Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

Forum Sponsor
Kool said:
OP....the ones here against or who just like to be argumentative or just are always right and everyone else is wrong... will hammer you until you decide to leave. They are unique...they are GTAM'ers they don't need stinkin facts...lol.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've noticed. thanks...

Whomever supports the facts (world-wide speed limits, previous 400-series limit, etc) can support the cause. As simple as that. I will present them one more time, for those interested: www.stop100.ca


I am only looking for support in a just cause - which will benefit ALL. If they want to argue, let them be.
 
invictus43 said:
Much more difficult and expensive licensing procedure... And they do have accidents..better than ours..but not out of this world better.
Click to expand...

Not sayin this is 100% right but I'm sure not far off...

Accident rates
Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2009). In fact, the annual fatality rate (2.7 per billion km in 2009) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (4.5 in 2009). Furthermore, a 2005 study by the German government found that Autobahn sections without speed limits had the same accident rate as those with speed limits.
 
Kool said:
Not sayin this is 100% right but I'm sure not far off...

Accident rates
Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2009). In fact, the annual fatality rate (2.7 per billion km in 2009) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (4.5 in 2009). Furthermore, a 2005 study by the German government found that Autobahn sections without speed limits had the same accident rate as those with speed limits.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's about what I've seen.. Both numbers are still very low all things considered. It's really the driving education there. My niece just got her learner's permit there and it's a tough, expensive schooling process. It's important to remember the no-limit areas are generally the least travelled, so you could expect less accidents there.
 
chrison said:
Yup, I've noticed. thanks...

Whomever supports the facts (world-wide speed limits, previous 400-series limit, etc) can support the cause. As simple as that. I will present them one more time, for those interested: www.stop100.ca


I am only looking for support in a just cause - which will benefit ALL. If they want to argue, let them be.
Click to expand...
As much as I commend your ambition, you have 45 Facebook likes. I could post a picture of an onion and get more than that in a day. That, and as previously mentioned, Facebook petitions do worry politicians and typically go nowhere.
That being said, good luck with your idea.
 
Of course they should raise the speed limit to 120km/hr...we are motorcyclists.
They should also raise the bar on getting a license too.
And more importantly enforce the rules of the hwy.
 
chrison said:
Yup, I've noticed. thanks...

Whomever supports the facts (world-wide speed limits, previous 400-series limit, etc) can support the cause. As simple as that. I will present them one more time, for those interested: www.stop100.ca


I am only looking for support in a just cause - which will benefit ALL. If they want to argue, let them be.
Click to expand...

To gain support you should expect to have to present an argument in favour of your cause, not just "facts".

Now, I didn't notice there was a site with all the colours and fonts and references to facebook. So I checked it out now and I don't see any relevant argument of the 7 reasons presented to support increasing the speed limit. Reasons #3 and #6 might be relevant but the links don't work. Basically I'm looking for information that shows how we would be better off with a higher speed limit.
 
fastar1 said:
To gain support you should expect to have to present an argument in favour of your cause, not just "facts".

Now, I didn't notice there was a site with all the colours and fonts and references to facebook. So I checked it out now and I don't see any relevant argument of the 7 reasons presented to support increasing the speed limit. Reasons #3 and #6 might be relevant but the links don't work. Basically I'm looking for information that shows how we would be better off with a higher speed limit.
Click to expand...

The best answer to this is in undue speeding tickets, driver anxiety (watching out the police cars) and distraction over the last many years... If you can get one for 130, then with the change to 120 or 130 (just like many other jurisdictions), you would not be ticketed. I think that's rather appealing. And if the roads are safe today when the average speed is indeed 120-130 then why punish drivers for such speeds?
 
I always thought the speed limit was 149?
 
Kool said:
Not sayin this is 100% right but I'm sure not far off...

Accident rates
Despite the prevailing high speeds, the accident, injury and death rates on the Autobahn are remarkably low. The Autobahn carries about a third of all Germany's traffic, but injury accidents on the Autobahn account for only 6% of such accidents nationwide and less than 12% of all traffic fatalities were the result of Autobahn crashes (2009). In fact, the annual fatality rate (2.7 per billion km in 2009) is consistently lower than that of most other superhighway systems, including the US Interstates (4.5 in 2009). Furthermore, a 2005 study by the German government found that Autobahn sections without speed limits had the same accident rate as those with speed limits.
Click to expand...


Thats all good and well, however, drivers in Germany are MUCH MUCH better then the ones ive seen here in Toronto. Not only skill wise the people there know and follow the road rules too. They keep right unless overtaking. they indicate before changing lanes, they dont snake from lane to lane for no reason and their roads dont have people merging from BOTH sides (collectors) forcing people to change across 5 lanes of traffic so they dont miss their exit....

The Hwys here dont need a speed limit change. People can barely drive at the current speed. Its hardly ever enforced anyway.
 
If the police just simply enforced the rules that exist for hwys they make a killin at the box office...and not even talkin about speeding. By doing so... maybe... just maybe the fools who fail to follow the rules of the road will avoid the hwy or become better drivers.
 
chrison said:
The best answer to this is in undue speeding tickets, driver anxiety (watching out the police cars) and distraction over the last many years... If you can get one for 130, then with the change to 120 or 130 (just like many other jurisdictions), you would not be ticketed. I think that's rather appealing. And if the roads are safe today when the average speed is indeed 120-130 then why punish drivers for such speeds?
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying but in my experience I've never heard of anybody getting a ticket for 120 or less on the highway. While I'm sure it's happened, I tend to think that the drivers in such instances were being idiots in other ways and had it coming.

