Increased hwy speed limit | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Increased hwy speed limit

Increase the f***ing limit and have cops put as much emphasis on the distracted, the slow, the obstructionists, those that don't signal, those that tailgate etc as they currently do on those going a few kph over some arbitrary limit.
When do you ever see cops on the highway... hardly.
 
5 minutes? Was that sarcasm?
Not exactly in my experience. Was coming back at the end of a weekend in 2 separate vehicles. My buddy hit it and got to passing cars and not exactly at the limit. I pulled up in his driveway 5 minutes after he did. He said I must have been wailing it too....nope, I did the flow of traffic, not doing aggressive passing etc.

I do think that when/if the limit goes up, many will go faster up to 15-20 over it....like they do now.
 
The median speed will go up if the speed limit is raised. People that do 130-140 now will be doing 150-160 if the limit is changed to 120.

That has proven to NOT be the case in the USA. when speed limits went up (initially from 55 mph to 65 mph and then later to higher speeds in many states) average speeds barely changed.

What did change was less of left lane bandits causing dangerous backups of traffic and drops in crash/fatality rates.

..Tom
 
No, it's not necessary, and in case you don't know that the GTA has the 6th worst traffic congestion in the world, and in summer the 400 is crawling on weekends.
LOL... great logic. 2 days out of 7 and only in the summer there is a lot of traffic so we shouldn't raise the speed limit! :rolleyes:
 
The median speed will go up if the speed limit is raised. People that do 130-140 now will be doing 150-160 if the limit is changed to 120.

So not true.
 
The speed limits should have been restored to the pre-energy crisis limit of 70mph (112kph) as soon as the fuel shortages were over in the early 80's. There is no need to keep the limits set well below the design speed on multi-lane highways, other than to create a revenue stream. On 400 series highways outside of built-up areas, the limit should be set to at least 110kph, preferably 120kph. The Province could leave the 100kph limit within larger cities should they feel that is needed.
I have driven many US Interstates with 70mph limits and have found that the vast majority of drivers keep their speed to around 75mph. The traffic flows better and I find a 200 mile drive along the I-90 to be relaxing.
 
Many years ago, when the 401 speed limit was 70 mph, the majority of drivers would be between 70 - 80 mph. It got dropped to 60 mph - to reduce fuel consumption ? - and Trudeau went to metric and the speed was bumped a bit, to 100 kph. People still did 70 - 80 mph (120 - 130 kph) - and they are still doing it now, when traffic flow permits it. In jurisdictions in the US, where speed limits were increased on some interstates, there was not a corresponding rise in the speed that drivers travelled. It would seem that 80 mph + or - 5 mph, (around 125 - 130 kph) is a speed that most drivers are comfortable with, regardless of posted limits.
 
On the long stretches in rural Australia the speed limit can be as high as 130 and some 110.
Most are 80-100 kph but very strictly enforced even by photo radar.
 
SHHHHH! Don't give them any ideas
Increasing speed saves a lot more time than the difference between 100 and 120KMH over distance. When you increase speed on a roadway, the capacity of the roadway increases at the same rate as speed. This means you the onset of congestion is extended by quite a large factor, which is the greater time saver.

I don't think safety is a major factor. 40 years ago speed limits were as high as 75 mph in Canada - they reduced speeds to save fuel during the 70's energy crisis, it was not done to increase safety. If 60s' era cars could handle the speed, I think modern cars can do same..

If you increase speed you decrease the length of time a vehicle spends on a given section of roadway but if you calculate in the increased distance required by cars to prevent tailgating one pretty much negates the other with regards to capacity.
 
Last edited:
If you increase speed you increase the length of time a vehicle spends on a given section of roadway
...

And that's the point! Highways are not storage areas for cars... it isn't about how many can sit in traffic (Don Valley Parking Lot Notwithstanding) but about how long trips take you, the rider/driver.

..Tom
 
If you increase speed you increase the length of time a vehicle spends on a given section of roadway but if you calculate in the increased distance required by cars to prevent tailgating one pretty much negates the other with regards to capacity.
That's not the way it works. Increasing speed reduces the amount of time on an un-congested roadway. As speed reduces, congestion increases and it's pretty much a direct relationship - 1/2 the speed, double congestion. Increase speed by 20%, 20% more cars will pass the same area before the onset of congestion.
 
Increased speed limits are long overdue. Today's vehicles are capable of higher highway speeds not to mention most don't travel at the speed limit anyway.

I also feel that the left lane should be indicated with a different colour lane marker, for ***** and giggles let's say say green, and painted markings in the lane that say "Not passing? Move to right lane".
 
Last edited:
Speed limit change is also supposed to include increased fine + 2 demerit points for left lane cruising/driving below limit.

Great idea, but we’d need actual enforcement on a regular basis for that to not be just another law that people will ignore.
 
This is good news for those of us who ride and drive and know what the hell we're doing. What scares me are the incompetent drivers that can now drive faster.
 
This is good news for those of us who ride and drive and know what the hell we're doing. What scares me are the incompetent drivers that can now drive faster.
It's frightening living near U of W with the number of new drivers in their high end cars Daddy has bought them.Esp the foreign students.(am i allowed to say that?)
 
That's not the way it works. Increasing speed reduces the amount of time on an un-congested roadway. As speed reduces, congestion increases and it's pretty much a direct relationship - 1/2 the speed, double congestion. Increase speed by 20%, 20% more cars will pass the same area before the onset of congestion.

My bad. Increase of speed decreases the time a vehicle spends on a section of roadway. However if you calculate in the greater safety space needed between cars the gain in road capacity is minimal. If you hitched cars together the direct relationship works, just like a train. The reality of a safety zone between cars seriously changes the number.

The old "One car length for each 10 MPH" figure means a lot fewer cars on the given stretch of road.

Regardless, all it takes is one bad or inconsiderate driver to wreck the minuscule gain. First we need better drivers.
 
It's the drivers who are scared to drive on the highway that hog the left lane, because they don't need to deal with too many other drivers who are merging from the ramp onto the highway. These are the drivers typically going either exactly the speed limit or well below it in the left most or middle lanes.

What I've noticed is, once cars going faster reach these scared drivers, they slam their brakes which causes a chain reaction and a traffic clog. Other scared drivers following these cars will also slam their brakes, even if they're a mile away. This combined with a little congestion is the recipe for what we experience on the highway.

In other provinces like Quebec, Alberta, in my experience, majority of the slow drivers stay in the right lane and traffic situation is significantly better than here.

This is what we need to fix.
 
Is it just me or it seems like the same drivers that are doing 20+ over on city streets are the same ones doing 98kmh on the highway... probably the same ones stopping 5meters before the crosswalk line

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk
 

Back
Top Bottom