Legislating trucks into the right hand lane will do more to alleviate congestion than raising the speed limit ever will (and raising the limit will improve it, marginally).
Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit
- Thread starter chrison
- Start date
I would say "out of the left lane" would be a better move but, as with any legislation, it's useless without enforcement. For example were aware that trucks are not permitted in the left-most lane of the 427, between The Gardiner and Hwy 401? It's signed. It isn't enforced.
*Edited to add picture*
Attachments
Last edited:
This is about legalizing speed moreso than anything....nobody has to drive maxium speed.
The speed set by the POLICE is 120 -130 now. It would be far better to get people to follow rules of the road/hwy. Get the police to do their job.
And nobody said this would be good idea in the GTA area....maybe only outside.
If some simple rules were enforced like large transport trucks not allowed in left lanes. Passing rules enforced.
Speeds would slightly encrease but in a safer enviroment.
The talk about carnage on the roads is ridiculous...this is a freakin police state right now. Police govern the hwys and don't enforce the laws. All of us I'm sure want to be legal so no stress about what is acceptable, go fast enough but in a safe way. What is wrong with that?
If raising the speed 5k is gonna bring all the doom and gloom...wtf are we even going 100? And why aren't all of the whiners rioting in the streets now....cuz one death is too much right?
Maybe with some defined rules and etiquette we could go faster and be safer too.
The speed set by the POLICE is 120 -130 now. It would be far better to get people to follow rules of the road/hwy. Get the police to do their job.
And nobody said this would be good idea in the GTA area....maybe only outside.
If some simple rules were enforced like large transport trucks not allowed in left lanes. Passing rules enforced.
Speeds would slightly encrease but in a safer enviroment.
The talk about carnage on the roads is ridiculous...this is a freakin police state right now. Police govern the hwys and don't enforce the laws. All of us I'm sure want to be legal so no stress about what is acceptable, go fast enough but in a safe way. What is wrong with that?
If raising the speed 5k is gonna bring all the doom and gloom...wtf are we even going 100? And why aren't all of the whiners rioting in the streets now....cuz one death is too much right?
Maybe with some defined rules and etiquette we could go faster and be safer too.
Turbo, do you know that the German people and their government repeatedly fight off ANY attempts to impose numerical speed limits (by the Green movements and the like)? Does this come as a surprise to you? And that is the nation of 80 million people - not dumb people by ANY standards. What do you make of that? A smart, crazy nation? That country produces some of the best and safest cars around the world. I really would NOT discount their wisdom as you seem to suggest here. Yes, indeed, their society accepts a higher casualty rate (which is still better when compared to many countries with speed limits), and so does OURS - based on our overwhelming refusal to drive at 100 km/h (since you claim per your stats that each kmh over the limit produces X amounts of more deaths)! Poll numbers so far produce about 80-85% in favour of raising the speed limit to 120 km/h, so just because you don't think it's a good idea and that somehow majority of Ontarians would rather slow down to 100 to see better statistics on paper does not go very far (but I do respect your opinion) - just look at how majority of us WANT to drive to get your definite answer. In another direct response to your question: no, I don't believe with 120 km/h speed limit police should pull over at 121. I recommend a more narrower (than current) 10-15 km/h tolerance.
Vote in the poll and make your opinion known at www.stop100.ca/choose.html
Read more and support the cause at www.stop100.ca and LIKE us on facebookwww.facebook.com/stop100
.
I still fail to see the reason why we are comparing ourselves to a country that is nothing like ours?
You realize that your poll numbers are likely skewed drastically right. The people that support your site will participate in the poll however those of us that think you're wasting your time are not as willing to complete it. The fact that you have a poll on a 'pro increase' site that shows there is a majority who supports it means little to nothing at all. Just saying...
Civilized country like ours... drive similar if not better cars than ours....same basic rules of the road as ours.
Similar hwy's as ours... climate close to parts of south and west coast. Driver and car safety regulations....more stringent than ours here. We have coffee/cup holders... they have beer stein holders
That's why
I drive over 450kms daily using the 401 in a delivery truck. I'm usually travelling between 115kph and 120kph.
We should raise the legal speed limit outside city limits to 120kph, but we should also do the following:
- move towards individual driver examinator certification (ie. pilot licensing, firearms licensing) by either eliminating Drivetest centers or allowing both
- more comprehensive driving tests including re-tests for existing drivers
- specialized category of licensing for seniors/people with medical disabilities who are unable to drive in all conditions (restricted license)
- endorsement style licensing (night, winter, highway, trailer, large vehicle)
- more enforcement of poor driving habits including slow/insecure drivers (a highway endorsement will solve this)
Currently the driving test is not an accurate reflection of what real-life driving is all about. A person can do their driving test in Bancroft in a 2 door compact car, then the next day drive a fullsize F-150 towing a trailer....
