Increase Ontario 400-series Highway Speed Limit

So with gas only getting more expensive, will we get BETTER fuel efficiency going 120-130? I still don't understand what is so hard about leaving a few minutes early.

Buddy, you have a very strange view on bikers, maybe you should get one and you'll understand. The fun is in the turns, not the straight aways, and the time savings would be in legalized land splitting. Neither of those points has anything to do with going above the current speed limit.

If all those other countries were jumping off bridges, would you? Lol.
 
although I must tell you - I got a lot of support from this and other forums in terms of page LIKES and poll votes but there is always a groups of 2-3 vocal, nasty and rude #$%^ around. Again, good to see there are cool bikers here as well.
Dude, your FB page has 68 likes in what, a week now? I'm not even joking.....I posted a picture of a red onion on my FB and got over 40 likes in a day. And I didn't go to forums arguing with people and spamming them with the same facts. At this rate you'll have to keep this up for years before you get into the thousands. I appreciate your tenacity, it really is impressive, but........come on.
 
What happened to leaving?
 
Ya dude...what were you thinkin??? Gtam bikers don't like fast...we are slowwww
 
I also respect your tenacity, though your snide remarks about those who disagree with you aren't helping you.

Anyways, since you appear to have directed some questions at me, I will try and answer them.

So why are so many bikers (and others) so opposed to legalizing 120-130?

I can't speak for anyone but myself. If you're asking about me, well I don't oppose a 120 limit, I simply oppose a movement or any effort to force the change because it's a waste of time as it would make no difference. If the speed limit were already 120 and someone tried to start a petition to get it lowered to 100, I also wouldn't support that (as long as I knew the cops wouldn't enforce speeding below 120).

Besides, people ***** and whine about everything these days, no matter how trivial.

"I want more salt on the roads!" "Why do they use so much salt on the roads?" "There's not enough light on my street!" "The lights are too bright on my street!" "That intersection is dangerous, there should be a stop sign!" "Why are they putting stop signs on every friggin intersection these days?"

I would like to see all these nuisance complaints (such as I belive yours is) disappear so that our elected officials can focus on the problems that matter. Improve the signal-to-noise ratio, if you will.

Real problems include the excessive influence of money in the democratic process. The lack of funding for OAS, education, health. The incredibly short sighted "planning" of our infrastructure development (of which the speed limit represents obout 0.01% of the problem).

We used to have a limit of 112km/h or 400-series. And since ppl drive 120-140 today AND many countries/states allow that as well (including those with bad driver training), then why must Ontario be so behind and ticket at 130 if roads are quite safe (according to MTO)??

All that info does is support the contenion that we would manage just fine if the speed limit were increased. It does nothing to explain the need for it.

I asked you to show us how we would be better off, and when you did I explained why those reasons were not a valid concern in my view. HorizonXP pretty much spelled out the same problem with your movement; it lacks any demonstrated advantage over what we have now. All these "facts" you obsess over do nothing to change that.
 
So with gas only getting more expensive, will we get BETTER fuel efficiency going 120-130? I still don't understand what is so hard about leaving a few minutes early.

Buddy, you have a very strange view on bikers, maybe you should get one and you'll understand. The fun is in the turns, not the straight aways, and the time savings would be in legalized land splitting. Neither of those points has anything to do with going above the current speed limit.

If all those other countries were jumping off bridges, would you? Lol.

No, really, I had no knowledge of what bikers are like. Seriously. No bias whatsoever. Like I said, been on a bike once, a really cool biker friend of mine took me on a real fast ride (let's say he'd lose his bike now) on 407, sure he complained about 401 in TO being always under construction, but that's about what I knew about bikers. If anything, the reason I came for support here is I thought bikers would want to do 130 legally instead of doing it illegally, just like most car drivers. Wrong? (of course I know many of you'd rather do 180 legally but we know we can't have that ever on this planet). We gotta start somewhere...

Dude, your FB page has 68 likes in what, a week now? I'm not even joking.....I posted a picture of a red onion on my FB and got over 40 likes in a day. And I didn't go to forums arguing with people and spamming them with the same facts. At this rate you'll have to keep this up for years before you get into the thousands. I appreciate your tenacity, it really is impressive, but........come on.

I think there is a difference between posting a pic on FB and creating a page. See if you get that many PAGE likes. And to turn your cleverness in a positive way - I challenge you, with your onion experience, to HELP me/us turn the 69 likes (in 3 days, not a week) we have now into 3000. I would appreciate EVERYONE who cares about going 130 legally to help brainstorm improvements to the campaign. I have already learned a lot, amongst others - ppl get a wrong idea (not talking about bikes specifically) when they see the word INCREASE, so I will rename the campaign to LEGALIZE 120-130 ON ONTARIO'S 400... - to get ppl to think how it benefits them, rather than focusing heat on me saying "all you want to do is drive faster"... I got this comment a lot, as if this new law would only apply to me.... Go figure. So help out guys. WHY do I want support? Because if I sent a letter on my behalf, gov't will ignore it - if 4000 ppl sing it, giv't will read. BTW, the poll shows about 90% of ppl want an increase (done one before and results were the same - 85% in favour). I believe that 90% of ppl should have enough sway on the gov't even if the MPs refuse to act. Ppl do not want tickets for 130 (I know this is OVERSIMPLIFICATION) but more arguments are stated on the site and I won't repeat them here so don't flame me for that. I think that simply appeals to ppl - those doing 130 and 140 today do not want to feel like complete criminals. Shouldn't we, then, have a say in our legislation, you know, the mere 90% of us??

What happened to leaving?

See... that's what I'm talking about. Why am I even commenting?

Ya dude...what were you thinkin??? Gtam bikers don't like fast...we are slowwww

Me too. I'm just doing this 'cos I have way too much time on my hands.

I also respect your tenacity, though your snide remarks about those who disagree with you aren't helping you.

Anyways, since you appear to have directed some questions at me, I will try and answer them.



I can't speak for anyone but myself. If you're asking about me, well I don't oppose a 120 limit, I simply oppose a movement or any effort to force the change because it's a waste of time as it would make no difference. If the speed limit were already 120 and someone tried to start a petition to get it lowered to 100, I also wouldn't support that (as long as I knew the cops wouldn't enforce speeding below 120).

Besides, people ***** and whine about everything these days, no matter how trivial.

"I want more salt on the roads!" "Why do they use so much salt on the roads?" "There's not enough light on my street!" "The lights are too bright on my street!" "That intersection is dangerous, there should be a stop sign!" "Why are they putting stop signs on every friggin intersection these days?"

I would like to see all these nuisance complaints (such as I belive yours is) disappear so that our elected officials can focus on the problems that matter. Improve the signal-to-noise ratio, if you will.

Real problems include the excessive influence of money in the democratic process. The lack of funding for OAS, education, health. The incredibly short sighted "planning" of our infrastructure development (of which the speed limit represents obout 0.01% of the problem).



All that info does is support the contenion that we would manage just fine if the speed limit were increased. It does nothing to explain the need for it.

I asked you to show us how we would be better off, and when you did I explained why those reasons were not a valid concern in my view. HorizonXP pretty much spelled out the same problem with your movement; it lacks any demonstrated advantage over what we have now. All these "facts" you obsess over do nothing to change that.

