Interesting CBC article today:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/speed-limits-is-faster-safer-1.3280254
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/speed-limits-is-faster-safer-1.3280254
|
|
|
Speed limits: Is faster safer?
- Thread starter h0ck3y
- Start date
conundrum
Well-known member
Disparity in speed is one of the largest factors imo. This means that it isn't so much someone going 150km/h that is dangerous...it's the fact that they have people around them doing anywhere between 80-150km/h, if on the 401. The disparity in speed also causes people to constantly change lanes, and every lane change is another opportunity for an accident..either to you, or to those around you.
As for faster vs slower...I can't comment on others, but if I ever get stuck behind someone doing under the limit, part of me wants to start thinking about other things or maybe pick up the phone (I never do that though). There was the 'speed kills the pocketbook' video on YouTube about BC a year or two back that stated speed limits should be set to where 80% of people would worry about driving faster in ideal conditions...the problem is most of our roadways are set to about 40-60%, not 80%.
As for faster vs slower...I can't comment on others, but if I ever get stuck behind someone doing under the limit, part of me wants to start thinking about other things or maybe pick up the phone (I never do that though). There was the 'speed kills the pocketbook' video on YouTube about BC a year or two back that stated speed limits should be set to where 80% of people would worry about driving faster in ideal conditions...the problem is most of our roadways are set to about 40-60%, not 80%.
People don't check their blind spots and use turn signals because they have a false sense of security on modern cars at such slow speed, increase the speeds and you will see people starting to pay attention, IMO will also solve the issue of texting while driving, don't see many doing it on the 407 where the average speeds are over 120.
This point has been discussed to death in this forum.
Some think speeds should remain because there are bad drivers out there, others like me think that increasing the speeds is a good thing to solve some of the symptoms of bad driving .. and the wheel goes round and round
Given the percentiles (i.e. where the vast majority of people are driving anyway), the speeds for which the highways were designed and modern technology in cars (stability programs, traction and anti-lock braking controls, blind-spot monitoring, lane-keep assist etc) I would be glad to see the legal limit raised to a more realistic 120 to get rid of this maddening arbitrary enforcement where 120 is okay unless you're alone or at the front of a pack of cars and a radar cop randomly singles you out.
I think raising the limit would also reduce speed disparities but we could also seek to have police focus some attention on those going slower than the flow of traffic as much as they now focus on those going faster.
I would lower the delta to an HTA172 offense though, meaning although the limit would be 120kph, going 30kph over that limit still results in the same penalties we see now for going 50kph over. This would be similar to Germany where limits are high but tolerance for exceeding them by even small amounts is low.
I think raising the limit would also reduce speed disparities but we could also seek to have police focus some attention on those going slower than the flow of traffic as much as they now focus on those going faster.
I would lower the delta to an HTA172 offense though, meaning although the limit would be 120kph, going 30kph over that limit still results in the same penalties we see now for going 50kph over. This would be similar to Germany where limits are high but tolerance for exceeding them by even small amounts is low.
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]"I think it comes down to basic physics, really," says Dr. Jeff Brubacher, an emergency room physician and road safety researcher in Vancouver. "If you're going faster, and you have a crash, you're going to have more injuries. And that's just basic kinetic energy."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This statement has me thinking. The doctor states "faster speeds will have more injuries" I can agree with that to an extent. What I can't agree with is that the speed is actually faster. Earlier in the article the general speed of traffic for the 85th percentile was 110-120 km/h on the study sections of Highway 401. So is the speed really faster? It seems everyone is doing that speed so wouldn't the accidents witnessed along 400 series highways already be at the speeds?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If the speed limits are increased (120km/h) and people don't feel the need to do the 10-20 km/h (130-140 km/h) over as they do now the data and accident severity should be virtually the same.
Just my thoughts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]This statement has me thinking. The doctor states "faster speeds will have more injuries" I can agree with that to an extent. What I can't agree with is that the speed is actually faster. Earlier in the article the general speed of traffic for the 85th percentile was 110-120 km/h on the study sections of Highway 401. So is the speed really faster? It seems everyone is doing that speed so wouldn't the accidents witnessed along 400 series highways already be at the speeds?[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]If the speed limits are increased (120km/h) and people don't feel the need to do the 10-20 km/h (130-140 km/h) over as they do now the data and accident severity should be virtually the same.
Just my thoughts.[/FONT]
Agreed and Germany is a great example. Spent a lot of time on the autobahn this past summer and at +200km/h speeds, almost all drivers (+/-95%) are paying attention and driving properly. I'm not entirely sure if it's because of the higher speed limits or just better drivers, but given that MANY accidents on the autobahn are often fatal, I'm guessing higher speed limits are keeping most people in check.
The cool thing in Germany too is that trucks are forced to only use the far-most right lane during peak times. Electronic signs above each lane on the busier parts of the autobahn show which vehicle is allowed in it at that particular time.
