that if speed limit was 160, everyone would drive 180? What if the limit was 220 - would everyone go 240?
Scenario two - German autobahn, no speed limit sections. If people can go 300km/h legally, why do you think many sources and official data confirms 140km/h to be the average speed for passenger cars - with most travelling at 130 km/h?
Long term - MOST drivers WILL choose prudent speed to get home safely and arrive alive, regardless of what's hanging above their heads (unless, of course enforcement is very strict, then people will drive slower out of fear).
To me, the problem seems with the following situation - left lane of 407 and 401 express in the east frequently moves at 140+ km/h. It seems those drivers are really careful and nobody is dying (heck, I don't even see near-wreck situation at such speeds, and personally felt extremely safe flowing in such traffic, no less safe than at 110 or 120). I am confused about the situtation where such speed may indeed be safe and very comfortable to the drivers, yet it's on the verge of impoundment and severe financial (criminal? jail time is actually written down in the law!) punshishment. I would love to change that situation and move the "crimiality" bar (excessive speeding charge) a bit higher - to speeds that are NOT widely practiced around the world, ie. about 160-170, which would possibly be accomplished with 120 speed limit (unless our authorities truly screw this one up... in the name of....??).
Prudent speed and speed limit have nothing to do with each other (in many jurisdictions) - when US authorities reduced limits from no limit in Montana or 75-70 mph in other states to drastic 55 mph due to oil crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law), did prudent speed all of the sudden go down to 60mph? Of course not. Rather, simply a BAD law (or a law not stemming out of safety but politics at that time) outlawed something that's been prudent and safe before the change. When politics gets in the way of road design/engineering safety standards, we have what we have today; many people doing 140 on 100 with no casualties on the road yet extreme risk to the drivers in terms of punishments (fines, demerits, rate hikes). Once again, why would there be casualties since many, many jursidicions came to the SAME conclusion that 140 after small tolerance is indeed very much acceptable and safe.
Fair enough. Help improve the case.
So this has nothing to do with safety.. precisely. Which is exactly THE CASE I am making. Don't make something that's not unsafe severily punishable.
same as few replies above. Most people will NOT be doing 150. If speed limit was 160, would everyone do 180? If it was 220, everyone would go 240?
That has indeed crossed my mind as well but it'd be an extremely bad legislation so I don't think it would stand. If 130 would be "acceptable" with only a very small tolerance - taking your licence away for 20 over "safe" would seem absurd - the gap between the two would need to be a bit larger - just like our 50-over law today (which, by the way is quite fair - BC has 40 over law....). I would hope the authotities would approach it with a sound mind. If they'd go for 120 to finally bring some common sense to our freeway laws, setting a drakonian penalty at so much closer to the limit would seem completely out of whack. I would propose high penalties for say 150+ (heck, increase them if you want) and NO charge reductions on the spot - that should be significant enough to those fastest out there, but keep the true draconian driving death penalty at the level you've deemed appropriate before (ie. 50-over).
Last edited:
.
.
.
.
READ MORE ON THE TOPIC AND SUPPORT US ON FACEBOOK (LIKE) at www.facebook.com/stop100
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
READ MORE ON THE TOPIC AND SUPPORT US ON FACEBOOK (LIKE) at www.facebook.com/stop100
.
.
.
.
just read the whole letter, very very informative.
so whats the next step? how does this stuff change...im blown away by these stats.
man ontario makes me so angry...look at that thread about the bayview extension going from 70 to a 60...we are doomed by nany politicians. nothing will change! think of the children! haha
so whats the next step? how does this stuff change...im blown away by these stats.
man ontario makes me so angry...look at that thread about the bayview extension going from 70 to a 60...we are doomed by nany politicians. nothing will change! think of the children! haha
Not sure if this is answered in this thread i have been following but at 11 pages it been hard to.
But I see allot personnel anecdotes in this thread and for me that no evidence or good argument for doing something.
So for OP
What's the increase in chance of fatalities when collisions occur at 100 VS 120?
But I see allot personnel anecdotes in this thread and for me that no evidence or good argument for doing something.
So for OP
What's the increase in chance of fatalities when collisions occur at 100 VS 120?
thats not the point.
point is roads are build for X, we drive at X. no one actually does 90 on the DVP...come on.
we naturally drive to road conditions. not what a sign says...whens the last time you actually looked at a speed limit sign on a highway.
for us, its the revenue collectors that would have a problem with the change. government needs money.
they would rather it be 100, we do 120 naturally and they have more option for ticketing...
if limit was 120, not everyone would instantly do 140...they just go to what the road is made for. !!!120!!!
point is roads are build for X, we drive at X. no one actually does 90 on the DVP...come on.
we naturally drive to road conditions. not what a sign says...whens the last time you actually looked at a speed limit sign on a highway.
for us, its the revenue collectors that would have a problem with the change. government needs money.
they would rather it be 100, we do 120 naturally and they have more option for ticketing...
if limit was 120, not everyone would instantly do 140...they just go to what the road is made for. !!!120!!!
Actualy that is the point..at the heart of the matter its safety VS convience(for lack of a better word) and can only be answered statisticly. Emotional argument dont fly with me Im all for supporting this I feel i could safely travel at thouse speeds but what i feel isnt important. You need to back up you argument with Stats and if you want to make this politicle issue you need thouse stats as talking points.
OMG.....how is this still going on. Some people think its a great idea, some people think it's stupid. Some people think it's safe, others think it'll cause more saftey concerns. At the end of the day there will never be enough public pressure to change this so it doesn't matter. OP still has less than 100 likes and has admitted to soliciting not only on this forum but others as well. There are other absolutely glaring issues that need to be dealt with in this province and country and changing the ******* speed limit is not one of them. You'll never get the polititians on board because NO ONE CARES ENOUGH.
OP, go out and get a GF and give it up. You've made all the impact here you're going to.
OP, go out and get a GF and give it up. You've made all the impact here you're going to.
Thats cus we know 'fast' doesnt always mean 'skilled' and 'responsible'
Come out at lunch hour when Im teaching a class and lets see how well you do the slow speed exercises.
gwelfmike
Well-known member
+1.
^^^ + lots
Everyone loves speed but the mature thing is to realise that speed isn't everything and it's not something that is your god given right to do on a public highway. I'm pretty happy with the status quo, I'd rather our system than the US one of zero tolerance I see in say upper NY State where it really is sticking to the State speed limit or else. Having said that, I actually prefer driving in the US at times as I set my cruise control to the limit and generally have a peaceful drive away from asshats treating the roads like a racecourse. I'm doing that at 65 mph though....at least 10kmh lower than our "unofficial" speed limit.
OpenGambit
Banned
Fighting words!! ^^
Ouch !! Then we should as responsible citizens lower the speed limit to 80...saves lives, saves gas, less accidents that's the responsible thing to do. We really don't need to go that fast...leave earlier.
Believe me...I'm far more skilled at slow speeds negotiating stuff than I'm at speed. Cuz I do it far more.
The vehicles we drive now are far better vehicles than back in the day. Suspension, brakes, fuel injection,tires, safety...etc. Makes moving faster alot safer.
Why is Germany faster and safer than here? Why can't we do the same? Or come close is all in the outer areas of GTA. I like fast and I'm not ashamed.
Last edited:
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
I actually voted to keep the speed limit at 100km/h. To date, the only acceptable argument to raise the limit is a desire by the general public (which doesn't appear to be that strong of an argument with < 100 likes). If enough people wanted it, even if they admitted that it was a selfish desire and provided no cost, health or environmental benefit to society, it would be something that politicians should consider, and something I would support.... BUT if you're going to tout benefits, you damn well better be able to support it with scientific data... and you haven't.
Let me explain this "safety factor" that engineers love so much. Let's say that engineers deemed the road to be safe at 125km/h, but no more (obviously this is an over simplified statement since we're treating safety as a binary characteristic instead of a varying one). Engineers know that if the speed limit is set to 125km/h, some people will go over (unsafe) some will stay within the limit (safe), and let's assume that the average speed is around 125km/h as a result (with a standard bell curve, this would mean half the drivers on the road are operating their vehicle at an unsafe speed)... What are engineers to do to maintain the safety of the public? They set the limit to 100km/h. Obviously by lowering the limit, they increase the number of people that choose to "speed", but the average speed will drop, and you'll have considerably less people operating in the unsafe region of speed. So while the highway is designed for 125km/h, it's rated for 100km/h.
Simply put, the roads may not have been designed for the speeds that will be seen by speeders on roads with higher speed limits.
Jeep or bike?
Last edited:
Takes a engineer to over engineer everthing...lol. It's a 4 lane black top...why wouldn't vehicles handle the speed? Not like we have sharp bends everywhere. And if so reduce in that area. Everybody does 110 and more now. All we have to do is enforce the left lane and right lane driving issues.