I think the clear advantage for drivers across the entire province is quite evident. People get ticketed for 130 every day (maybe not so much in GTA where enforcement is loose and much harder to implement anyway - and thank God cops are people too and probably understand our concerns) - but it is the reality outside GTA. Why ticket someone and wreck their good insurance standing if they're not killing anyone at 130 (silly KS drivers, as mentioned can do that legally, so why can't we? We already drive that fast and not causing widespread casualties, so should we really risk ticket and insurance hike for continuing the current practice? I have no tickets myself - but that's irrelevant - this law affects not just me but millions of drivers every day - as I said before - I don't know what's the tolerance of cops in Oshawa, is that healthy?). So yes, I know this won't apply to politicians as much - but I think it does to a VAST majority of people who simply want to drive the way they do now or a hair faster - LEGALLY. Do you still not believe/support the idea that we should have a say on this matter? We are - after all - the primary users of the road and WE are responsible for our well being/safety on the road. We're not a bunch of silly Canadians who get on the roads to crash and kill. MTO stats confirm that. All I'm saying is - LEGALIZE OUR CURRENT SAFE DRIVING PATTERNS. But if you have concrete ideas on how to improve the case, let me know. Appeal to politicians? How? I know this may be though to change and it's difficult to reach out to garnish enough support, but how else would one do this?
 
No, really, I had no knowledge of what bikers are like. Seriously. No bias whatsoever. Like I said, been on a bike once, a really cool biker friend of mine took me on a real fast ride (let's say he'd lose his bike now) on 407, sure he complained about 401 in TO being always under construction, but that's about what I knew about bikers. If anything, the reason I came for support here is I thought bikers would want to do 130 legally instead of doing it illegally, just like most car drivers. Wrong? (of course I know many of you'd rather do 180 legally but we know we can't have that ever on this planet). We gotta start somewhere...

can you answer my first question please. Will I get BETTER fuel efficiency the faster we go?
 
Sure I will. To answer directly - of course 130 is slightly less efficient than 100 (depends on a car - SUVs will observe higher consumption increase than cars (than bikes?)). Although the difference is NOT nearly as great as it used to be in the 70s where cars burnt and LOT more at 130.

But a true answer lies in freedom of choice. How fast do you ride currently? 100? I didn't think so. So if you're currently going 115-120 - with 120 speed limit you have a FULL RIGHT to remain at the same speed! And at the same fuel consumption! We vote for legalizing the MAXIMUM, no MINIMUM... So the indirect answer is - you'd burn ZERO liters more per 100! Because it is your hand and my foot that decides that. And at 120, you won't be seriously blocking traffic, no more than you would be today. I am simply for freedom of CHOICE - if I want to save gas, I will cruise at currently semi-legal 117, if I don't I'll go at (future) legal 130. Would you rather have a choice or not? Second angle to this answer lies in current practices today - if we were soooo concerned about your question - why are most people in GTA doing 120-140 today? It is their choice, isn't it? And it should be. Hope this answers.
 
Sure I will. To answer directly - of course 130 is slightly less efficient than 100 (depends on a car - SUVs will observe higher consumption increase than cars (than bikes?)). Although the difference is NOT nearly as great as it used to be in the 70s where cars burnt and LOT more at 130.

But a true answer lies in freedom of choice. How fast do you ride currently? 100? I didn't think so. So if you're currently going 115-120 - with 120 speed limit you have a FULL RIGHT to remain at the same speed! And at the same fuel consumption! We vote for legalizing the MAXIMUM, no MINIMUM... So the indirect answer is - you'd burn ZERO liters more per 100! Because it is your hand and my foot that decides that. And at 120, you won't be seriously blocking traffic, no more than you would be today. I am simply for freedom of CHOICE - if I want to save gas, I will cruise at currently semi-legal 117, if I don't I'll go at (future) legal 130. Would you rather have a choice or not? Second angle to this answer lies in current practices today - if we were soooo concerned about your question - why are most people in GTA doing 120-140 today? It is their choice, isn't it? And it should be. Hope this answers.

Thank you for answering my question. Yes I do drive AND ride at 100km/hr. I am that guy in the UK flag decaled MINI or the blue dirt bike looking motorcycle chilling in the right hand lane watching all those fools blow their money for no reason except poor time management.

It has already been mentioned. Speed is irrelevant whereas lane discipline, use of turning signals, and general common courtesy IS relevant.
 
So now its 130? I actually like to ride around at 160, I would support that campaign.
 
Why ticket someone and wreck their good insurance standing if they're not killing anyone at 130 (silly KS drivers, as mentioned can do that legally, so why can't we?