This would be true if people were mostly hitting trees or static objects, but accidents occur mostly between 2 moving vehicles where if one is doing 80 and the other 120 there will be more damage than if both vehicles that crashed traveled at 120 km/hr.
Let's all be real, our current speed limit is not for safety, is for revenue collection.
But we are Canadian, so we are just going to take it and think what the Ontario Minister is saying is actually true and completely ignore the studies other provinces have done before they increased their limits.
Last edited:
And just what will the transport truck speed limit be?
If the the same, you will have even higher speed differentials with trucks on the 401.
If raised correspondingly to the increase for cars, the trucks will be going 20% faster than they go now and that 20% faster equates to about 44% greater kinetic energy and braking distances, and that much greater crash forces when what was an avoidable crash now becomes an unavoidable crash because of the 44% longer braking distances that come with 20% increased speed.
If the the same, you will have even higher speed differentials with trucks on the 401.
If raised correspondingly to the increase for cars, the trucks will be going 20% faster than they go now and that 20% faster equates to about 44% greater kinetic energy and braking distances, and that much greater crash forces when what was an avoidable crash now becomes an unavoidable crash because of the 44% longer braking distances that come with 20% increased speed.
And why again are MANY crashes on the Autobahn fatal?
Riceburner
Well-known member
Would help if they made the left lane a minimum speed one too. IIRC, that's done in AB.
I82l8
Well-known member
IMHO the single biggest problem on the 400 series highways is that people are sitting in the centre of left lane without passing anybody and subsequently it being tolerated to pass on the right.
In western European countries you never see that, people are in the right hand lane unless they're passing and after they complete the passing manoeuvre they pull back to the right....but then nobody would think of passing on the right either.
In western European countries you never see that, people are in the right hand lane unless they're passing and after they complete the passing manoeuvre they pull back to the right....but then nobody would think of passing on the right either.
Transport speeds are limited at 110 km/h, 10km/h over the speed limit on the 400 series highways. This makes the difference between car traffic and transport traffic 10km/h theoretically. It's not a matter of raising the speed limit 20 km/h as it would look (changing the signs from 100 to 120). It is really just allowing the traffic to flow as it has been (120km/h) with adjusted speed limit signs.
As the study suggests the 85th percentile is already doing 120 km/h, so the speed of incidents in recent history or traffic patterns would not be changing as drastic as it may seem.
I think the hardest point to get across is the changing of the speed limit from 100 to 120. People are doing 120 for the most part already. It's really just changing the number on the sign and then enforcing the actual 120 km/h speed limit. Not this 19 km/h or less buffer zone.
Hate to break it to you, but heavy trucks in this province must be electronically governed (by law, subject to spot checks) to 105KPH max. Many fleets, including my own, are set at 100 or perhaps 101.
So as mentioned, if the speed limits for cars is going to be increased to 120, you know many will push that to 130 (and some to 140) so you're talking a potentially near 40% difference in speeds, and that HAS been statistically proven to be very dangerous. The greater majority of truck fleets, even if allowed, won't run much over 105 as the fuel penalties are staggering. You'll see the aggregate haulers (paid by the load, so incentive to go like mad) crank their trucks up immediately of course, but given they are amongst the most poorly mannered (and often skilled) commercial drivers I observe on a daily basis, I'm not sure that's a good thing. A few brokers will take advantage of it as well because some don't know (or don't care) that they're loosing 20 or 30% of their profits by running 120+ vs 100.
If driver education in this province ever actually results in skilled G class drivers being licenced (instead of the current "You have a pulse and a crayon? Here's a licence!" status quo) then I think they could consider raising speed limits, but with the way things are now, I think we're doing just fine.
Transport limits are supposed to be limited by governor to 105 kmph.
If you change the signs here to 120, traffic speeds will ratchet up to some degree and so do fatalities. Many drivers limit their speeds to what they think the police will tolerate, and there is no expectation that the police will suddenly start enforcing tighter tolerances if speed limits are raised.
With higher travel speeds generally comes increased fatality rates. "Brubacher points to a 2009 analysis by the Norwegian Centre for Transportation Research that reviewed research from around the world. That research found that when jurisdictions raised speed limits and mean traffic speed also rose, an increase in speed of one per cent meant fatalities increased by four per cent."
We just have to look south where this exercise has already be done. See some very detailed results recorded in the wake of national 55 mph speed limit repeal in the US. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808-637.pdf
I definitely had the transport speed limiting wrong. I also agree with the fact that most transport companies wouldn't want to dip into their profits by ramping up their fleets speed. I do think it is quiet easy for the OPP to enforce tighter speed regulations. A simple staff meeting and a memo and most officers would get the point that the speed limit has been raised and the allowable speed buffer has been lowered or eliminated.
For the record I drive very little, 10k or less in my car a year, about 10k on the bike for fun. So a higher speed limit doesn't really matter to me. I just wanted to state that "raising" the limit to what people are already driving isn't going to cause quiet as many issues as some think. I will however not be ignorant and say there will be only good to come from it.
