OpenGambit
Banned
lol your tactic to answer data is "so what".
hahahahahhahahahahah.
hahahahahhahahahahah.
Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit
- Thread starter chrison
- Start date
OpenGambit
Banned
I quoted this so if and when the day you end up filing anything. I can forward this to the right people because the answer is so laughable it shows your argument for what it really is. Which is the ramblings of someone who just wants to go faster because that apparently is so memorable while speed limits are somehow "prision". **** everyone else and **** safety. hahaha
Last edited:
DownUnder
Well-known member
Most drivers maybe, but politicians definitely take that sort of thing into consideration
Ask the families of those 3 extra victims per year if they're 'concerned about it'. You're now openly advocating for increased fatality rates just to drive a bit faster. Any credibility you may have had (which wasn't much to begin with) is surely gone at this point.
You are just not getting it, unfortunately. With all due respect, you are a bit out of touch with reality and what is currently happening on our roads. If you prefer to live in a bubble, that's perfectly fine. Do me one favour though if you truly believe what you say - please watch so your speedometer so it never crosses 100 km/h mark. Otherwise it is YOU who may be contributing to those 3 extra victims.
Canada is 8.2 vs Germany 7.2 .... I'm sure some state in Germany could match the Ont. number.
Germany population 82 mill vs Canada 34 mill
German hwy system k's 12,819 km, Canada 38,000k's Ontario 6800k's
OpenGambit
Banned
You are bad with data.
1. the speed limit is already higher in other provinces, the argument is to raise speed limits in ONTARIO, therefore the ontario number is relevant one, not BC's. The speed limit in Germany at least in respect to the autobahns are pretty consistent so all of Germany is relevant
2. population doesn't matter when you measure per billion miles travelled. herp derp.
3. the absolute amount of highway kms is also irrelevant, unless your point is that a lower % of Ontario driving is done on highways, in which case it is the ratio of highways to other roads thats relevant.
4. You still have no data, champ.
.
.
Just wanted to say BIG THANKS for everyone for discussion. I believe we've touched on almost every aspect of speed limit increase in the 17 pages of this thread.
I stress once again - those who believe we should stay at 100 km/h on 400-series roads are encouraged to vote accordingly at www.stop100.ca so a true measure of public opinion on the matter can be obtained.
Read more and support the cause at www.stop100.ca and LIKE us on facebook www.facebook.com/stop100
.
.
.
Just wanted to say BIG THANKS for everyone for discussion. I believe we've touched on almost every aspect of speed limit increase in the 17 pages of this thread.
I stress once again - those who believe we should stay at 100 km/h on 400-series roads are encouraged to vote accordingly at www.stop100.ca so a true measure of public opinion on the matter can be obtained.
Read more and support the cause at www.stop100.ca and LIKE us on facebook www.facebook.com/stop100
.
.
That's just it. It's not just "3" extra victims but 3 extra victims per billion km driven. That number seems small, but it is still a 71% increase over our present fatality rate, and an increase that would claim an additional 400 or more Ontario traffic fatalities each year over and above what we have now. I wonder how the public would react on hearing that sort of news in the media.
Last edited:
Turbo, how can you compare a country with 100 km/h speed limit and UNLIMITED speed? I know you may not have been the one who began that, but this is a clear misrepresentation. Nobody claims that UNLIMITED speed is safe. If a car flying at 250km/h is passing another one at 130, we're talking 120 km/h speed differential.
I am not sure how you've arrived at these numbers and I think their horribly wrong and may completely misinform the public out there... In case you haven't read our "petition", we're only demanding legalizing a speed THAT'S CURRENTLY DRIVEN on many of our roads! If you had told me that most drivers drive at 105 today, then sure, 120 might represent some significant speed increase - but that's not the case! GTA roads, for example, already move well above 120 km/h all the way to 145 - frequently! (hence my statement that some of the comments here are completely out of touch with reality). Even many POLICE OFFICERS themselves (yes, I have spoken to them) agree that 120-125 km/h is a safe speed for our roads. The rest is up to enforcement! THE only thing we're requesting is legalizing the current practices which contribute to those amazing numbers you have provided! If that is too hard to understand, I'm not sure how else to explain it. If unreasonable speed limit is set, MANY people will tend to break it (as it is the case today). With a more reasonable legislation, one found in MANY countries around the world with a better safety record than ours, a LOT MORE people will find themselves in compliance with the law or close to it, without the need to significantly "speed" any further. I've given the example before... if speed limit was set at 150, do you think most would drive at 170? Of course not... I really cannot make this any simpler - so if ANYTHING that I've just stated makes any remote sense to you (go drive around if you don't believe me), then NO, casualty rates are not going to increase to the completely baseless numbers you have come up here above.
"Any" 400 series highway? 
"Any" 400 series highway?
Can't see pic at work!
407.
One poster appears to think that "a few" more deaths are worth it to be able to have Autobahn speeds here. That's what that comment was in response to.