We already drive that fast and not causing widespread casualties, so should we really risk ticket and insurance hike for continuing the current practice?

No, KS drivers can't do 130 legally. Nor have our roads been designed to support traffic at 130, nor have we ever had a limit that high before. Making it impossible to issue a ticket for anyone going 130 or less is a terrible idea because there are frequently instances when that speed is excessive.

And again, you really need to be specific about what you want. Obviously you know that you will get less support for a 130 limit than a 120 limit so you have been muddling the figure all along. Plenty of people get away 130 and I have no sympathy for those who don't, so that's not an issue for me.

Do you still not believe/support the idea that we should have a say on this matter?

We DO have a say, I just don't think it makes sense to exercise what little voice we have in politics with such trivial concerns.

But if you have concrete ideas on how to improve the case, let me know. Appeal to politicians? How? I know this may be though to change and it's difficult to reach out to garnish enough support, but how else would one do this?

A few suggestions have been made already to help improve your effort;
1- Clearly define your goal.
2- Present the net benefit to the public with supporting evidence (saying "it's not dangerous" is not a benefit).
3- Use some method other than facebook to get petitions. An actual petition with signatures is the minimum starting point.
4- Be a strong and respectful representative so it reflects well on your campaign.

Good luck, but to me you're just a classic rebel without a cause. As they say on DD, I'm out.
 
Last edited:
I say make 130 legal with 120 km/h limit and smaller 10 km/h tolerance. Then people will be able to cruise at 129 'at peace'. Something we can't do right now, but we do anyway. KS limit is 120 + 8 km tolerance = 128.

True 130 speed limit probably has no chances, I know. I believe 120 would and should.

The problem I see with online petitions is that they can essentially be anonymous and fake. Hence fb to get real people. What do you think?

Oh and if you support 100, I will appreciate a vote for 100 on www.stop100.ca. I want a true measure of public opinion. So far 12% of ppl oppose 120-130.

What other means of reaching the public do you all recommend?
 
Funny..I have an EU license too. Strange thing is though I've seen way more accidents here due to bad driving than I have in the other countries I've lived in, both slow and fast speed crashes. I have driven in the UK and France, here and the US. Still not sure why you think 130 is a good idea though given that that is not a common speed limit worldwide. The average appears to be about 110 to 120 in most countries, many where driver habits and licensing are better than here. I think if you can get to a point where driver habits are demonstrably changed then you could suggest a speed increase. Until then, it would be like letting the insane take control of the asylum.
 
Have you ever setup a table at a mall or something similar to get opinions from the general public? Internet forums/facebook are geared more towards the tech savy generation in comparison to the older generations whom may not even own a computer. Just something to consider.

I personally feel that 120 is an acceptable speed limit on the 400 series highways and travel at those speeds most of the time. At the same time I can not afford a hike in my insurance and therefor am always on the look out for cops. I have driven many different vehicles on the 400 series and found most are more comfortable at 120 vs 130. There may be many advancements in new vehicles technology but keep in mind many old vehicles are still on the road and travel on said 400 series highways on a daily basis.
 
a
Funny..I have an EU license too. Strange thing is though I've seen way more accidents here due to bad driving than I have in the other countries I've lived in, both slow and fast speed crashes. I have driven in the UK and France, here and the US. Still not sure why you think 130 is a good idea though given that that is not a common speed limit worldwide. The average appears to be about 110 to 120 in most countries, many where driver habits and licensing are better than here. I think if you can get to a point where driver habits are demonstrably changed then you could suggest a speed increase. Until then, it would be like letting the insane take control of the asylum.

That's why 120 would be way more feasible, I know. The reason I've 'remotely' (read: with no hope) brought up 130 limit is the following.

1. why not allow Ontario to join the leading countries with low casualty rates at 130 limit (France, Austria, Texas, Utah....)? Of course - increase ENFORCEMENT A LOT - or BETTER YET shift its attention (in my dream world) to left lane passing, aggressive driving, "stupid" driving. etc. at the same time. Punish those infractions heavily and allow the smart traffic flow at 140.

2. 140-145 is a speed I frequently observe in left lane on 407 AND 401 Express in the east end. I don't see idiots on a verge of accidents. I have personally never felt endangered in a pack of cars flowing near impoundment speed (so why impound cars and criminalize those people if they all usually get safely home)? Studies and stats clearly show SPEED does not increase chance of accident - but their severity. So cars flowing at 140-145 technically have roughly the same chance of crashing as those at 130-135 - because the speed is not the main determining factor (driver distraction and other causes are). Again, I and all my neighbours, friends I speak to frequently see 140-145 practiced on 400-series and no crashes or near-crashes (and the roads are safe per MTO).

But again, I know it has no chances, just an answer to your question. If Texans and Utahns (spelling?) can live with 128 limit in some areas, are we that much worse? Maybe not, despite initial fears...

Have you ever setup a table at a mall or something similar to get opinions from the general public? Internet forums/facebook are geared more towards the tech savy generation in comparison to the older generations whom may not even own a computer. Just something to consider.

I personally feel that 120 is an acceptable speed limit on the 400 series highways and travel at those speeds most of the time. At the same time I can not afford a hike in my insurance and therefor am always on the look out for cops. I have driven many different vehicles on the 400 series and found most are more comfortable at 120 vs 130. There may be many advancements in new vehicles technology but keep in mind many old vehicles are still on the road and travel on said 400 series highways on a daily basis.

Thanks for the advice. Please support the cause at www.stop100.ca and do facebook like. That's what we have for now to get support, until someone can recommend something better.
 
@chrison

Try a different forum, I'm serious.

Please don't stereotype or lump riders up into the majority of users here on GTAM. Some of us are really nice and friendly in real life. It's just the majority that are on here that give all of us a horrible name; as I've stated before, I still have to convince my girl friend that not every rider has an IQ border-lining mental retardation (due to lack of cognitive skills or critical thinking skills), and that we're not "entitled idiots that want to enforce our views on everyone else".

There are forums made for specific bikes, go to ones like gixxer, R6, CB1000, Z1000, just pick sport bikes and massive CC bikes; nobody buys those to ride in slow motion. The majority of users here cry about the government and us becoming a "police state" (which is by far not as bad as the US, so the term shouldn't even be used), but given any chance to fight the "I'm too pussy" syndrome starts coming out.
 
I can't be botherd to read all 9 pages of this but one thing I know, if they increase the speed limit to even 110km/h they'll have to redesgin all the on/off ramps. I can't remember the last time I actually merged onto the highway behind someone at 100km/h.
 
Where's the petition to force trucks into the right lane during rush hour? I've got my pen in hand, ready to sign......several times. If we could just get all those idiots in rigs who insist on passing each other (at their buddy next to them's speed+.05kmh), clogging up 2 of the three lanes during rush hour, you wouldn't feel the need to wick it up to 140 outside of the GTA to make up all the time you lost in town from these bozos hogging the road.
 
The issue is one of lack of highways as much as it is about unrealistic speed limits. There are far too many idiots who can't drive at 100 km/h let alone 120, and then it would bump the "real" limit to 140km/h and that would cause havoc on the congested roads with so many morons being given their driver's license these days because they can steer a car.

What's needed are new toll roads with NO speed limits May 1st through Oct 31, and 130 otherwise with a minimum of 120 weather permitting. Like the mid-pennisula highway being discussed for the last 1000 years. Build it, toss in some nicely banked sweepers, have a toll at either end, and advise people to stay off unless at their own risk, stay the eff right unless to pass, shoulder check before you change lanes and a minimum speed of 120km/h and watch the money come pouring in from the millions of speed enthusiasts from hundreds if not thousands of miles away so they can set their babys free without fear of persecution for a hundred miles or so and 20-30.00 a crack. It would MAKE money, like casinos and booze, and cigarettes etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom