Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

[turbodish]

Forum Sponsor

Ummm??...no it's not. By saying higher hwy speeds are proven to be safe in other developed nations.. is throwing a fit? wtf?

What's your measure of "proven safe"? You do realize that Ontario has the lowest per km driven fatality rate in North America? Also, Ontario has among the very lowest per km fatality rates in the world, even better than the Germany you seem to long for.

The Germans have been doing this for a long time...use Google dude. Sure the OP needs to present actual facts from some legit organization...and I found some spending a minute with google. This exercise is really just legalizing what ia already going on.

Yes, use google. You'll find this from the German transportation experts on what the effect would be of dropping their autobahn speed limits to what we have in Ontario.

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed Fact Sheet 1.pdf

Case studies: the safety benefit of introducing
speed limits
There is clear evidence from sections on which a limit was introduced that the number of road deaths and injuries decreased. In December 2002 a 130 km/h limit was introduced on a 62km section of the Autobahn 24 between Berlin and Hamburg. This is the longest section on a German Autobahn on which a speed limit has been introduced in the past decade. The number of injury/material damage accidents decreased by 48% and the numbers of casualties decreased by 57% (comparing the 3 years before and 3 years after introduction).

In Rheinland-Pfalz, a 130 km speed limit was also introduced on a 167km section of the A61 in 1991 and has been retained since then. This measure was combined with a ban on overtaking for heavy good vehicles. The impact of these two measures was a 30% reduction in fatal and severe injury accidents (comparing one year after and one year before their introduction – Rheinland-Pfalz Ministry of Transport)

Finally, the Federal environment agency mentions further field trials that have shown reductions in road deaths and injuries: in one field trail in the Land of Hesse from November 1984 to May 1987, the speed was limited at 100km/h on some motorways, bringing down the number of accidents with deaths or injuries per billion vehicle kilometer by 25% to 50%. A field trial on the Autobahn A2 during 1992 and 1994 also showed a 50% decrease of the accident rate per billion vehicle kilometer (Umweltbundesamt, 1999).

The next one is the kicker. If they dropped the Autobahn speed limit to 100kmph as in Ontario, the reduction in traffic fatalities could reach 37%. Do some more digging into Autobahn per km driven fatality rates, and you find that this degree of fatality reduction would bring the Autobahn's per km driven fatality rate down to what we now enjoy on Ontario's 400 series highways with their 100 kmph sped limits.

The road safety impacts of speed limits were evaluated in 1984 by the Federal Highway Research Institute. The study estimated that a general limit of 120 km/h on the Autobahn network would lead to a 20% reduction of road deaths, a limit of 100 km/h even to a 37% reduction

Those experts also state:

Speed: a basic risk factor
The relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied extensively and is very clear: the higher the speed, the greater the probability of a crash and the severity of crashes.

All review studies indicate that:
- Small changes in mean speeds can be expected to result in much larger changes in crash outcomes.
- Severe crashes (resulting in serious injuries and deaths) are much more sensitive to speed changes than crashes in general.

The Power Model: while the risk linked to speed varies from road types to road type, an empirically verified model shows that on average, a modest percentage reduction in the mean speed of traffic will lead to:
- a twofold percentage reduction in injury accidents,
- a threefold percentage reduction in injury accidents and
- a fourfold percentage reduction in fatal accidents (Aarts and van Schagen 2006, based on Nilsson 1982).

So, for example, a 1% reduction in mean speeds on a given road leads to:
- a 2% reduction in injury accidents,
- a 3% reduction in serious injury accidents and
- a 4% reduction in deaths.

It follows from the high risk associated with speed that reductions in driving speeds (even apparently minor ones) will make an important contribution to reducing the number and improving the outcome of road accidents.

 

[chrison]

Of course unlimited speed is dangerous. If a truck going at 100 is passed by a car doing 300km/h, you are asking for big trouble. That's 200km/h speed differential.

But everything else you quote leads to only one conclusion - if "the slower the safer" then why most countries set the limits at 110-130 km/h? Why not 80 km/h or even 60? Why not take a side road, then rather than a highway?? There is a reason why we build high-speed roads - to get places safely and much faster. While doing so, we assume certain degree of risk. Each time you are pulling out of your drive-way you assume such risk, even cruising around in your city. So, the only question is: what is the casualty rate we are willing to accept for the privilege of driving faster. It then becomes clear why 110-130 have become such popular speed limits - most civilized societies have found a middle-ground between low death rate and efficient speed, one that's comfortable and safe for a vast majority of drivers. So, it's no use demonizing speed and citing that each 1kmh reduction saves blah blah blah. If that's the case, why aren't we all (you?) doing 80 in a 100? 100 is a limit, you know... not the minimum speed! Modern roads networks allow people to travel fast (120-140km/h with tolerance in many countries) with small amount of casualties. The problem is - our ON society - not much different from any other around the world - cannot do that LEGALLY.

Hence: www.stop100.ca !

 

[turbodish]

The problem is - our ON society - not much different from any other around the world - cannot do that LEGALLY.

And what we have to show for that is the lowest traffic fatality rates in North America and the rest of the world as well. In North America, the only jurisdictions that come close to Ontario's fatality per km driven rate are those that have 65 mph (105 kmph) limits on their multilane limited access highways, and those jurisdictions have fairly strict enforcement.

Like it or not, no politician is going to take the heat for rising fatality rates. Our traffic levels are fairly high in southern Ontario and average travel distances are relatively short. There is little utility or benefit to be had from raising the speed limit, and the down side of increased fatalities is not one any politician is likely to back.

 

[invictus43]

And what we have to show for that is the lowest traffic fatality rates in North America and the rest of the world as well.

Can you cite the source for this? And which rate you are referring to?

 

[turbodish]

Can you cite the source for this? And which rate you are referring to?

The rate is measured in fatalities per billion km driven. The sources are published in various places. Search my posts and you'll find many many links to various supporting soruces.

 

[OpenGambit]

Of course unlimited speed is dangerous. If a truck going at 100 is passed by a car doing 300km/h, you are asking for big trouble. That's 200km/h speed differential.

But everything else you quote leads to only one conclusion - if "the slower the safer" then why most countries set the limits at 110-130 km/h? Why not 80 km/h or even 60? Why not take a side road, then rather than a highway?? There is a reason why we build high-speed roads - to get places safely and much faster. While doing so, we assume certain degree of risk. Each time you are pulling out of your drive-way you assume such risk, even cruising around in your city. So, the only question is: what is the casualty rate we are willing to accept for the privilege of driving faster. It then becomes clear why 110-130 have become such popular speed limits - most civilized societies have found a middle-ground between low death rate and efficient speed, one that's comfortable and safe for a vast majority of drivers. So, it's no use demonizing speed and citing that each 1kmh reduction saves blah blah blah. If that's the case, why aren't we all (you?) doing 80 in a 100? 100 is a limit, you know... not the minimum speed! Modern roads networks allow people to travel fast (120-140km/h with tolerance in many countries) with small amount of casualties. The problem is - our ON society - not much different from any other around the world - cannot do that LEGALLY.

Hence: www.stop100.ca !

So you are saying we should accept risks just because other people accept those risks?
Thats pretty thin.

 

[invictus43]

The rate is measured in fatalities per billion km driven. The sources are published in various places. Search my posts and you'll find many many links to various supporting soruces.

I see many countries world-wide that have lower rates than ours. Are you purposely misleading or misunderstanding the data?

 

[danarchy]

chrison, I support your goal, I really do but I think this just killed all your arguments

The next one is the kicker. If they dropped the Autobahn speed limit to 100kmph as in Ontario, the reduction in traffic fatalities could reach 37%. Do some more digging into Autobahn per km driven fatality rates, and you find that this degree of fatality reduction would bring the Autobahn's per km driven fatality rate down to what we now enjoy on Ontario's 400 series highways with their 100 kmph sped limits.

The road safety impacts of speed limits were evaluated in 1984 by the Federal Highway Research Institute. The study estimated that a general limit of 120 km/h on the Autobahn network would lead to a 20% reduction of road deaths, a limit of 100 km/h even to a 37% reduction


Those experts also state:
Speed: a basic risk factor
The relationship between speed and road accidents has been studied extensively and is very clear: the higher the speed, the greater the probability of a crash and the severity of crashes.

All review studies indicate that:
- Small changes in mean speeds can be expected to result in much larger changes in crash outcomes.
- Severe crashes (resulting in serious injuries and deaths) are much more sensitive to speed changes than crashes in general.

The Power Model: while the risk linked to speed varies from road types to road type, an empirically verified model shows that on average, a modest percentage reduction in the mean speed of traffic will lead to:
- a twofold percentage reduction in injury accidents,
- a threefold percentage reduction in injury accidents and
- a fourfold percentage reduction in fatal accidents (Aarts and van Schagen 2006, based on Nilsson 1982).

So, for example, a 1% reduction in mean speeds on a given road leads to:
- a 2% reduction in injury accidents,
- a 3% reduction in serious injury accidents and
- a 4% reduction in deaths.

It follows from the high risk associated with speed that reductions in driving speeds (even apparently minor ones) will make an important contribution to reducing the number and improving the outcome of road accidents.

 

[turbodish]

I see many countries world-wide that have lower rates than ours. Are you purposely misleading or misunderstanding the data?

Which countries? Also, Ontario is not Canada. The overall average Canadian rate is about twice that of Ontario.

 

[OpenGambit]

I see many countries world-wide that have lower rates than ours. Are you purposely misleading or misunderstanding the data?

Maybe you can just show your own data.

 

[invictus43]

Which countries?

You chose the sources and posted the links. Go back and look.

 

[turbodish]

You chose the sources and posted the links. Go back and look.

MTO publishes Ontario stats. Search for ORSAR 2008. Ontario's published traffic fatality rate for 2008 was 5.1 per billion km driven, and that puts Ontario among the safest roads in the world. As I recall, the number of Ontario traffic fatalities dropped down an additional 10% or so for 2009. By contrast, Germany's 2009 traffic fatality rate was 7.2 per billion km driven. Check out the countries that come close to Ontario's rate and compare the relative traffic volume and road network size.

 

[turbodish]

Maybe you can just show your own data.

Here is 2009 data at http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2009-1173.htm#t4 . Ontario sits at 4.2 fatalities per billion km driven. How does that compare internationally? Recall, Germany's rate for 2009 was 7.2 per billion km driven.

Data Source: Transport Canada Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics and Statistics Canada,
“Canadian Vehicle Survey” Catalogue number 53-223XIE

• A rate of the number of traffic fatalities per one billion vehicle-kilometres traveled was used to get a full picture of Alberta’s traffic casualties in comparison with other provinces.
• Alberta’s rate of traffic fatalities has decreased in the three years 2007 to 2009, reaching a low of 7.1 in 2009.
• Of the twelve other provinces and territories, nine had higher fatality rates than Alberta in 2009, including Nunavut1 with a rate of 65.1 fatalities per billion vehicle-kilometers traveled.
• In 2007, the Northwest Territories had the highest fatality rate of 13.9. In 2008 and 2009, Nunavut had the hightest fatality rates of 132.5 and 65.1 respectively.
• Alberta Traffic Collision Statistics are available on an annual basis. For more detailed information, please refer to the Collision Statistics

https://osi.alberta.ca/osi-content/...cFatalityRatesCanadaProvincesTerritories.aspx

 

[chrison]

chrison, I support your goal, I really do but I think this just killed all your arguments

Easy, Bud (have you seen my response above your post?).... I've seen countless numbers like that before, trust me.... That's precisely WHY I said what I said in my long letter on the site www.stop100.ca - such presented info (numbers) are completely useless as according to them we should ban driving altogether or AT LEAST reduce 400-series limit to 65 km/h and be the slowest, most petrified nation in the world - who's in? Shall we make a petition for lowering the limits? Let's sign up! Who goes first... Oh, nobody? But these numbers... ?

What arguments by the way? All these emotions come from a complete misunderstanding of our goal.

We DO NOT encourage people to drive faster! We simply want people to be able to drive at their current speeds of 115-130 LEGALLY! Currently - they do - ILLEGALLY!

 

[chrison]

thanks for digging up the chart , turbo. by the way, it doesn't say if these numbers are for freeways or all roads, eh?

 

[OpenGambit]

Easy, Bud (have you seen my response above your post?).... I've seen countless numbers like that before, trust me.... That's precisely WHY I said what I said in my long letter on the site www.stop100.ca - such presented info (numbers) are completely useless as according to them we should ban driving altogether or AT LEAST reduce 400-series limit to 65 km/h and be the slowest, most petrified nation in the world - who's in? Shall we make a petition for lowering the limits? Let's sign up! Who goes first... Oh, nobody? But these numbers... ?

What arguments by the way? All these emotions come from a complete misunderstanding of our goal.

We DO NOT encourage people to drive faster! We simply want people to be able to drive at their current speeds of 115-130 LEGALLY! Currently - they do - ILLEGALLY!

I see so your tactic is to deny data but present nothing of your own.

credibility = 0.

What you are missing is the point that someone just showed you that a raise in the speed limit would raise fatality rates. Any politician wanna go along with that. "crickets"

 

[chrison]

So you are saying we should accept risks just because other people accept those risks?
Thats pretty thin.

This comment simply shows that you've never been on GTA 400-series highways before... Pretty thin...

 

[chrison]

I see so your tactic is to deny data but present nothing of your own.

credibility = 0.

What you are missing is the point that someone just showed you that a raise in the speed limit would raise fatality rates. Any politician wanna go along with that. "crickets"

no comment....

 

[OpenGambit]

This comment simply shows that you've never been on GTA 400-series highways before... Pretty thin...

You are wrong, and to my count you haven't persuaded a single person who wasn't already on board to come to your side after reading your posts.

I am not sure you could persuade me to buy a stick of gum, much less persuade a politician to take on the backlash that will inevitabily come with this.

 

[chrison]

You are wrong, and to my count you haven't persuaded a single person who wasn't already on board to come to your side after reading your posts.

I am not sure you could persuade me to buy a stick of gum, much less persuade a politician to take on the backlash that will inevitabily come with this.

How fast do you drive on 400-series when free-flowing and not congested?

Forum Sponsor