For now I will leave my car at 119km/h on the 400's and not worry when I go by an OPP camping out and save my spirited riding for the roads with long sight lines, few entrances and no traffic.
Cheers
For the record I drive very little, 10k or less in my car a year, about 10k on the bike for fun. So a higher speed limit doesn't really matter to me. I just wanted to state that "raising" the limit to what people are already driving isn't going to cause quiet as many issues as some think. I will however not be ignorant and say there will be only good to come from it.
For now I will leave my car at 119km/h on the 400's and not worry when I go by an OPP camping out and save my spirited riding for the roads with long sight lines, few entrances and no traffic.
Cheers
Random thoughts:
Personally, I wouldn't want to see them raised much higher, and if so there should be more enforcement.
There would be more motorcycle fatalities, as they are not perceived as a threat by other road users.
Speed exacerbates. Not quite as catchy as Speed kills, but still better than delta v kills.
Five or ten kilometers an hour can mean the difference between a clean getaway and death in an accident.
If you can stop in 150 feet from 60 mph, then it takes 176 feet from 65 mph, being a difference of 26 feet.
Translated to metric that's 45.72 metres from 96.56 kph, and 53.64 metres from 104.6 kph, which is 7.92 metres.
That's a long distance for only 8 kph. As you go faster it gets worse, because you travel further before you react.
The thing is that if you were trying to stop from the higher speed, at 150 feet you'd be going 25 mph, or over 40 kph, when you hit the object. http://www.msgroup.org/Tip.aspx?Num=262&Set=
People won't change their habits if speed limits are increased, they will just get more seriously injured when they crash.
Here's a quote from a driver on the autobahn:
"The Takeaway
With the reality of traffic and imperfect drivers (I often saw Germans texting and talking on cell phones while driving, which is illegal there), the Autobahn didn't quite fit the Nirvana of Speed my ignorant mind had created, but it was still a great experience."
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/16/american-autobahn-driving-guide/
Personally, I wouldn't want to see them raised much higher, and if so there should be more enforcement.
There would be more motorcycle fatalities, as they are not perceived as a threat by other road users.
Speed exacerbates. Not quite as catchy as Speed kills, but still better than delta v kills.
Five or ten kilometers an hour can mean the difference between a clean getaway and death in an accident.
If you can stop in 150 feet from 60 mph, then it takes 176 feet from 65 mph, being a difference of 26 feet.
Translated to metric that's 45.72 metres from 96.56 kph, and 53.64 metres from 104.6 kph, which is 7.92 metres.
That's a long distance for only 8 kph. As you go faster it gets worse, because you travel further before you react.
The thing is that if you were trying to stop from the higher speed, at 150 feet you'd be going 25 mph, or over 40 kph, when you hit the object. http://www.msgroup.org/Tip.aspx?Num=262&Set=
People won't change their habits if speed limits are increased, they will just get more seriously injured when they crash.
Here's a quote from a driver on the autobahn:
"The Takeaway
With the reality of traffic and imperfect drivers (I often saw Germans texting and talking on cell phones while driving, which is illegal there), the Autobahn didn't quite fit the Nirvana of Speed my ignorant mind had created, but it was still a great experience."
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/16/american-autobahn-driving-guide/
Last edited:
That would require actual boots on the ground though, and as someone in the commercial industry who spends more time going in reverse every year than some people drive forwards, trust me, that's lacking.
I run the stretch of Hwy 7 between Peterborough and Ottawa 5 times a week. It's a total free for all. I set my truck at 90 (after receiving a ticket for 102 in an 80 a few years ago) and people loose their mind driving behind me. I've seen people risk (and almost get involved in) head on collisions to pass me and then roar off into the distance at what is very clearly 110, 120+...in an 80 zone.
Perhaps once a month I see police enforcement in the form of clear speed trap setups. I pass cruisers a few times a week and have witnessed people blowing past them (and sometimes mashing on the brakes at the last second) at well over the limits and nothing happens.
Ditto much of the 401.
Most trucks without the limiter travel at the flow of traffic that is between around 120. There is a reason trucks are supposed to stay on the right lane, but they can't because the soccer mom with the minivan texting is going at 80km/hr on that lane.... If we are lucky enough and they are not doing the same on the fast lane..
Hopefully people in this argument will be smart enough to understand that the reason for the limiter on trucks to 105 is because the speed limit is 100, if the speed limit increases the limiters will have to be adjusted like wise hence eliminating the exaggerated "40km/hr" speed differential some are mentioning. But I will not hold my breath
Hopefully people in this argument will be smart enough to understand that the reason for the limiter on trucks to 105 is because the speed limit is 100, if the speed limit increases the limiters will have to be adjusted like wise hence eliminating the exaggerated "40km/hr" speed differential some are mentioning. But I will not hold my breath
Last edited:
There are no heavy commercial trucks without the limiter. Even out of province / country trucks must adhere before crossing into Ontario.
|
|
|
|
|