We should raise the legal speed limit outside city limits to 120kph, but we should also do the following:
- move towards individual driver examinator certification (ie. pilot licensing, firearms licensing) by either eliminating Drivetest centers or allowing both
- more comprehensive driving tests including re-tests for existing drivers
- specialized category of licensing for seniors/people with medical disabilities who are unable to drive in all conditions (restricted license)
- endorsement style licensing (night, winter, highway, trailer, large vehicle)
- more enforcement of poor driving habits including slow/insecure drivers (a highway endorsement will solve this)
Currently the driving test is not an accurate reflection of what real-life driving is all about. A person can do their driving test in Bancroft in a 2 door compact car, then the next day drive a fullsize F-150 towing a trailer....
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
Too much damn sense?
To add, doctors and police already have the tools in place to challenge or investigate the license of someone who's ability to safely operate a vehicle (medically speaking) is in question.
Could the current system use improvement? Sure. But if the province attempts to change anything, they'll very likely **** it up.
The endorsement style license is something that's already in place (e.g. A,G,M). If we're going to further break down the "G" class to large vehicles, small vehicles, towing, winter, night, full-moon, apocalypse, etc. the province would spend millions and we'd gain nothing. People have to be given some credit to what they're comfortable with within their license class. My younger sister (driving for over a decade) has NEVER towed a trailer. Neither has my mom. My dad and I on the other hand understand the physics of towing a trailer and have each done it countless times.
To add, doctors and police already have the tools in place to challenge or investigate the license of someone who's ability to safely operate a vehicle (medically speaking) is in question.
Could the current system use improvement? Sure. But if the province attempts to change anything, they'll very likely **** it up.
I agree that government would screw up any attempt at improving our licensing system.
I think the G class is just too broad and there are some activities we should be testing for. Let's face it, the G test is a walk in the park.
Here's a scenario, a person walks into the DMV tomorrow:
Test:
Small economy car ie. Toyota Yaris 2 door
Bancroft Ontario
Clear Day
No Snow
Now the following day/week he gets a job as a driver or perhaps he's self-employed?:
Cube Truck or bigger, with 4499kg GVW (the max legally allowed with a G license)
Downtown Toronto
Snowstorm
At night
Not everyone has the common sense you believe we should trust in. I think there's absolutely no reason why we can't test driving skills properly. The motorcycle course model works great, a 1/2 day course in night/snow/towing isn't too much to ask.
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
So where do we draw the line for what should and shouldn't be tested for? What combinations of factors do we include before we finally say that people have to use their own judgement? Oh wait, we have that outlined already. Your G class license has plenty of limitations.
And what's additional testing going to do other than clog up our already constipated system? (hey, if you can think of a better word for a system full of $#!+, I'd like to hear it).
And what's additional testing going to do other than clog up our already constipated system? (hey, if you can think of a better word for a system full of $#!+, I'd like to hear it).
OpenGambit
Banned
The idea that everyone who has a licence needs to take a snow condition driving course seems extremely onerous, especially in regions that don't snow a lot.
Accredited skid control schools and advanced rider/driver training though, as an option with the financial incentive of reduced insurance rates, wouldn't be a bad idea though.
You'd have to show that those who take advanced driving lessons are less prone to cause crashes. My suspicion is that it's the opposite, as the real dangerous drivers aren't the ones driving fast, or the ones with poor skills, as long as they each leave themselves a sufficient safety margin between their skill level and their control of the vehicle.
The real dangers are those who enjoy pushing the limits of their abilities on public roads (guilty!), and those are exactly the same type of people who are more likely to sign up for an advanced driver training class.
It's all supposition of course.
The flip-side of my preference for rewarding advanced education, is slapping down bad driving. And by bad driving, I don't mean speeding.
Their society is different, their laws are different. The countries and overall dynamics are different. Their gas prices their towns.
We cannot compare ourselves to them.
So still failing to see why we are bothering with that nonsense.
The speed limit is just another excuse for a cop to pull you over. Who really drives at 100km? ...and if they don't get you for speeding, it will be for your cellphone or plate sticker or not signaling or for following too closely etc. Just be aware of your surroundings, try your best to follow the infinite number of HTA laws and hope you don't get picked out of the haystack.
Some people can only focus on the Autobahn speeds and ignore everything else, like the reasons you've mentioned.
What slays me are the people saying that there should be more police enforcement of existing laws; while I agree with that sentiment I don't think some of them realize that it translates to more police out on the roads, which leads to more whining about "police state" here on GTAM.
It translates to more police TRAVELING on the roads, instead of sitting in speed traps. You don't see idiots like the ones in my "Jackassery" videos, by sitting in your little fishing hole.