Do you really think that average travel speeds won't rise with a rise in speed limit? Do you really think that suddenly the "tolerance" for speeding stops will become zero, and that the cops will start issuing tickets at 121 kmph in a 120 kmph speed limity zone? Of course not. The defacto speed limit would rise instantly and there would be plenty enough who would travel at ever increasing speeds. And when they crash, their increasing speed will carry with it an exponential increase in crash forces, crash severity and damage, and injury severity and death.
The result in most places that increase speed limits is that average travel speeds bump up almost immediately after an upward change in speed limit. Changes may only be incremental at first, but speeds tend to continue increasing over time until drivers establish a new average speed that they believe to be either safe from crash or safe from prosecution. Given that most drivers (and riders) have an overinflated view of their own abilities, risk of prosecution tends to sits heaviest on many driver's minds. If they can get away with it, they will do it even if it increases the risk of crash.
Using the German's power model, every 1% decrease in travel speed correlates to a 4% decrease in road deaths. What do you think that even a 1% increase in speeds will do? 2%? 5%? A 5% increase in speed doesn't seem like much, but if it leads to a 20% increase in fatalities on a particular highway type, people tend to sit up and take notice. Now look at the general US experience in states where they have increased speed limits. Over the long term, fatality rates have gone up.
Not sure if this has already been mentioned as I am not going to read all 17 pages of this thread.....but fuel consumption has a lot to do with my driving habits now. Prior to this year I regularly travelled the 400 series highways (in car) at between 119 and 124 kph (cruise set) figuring that it was just below the limit that the OPP would bother with me. I was averaging around 8.9 l/100km. Since then I travel exensivley in the US were the Interstate is usally around 65mph (approx 105kph). With cruise set at about 114 kph my fuel consumption dropped to approx 7.1 l/100km !!! Averaging around 2000 km per week, to say the least I was astounded !!!
I have since adjusted my speed in Ontario to reflect what I do in the US. I save countless $$$ in gas per month now. If the limit was raised I would be forced to adjust my speed as to not become a 'risk' to those that would habitually drive x kph over the limit thus losing my current fuel savings. Im happy the way it is now thanks.
I have since adjusted my speed in Ontario to reflect what I do in the US. I save countless $$$ in gas per month now. If the limit was raised I would be forced to adjust my speed as to not become a 'risk' to those that would habitually drive x kph over the limit thus losing my current fuel savings. Im happy the way it is now thanks.
It's a printout from a GPS tracking program showing someone doing 152 kmh on the 407 at 7:51 am.
The 407 doesn't count! Come on!
Try that on the EB 401 at Mavis Rd at the same time of day.
Hopefully others have said this as well but there are a few problems that could be solved.
My biggest concern is stopping distance, impact force and fuel consumption (or more importantly fuel consumption as it relates to refinery capacity shortages). So an easy fix is only allow the higher speeds or maybe only allow the far left lane for vehicles that are smaller, lighter, have better fuel economy, and shorter stopping distances. Easy way, no medium+ size SUVs, full size pickups or vans in the fast lane, limit them to 100 kph (including transports of course)... Would (or may) be hard to enforce, added bonus people start buying smarter. Maybe something like a height limit and weight limit (say 4000 lbs), then there will need to be some stupid plate class rules, it is just ugly.
Car maintenance may also become an issue (bigger issue), do we really want faster speeds on unmaintained cars, this may mean regular safety inspections (maybe at drive clean time). No one will like this but it is already a legitimate problem, higher speeds make it worse. No one likes nanny states...
Things like lane discipline need to also be enforced, right lane could have a 100 limit, far left 120. To do this the right lane needs to stop disappearing (becoming the exit lane). SUVs etc can just stay in the right.
All in all I support it, as long as the OPP does not ratchet up the speeds I do not think the defacto limit will become 140 from today's 120. Photo radar... (I shudder at the thought), I will wash my fingers out with soap for typing it....
Some of the above issues are reasons not to do it unless we can come up with a good way to reduce the impact without a bunch more nanny state rules.
My biggest concern is stopping distance, impact force and fuel consumption (or more importantly fuel consumption as it relates to refinery capacity shortages). So an easy fix is only allow the higher speeds or maybe only allow the far left lane for vehicles that are smaller, lighter, have better fuel economy, and shorter stopping distances. Easy way, no medium+ size SUVs, full size pickups or vans in the fast lane, limit them to 100 kph (including transports of course)... Would (or may) be hard to enforce, added bonus people start buying smarter. Maybe something like a height limit and weight limit (say 4000 lbs), then there will need to be some stupid plate class rules, it is just ugly.
Car maintenance may also become an issue (bigger issue), do we really want faster speeds on unmaintained cars, this may mean regular safety inspections (maybe at drive clean time). No one will like this but it is already a legitimate problem, higher speeds make it worse. No one likes nanny states...
Things like lane discipline need to also be enforced, right lane could have a 100 limit, far left 120. To do this the right lane needs to stop disappearing (becoming the exit lane). SUVs etc can just stay in the right.
All in all I support it, as long as the OPP does not ratchet up the speeds I do not think the defacto limit will become 140 from today's 120. Photo radar... (I shudder at the thought), I will wash my fingers out with soap for typing it....
Some of the above issues are reasons not to do it unless we can come up with a good way to reduce the impact without a bunch more nanny state rules.