So I don't think there's any reason to be anxious about cops. I always drive by them at 115-120 and never get hassled, even when I had my sports cars. Other comments here support that observation. What's your experience regarding actual enforcement?

Based on that, I think the only difference a 120 limit would make would be to remove the freedom cops have to use discretion when deciding if a guy doing 115 or 105 needs to be charged. If the 120 limit was applied then anyone doing 120 couldn't be charged even if their speed was excessive in the given circumstances.

So I still see no benefit to this change, unless perhaps you have other arguments.
 
Last edited:
OpenGambit said:
I always thought the speed limit was 149?
Click to expand...

It is for me. I regularly do 130-140 on the 401 in spots where I feel it is safe. In the end, I probably average about 100-120 km/h. The key is to not act like a *********, and cops likely won't do anything.

OP, your site just lists a bunch of "facts" where you cite political reasons, and point to other states/countries. You need to approach this from an Ontario Liberal's point of view.

Right now, the biggest issue on their agenda is the economy. Perhaps tailor your proposed change in that regard?

If people could get to work faster, you would have better quality of life as commute time would be reduced, and increased productivity/economic output. If you can provide valid, scientific (i.e. peer-reviewed) evidence to back such a claim, or increasing the speed limit in general, you would have a start.

As it stands though, it's pretty useless. Raising the speed limit would only help people during the off-peak hours. For most people, commute times are the issue, not speeds. The only way you could alleviate congestion is:

1. Increase public transit
2. Widen the 401 (No way this is a good idea)
3. HOV lanes to encourage carpooling
4. Additional highways (Also not a good idea in the GTA. 407 is not useful for many because of the congestion on the feeder highways.)

Frankly, I cannot wait for the day for autonomous vehicles. Get in your car, and it drives itself to your destination. You sit back and read a book or something. Imagine if all cars were automated. There would be no need for traffic signals, as all of the cars would be synchronized so that they never had to stop and/or rerouted based on congestion. Moreover, there would be no collisions, so all of this extra weight our cars carry would be removed as there would be no need for airbags, seatbelts and crash protection. Less weight means better fuel economy means less cash spent means better economic output.

Our governments should be pushing for development of that technology. Hell, with Canada's engineering and robotics prowess, we could lead the way. Frig, I'm an engineer, I should do it. Could start with RC cars just to get the software going. Leave automating an actual car to other people.
 
Ya your right fastar1...can't argue with that...maybe better still they should lower the speed limit, that is if you have any arguments? It would be safer... say 80?
 
HorizonXP said:
Frankly, I cannot wait for the day for autonomous vehicles. Get in your car, and it drives itself to your destination. You sit back and read a book or something. Imagine if all cars were automated. There would be no need for traffic signals, as all of the cars would be synchronized so that they never had to stop and/or rerouted based on congestion. Moreover, there would be no collisions, so all of this extra weight our cars carry would be removed as there would be no need for airbags, seatbelts and crash protection. Less weight means better fuel economy means less cash spent means better economic output.

Our governments should be pushing for development of that technology. Hell, with Canada's engineering and robotics prowess, we could lead the way. Frig, I'm an engineer, I should do it. Could start with RC cars just to get the software going. Leave automating an actual car to other people.
Click to expand...

This is the ticket. With autonomous vehicles, car ownership would become far less necessary. You could call an autonomous vehicle to meet you at x address at y time for the cost of a transit token, and have it take you wherever you want to go in complete safety and faster than could be acheived with individual drivers at the controls.

It will happen, it just needs an awakening from the general public because it requires a purpose-built public infrastructure, which in retard lingo means "communism".
 
horizon, it is NOT about getting anywhere faster! It is about legalizing speed of 120-140 which we currently drive at. We simply want to drive 'peacefully' at such speeds and not have to watch the shoulders. I am sure you are included (you said 130-140) - you should support us then - this case is PRECISELY for people like you!

Right now, EVERYONE is criminalized. I know the cops don't ticket for 120 or less (so what? what if OPP chief changes that practice tomorrow - he has a full LEGAL right to do so!) - but that should be the case of 135 or less if such speeds currently produce good safety stats for our roads. This is the whole claim (nobody says we want to drive at 160 to get anywhere faster).

But I could not disagree with you more about automated vehicles. I, on the contrary, enjoy driving a LOT and hope to be dead when that day comes. And when it comes (and I'm still alive), I'd rather chose a teleport which will take my molecules to another place rather than lock me up in an automated vehicle.


------- HERE IS WHAT TO DO TO FIND OUT SOME FACTS, SPREAD THE WORD AND HELP THE CAUSE --------


IF YOU USE FACEBOOK - GO TO http://www.facebook.com/stop100 AND LIKE US AT THE TOP.WWW.STOP100.CA


 
Kool said:
Ya your right fastar1...can't argue with that...maybe better still they should lower the speed limit, that is if you have any arguments? It would be safer... say 80?
Click to expand...

Don't know what you are talking about but fastar's point is that it doesn't matter what the signs say. the speed limit currently being enforced by the cops isn't lower than 120, so increasing the limit to 120 would be pretty much pointless.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom