Re: Why is the speed limit in Canada on highways only 100 kph?
The problem with increasing allowed speed is that physics is working against you. Stopping distance increase exponentially with velocity, while that is fine and dandy with a 2 ton car, how about a 6 ton truck, or a 15 ton box truck, or a 30 ton bus.
Now segregate the heavy vehicle from the speed increase wouldn't work, you'd have much higher closing speeds to now. It's asking too much for a johnny ol 4-wheeler to monitor 100 ft in front, higher speeds would require much further scanning to remain aware of ones surroundings. -- AFK: Attack, fight, kill!! The healer is telling you to go pull mobs. WTF: Way to fight! The healer is applauding your tactical genius
A B.C perspective. Applies nationally for the most part.
There's a lot of great points in that video and it was kind of fun. Even if people disagree with the video maker's point of view, he has a number of facts that question how we ticket people.
Here in Calgary, they opened up the north section of Metis Trail to connect to Stoney Trail a couple of years ago. It's a four lane divided roadway designed to funnel traffic from a Provincial Highway (Stoney Trail) to the NE quadrant of the city. As well, except for 2 other instances in the city (Morley Trail and Banff Trail) the 'Trail' designation is used for freeway type roadways. Well, they opened this beautiful new Metis Trail with a 50km limit. A co worker got a ticket soon after it opened. Literally, the following week, the limit was changed to 70km. What changed about the road? Absolutely nothing. It was bullshit and he fought the ticket, but the court wasn't able to use any common sense and still made him pay the fine.
I too got a speeding ticket on an empty 4 lane divided "Trail" in Calgary doing 82 in a 60 zone.
Get rid of speed limits and vigorously charge aggressive driving. -- I'm a man, but I can change. If I have to. I guess.
Busted in Ohio for doing 67 in a 65 (I70). Got a warning. I always stuck to the limit in New York. Since I only travel to Buffalo, I have no experience on the interstates in NY, other than the local highways which I know to stick to there speed limit. But on the I75 side, you're better off sticking to what they want.
I still stand by my other comment. People tend to do about 20% over the limit. Just driving on the 401 through construction and none-contruction zones prove that. (though when it's 80 people do about 110)
As for the 401, between west Kitchener and Windsor there is no reason why it shouldn't be 130 or 140 in most spots. Lots of nothing and nothing to see...very few curves, and none of them are sharp when they exist. It's six lanes (3 each way) between Kitchener and London and little traffic.
I wouldn't say there's not many curves between Kitchener and Woodstock.
A good buddy of mine is an NYSP officer and he'll ticket people for 3 mph over the limit any day of the week. I also have an NRP friend that has ticketed people for going 1 Km/h over the limit and every court challenge he's there and they've always stuck.
A good buddy of mine is an NYSP officer and he'll ticket people for 3 mph over the limit any day of the week. I also have an NRP friend that has ticketed people for going 1 Km/h over the limit and every court challenge he's there and they've always stuck.
I would think that those guys would REALLY piss off their own bosses.
Because they can easily ticket drivers going MUCH faster, which is much more helpful to keep the roads safe, AND which brings in much more money.
Sooner or later they will really piss off the judges too. Judges are busy and don't want their time wasted on tiny fish when there are plenty of big fish around....
If people begin to leave an appropriate distance between cars at 120kph - I'll write letters to advocate an increase in the speed limit. Until then 100 suits me just fine. The majority seem to have enough trouble with that.
Sooner or later they will really piss off the judges too. Judges are busy and don't want their time wasted on tiny fish when there are plenty of big fish around....
Doesn't NY have local traffic judges and it can be a stream of revenue for small towns? I can't say for sure, because I have never received a ticket in NY. -- Need-based health care not greed-based health care.
Doesn't NY have local traffic judges and it can be a stream of revenue for small towns? I can't say for sure, because I have never received a ticket in NY.
Yes, but the town will make more money from a big speeder, than from someone barely going over the limit.
And there surely is no shortage of [big] speeders.
Doesn't NY have local traffic judges and it can be a stream of revenue for small towns? I can't say for sure, because I have never received a ticket in NY.
They used to, but not anymore. About a decade ago the state changed the ticket formula so that revenue from tickets went directly to the state, and then the state would proportionally distribute the revenue based on a funding formula. The hope was to stop villages (and I suppose cities and towns as well) from using their own police services as a revenue generator through speed traps as it had become a major point of contention and there were allegations of limits dropping in unusual areas with speed traps 24/7 causing safety issue. There were also allegations of corruption.
The municipalities, however, always get to keep revenue from parking tickets. What happens 99% in these villages and towns now is that they'll set you up with an immediate court date. The judge will then "reduce" the find to a parking infraction, to which the municipality keeps 100% of the proceeds. A friend of mine also had a Buffalo cop turn a speeding ticket into a parking ticket at the side of the road before he even wrote the ticket.
The State Troopers take no part in this scheme, it's only the local cops. Needless to say, it's sneaky, but to the benefit of drivers at least it doesn't affect insurance premiums.
If people begin to leave an appropriate distance between cars at 120kph - I'll write letters to advocate an increase in the speed limit. Until then 100 suits me just fine. The majority seem to have enough trouble with that.
What purpose does the 100 limit serve if it is universally ignored by over 85% of the drivers on the highway?
I'd like to see if there's any data that can prove accidents involving speeding drivers leads to an even worse death than if they were driving the speed limit. I've always heard that argument but I've not seen anything conclusive...
I remember an episode of Mythbusters where they busted a myth that hitting a moose at higher speeds would launch it over the car was false, or something strange like that. Hitting it slower resulted in less damage.
The problem with increasing allowed speed is that physics is working against you. Stopping distance increase exponentially with velocity, while that is fine and dandy with a 2 ton car, how about a 6 ton truck, or a 15 ton box truck, or a 30 ton bus.
Now segregate the heavy vehicle from the speed increase wouldn't work, you'd have much higher closing speeds to now. It's asking too much for a johnny ol 4-wheeler to monitor 100 ft in front, higher speeds would require much further scanning to remain aware of ones surroundings.
as i mentioned before in another thread (regarding the myth that motorcycles can stop so quickly), the key to stopping is friction...a transport truck with a secured load (heavy and stable) combined with numerous tires (large contact patch) can have tremendous braking ability if equipped with such systems...many people would likely be unable to stop as quickly in their cars, which would cause the people behind it to likely slam into it...despite it's massive weight (the volvo truck in the link below is loaded with 40 tons of cargo), that mass on all those tires provides substantial braking power...i also saw a video a few years ago with an M1A1 Abrams tank stopping on a roadway to demonstrate the same thing...the tank has rubber pads on its track...it also weighs about 68 tons...at 60 mph, it was able to stop on a paved road in something like 13 feet (shorter than most car lengths).
modern transport trucks equipped with improved safety features could be made mandatory, if the will was truly there...of course, the likely result is the trucks would now be able to stop, but that wouldn't stop the other 15 people behind it slamming into it.
Here on Vancouver Island, speed limits are crazy slow. It seems opposite to a road trip I did to California a few weeks ago.
I was driving the #1 highway (which we took off the 101 to drive down the northern coast) and there's a 40 mile stretch of highway #1 before you get to the coast. It's got lots of turns etc... The speed limit was 55mph. I'm lucky if I averaged 40mph on it. They key being I was driving in a Honda Civic. I had no need to do 55mph (nor did I think my skills and the car we up to it), but someone else might have better luck. I imagine an Astin Martin would eat that highway up for breakfast.
I actually felt like 55mph was a maximum. If I tried driving faster I'd probably go to fast around a corner and drive off into the forest. When the post maximum's here in Vancouver Island you can generally do 10 to 30kph faster than the posted limits (less if its raining) and you'll have no problems. Until you get to the freeway in the middle part of the Island the top speed limit is 90kph, with most speeds at 80kph. The only windy stretch are parts of the malahat (which if your smart enough you slow down for). The stretch around Nanaimo is flat, straight, and could probably support 110 easily.
So when I see a BC sign stating the maximum limit I don't really believe it. If I see a California maximum I think twice
Crossed the border and went to Vermont this weekend. The way the I89 was done, going 110-130 KPH on a 65MPH (~100KPH) felt completely smooth and safe, I could go higher but didn't want to pick up a ticket as they had quite a few workzones on the way, but going above 110 in Quebec and Ontario felt like I really needed to pay a lot of extra attention to merging cars, exits, entrances, turns, etc.
Everything just seems more compact and gives less time to react up here (at least on the highways I have been on).
Only thing bugging me about driving in the US is no lights on the highway... no wonder there is so much road kill over there. It's hard to see anything other than a car at night.
If people begin to leave an appropriate distance between cars at 120kph - I'll write letters to advocate an increase in the speed limit. Until then 100 suits me just fine. The majority seem to have enough trouble with that.
What purpose does the 100 limit serve if it is universally ignored by over 85% of the drivers on the highway?
For no reason other than to appease the "think of the children" types who know little about this topic yet see fit to expel a lot of hot air just the same.
For no reason other than to appease the "think of the children" types who know little about this topic yet see fit to expel a lot of hot air just the same.
So it sounds like you favour having no speed limits at all. And you accuse those who disagree with you as "knowing little about this topic"? Fascinating.....
personally i think the entire trans can should be 4 lanes divided with a 200km/h limit, and the two right most lanes are for traffic traveling below 120km/h with a minimum speed of 70km/h.
would be a good experiment to see your average lane usage.
Authorities like it when there is a large discrepancy between the allowed (100 km/h) and natural behaviour of people (more like 115-130 km/h). It allows for more selective enforcement.
Instead of needing to go faster than most to break the law, you only need to keep up with traffic flow. Then you look at a cop or their acquaintance the wrong way and bam a $200+ fine and some demerit points for doing something that everyone is doing.
We'll never see the limits raised.
Lots of laws like this, public intoxication is another one. They could nail almost everyone outside every bar every night. Why don't they? They save it for people that piss them off or as a cheap way of diffusing situations (for example instead of looking for the guy who sucker-punched my friend, they take him to the drunk tank because he's mad about it).
So it sounds like you favour having no speed limits at all. And you accuse those who disagree with you as "knowing little about this topic"? Fascinating.....
That's not what I said, so the only "fascinating" thing is the assumptions people make about this topic or the straw that gets thrown around in the name of ignorance.
The point I have been making all along is that it doesn't matter what you put on a sign, people will always drive the speed at which they feel safest. If it is a wide open freeway with wide shoulders and good sightlines, people are going to go 120-130. That's what people do on 400-series highways right now as it is. If you have a narrow two lane road with broken pavement and ditches right up against the side you'll have people drive 60-70 even with an 80KM/h. Dominion Road in Fort Erie is a perfect example of a road with an 80KM/h limit where people *always* drive slower than the posted limit because the road simply doesn't feel safe driving that fast on, and if you live in Thunder Bay you should already know this to be true. York Road in NOTL is another example of a road that operates slower than its speed limit.
If you want to slow people down, you need to design the road to make people feel less safe and therefore drive slower. Posting an artificially low speed in black letters on a white sign with the word maximum does zero to slow people down. Likewise, increasing that limit to 200KM/h will do zero to cause people to drive faster. When St. Catharines narrowed numerous streets throughout the city from four lanes to two plus turning lane and cycle lanes operating speeds dropped because people felt less safe driving so fast down a road without multiple travel lanes. This is precisely what you do to get people to slow down.
There is enough documented empirical evidence out there that proves everything above to be true, not "opinion" or anything like that. Watch the video, it cites most of this data and the producer even did some testing of its own. It's actual factual data. Whether or not you chose to believe it is irrelevant, because it doesn't make it any less true.
I'm fine with things the way they are and see no compelling reason to change it. The only thing I would like to see changed is increased enforcement of speed limits, following to close, improper lane changes, etc.
I would favour increased speed limits on good highways away from populated areas like some sections of the 401 but not on the QEW and built up sections of the 401. It's not a question of the road itself not being able to accommodate higher speeds (I agree that many highways like the QEW Ham-Tor certainly can) it's a question of traffic congestion that makes higher speeds unsafe.
I'm fine with things the way they are and see no compelling reason to change it. The only thing I would like to see changed is increased enforcement of speed limits
... in other words you want to see increased enforcement against drivers who are already safely already? This doesn't strike you as a counter-productive waste of police resources?
Would it not make more sense to increase the speed limit to the 85th percentile of drivers so that police can target the truly dangerous speeders and people doing the other things you described rather than being able to pull over anyone over at any time to hand out a ticket for driving safely - including you? (since I highly doubt even you drive 79KM/h down the Garrison between Rose Hill and Bernard)
You could easily increase the speed limit on the entire QEW from 100 to 110, and even increase the sections between St. Cats and Hamilton and from Gilmore to McLeod Road to 120. Traffic congestion has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the quality of the road. If traffic is an issue people will naturally slow down the same way they would if there was no shoulder or median barrier.
Variable speed limits recognize factors such as traffic volume and weather. There are times when driving 130 on the QEW is perfectly safe. There are also times when 80 is unsafe. Until/unless VSLs are put in place we need to pick a number and 100 is what was chosen. It's a compromise and I'm fine with it. Probably because I have very little faith in the ability of other drivers to adapt to conditions and actually pay attention to what they are doing. I think it's a non-issue since no one is actually getting ticketed for doing 119 on the QEW are they?
I do 95 down that stretch routinely. Have been for 20 years.
Actually, the number that was originally chosen was 70mph. It was reduced to 60mph in the name of saving fuel, which then became 100KM/h upon metrication of Ontario's highways in the early 80s.
Why 100KM/h now is so safe compared to 110 back in the 60s and 70s when cars were death traps compared to today is beyond any reasonable logic.
And the issue isn't whether or not people receive tickets - the issue is that they could get a ticket. Do you not find it morally objectionable that something everyone does and is perfectly safe is illegal and villified by both the police and media when there's no factual basis for that villificiation? Hell, if anything, there is plenty of data that presents an opposite conclusion yet this is routinely ignored.
And yes, you drive 95 down the Garrison. So does everyone else. That "increased" enforcement you talked about earlier would cost you $37.50+surcharge every time you decided to take a trip into town, not to mention the impact on your insurance. All for doing something you've done safely as a matter of routine for the last 20 years. This is something you're cool with?
110 would have been safer back in the 60s and 70s because the volume and congestion was lower. I also doubt that it was common to travel that speed with only a car length or two between vehicles. But if the province decided to up the limit back to 110 I that would be OK with me and I don't think anyone would notice.
I'll travel 95 (no more) on that stretch of road when there is other traffic doing roughly the same. If anyone is going to get ticketed it's the guy doing 100 or more and there's plenty of them out there. If I'm alone on the road, it's 89 max.
And yes, I'm cool with this. 20 years on that stretch of road and no tickets or warnings tells me that things are working just fine.
No. 20 years of continually breaking the law with no tickets or warnings (and I assume no accidents, either) tells any reasonable person that the system is broken and needs to be fixed.
You also keep bringing up congestion and traffic volumes as if it matters. It doesn't. When congestion impacts road safety due to the merging or exiting of drivers the ones already on the highway naturally react by slowing down. This is why the QEW through St. Catharines operates a lot slower than when you get out past Seventh, even though west of Seventh has a higher volume. The exits are spaced further apart and there's less traffic entering and exiting the highway out that way, most people are bee-lining it to Hamilton or the GTA.
This is yet another example of an arbitrarily posted number having zero impact on the speed at which people drive - that is, except to make you and everyone else a law breaker every time they take to the highway or arterial road when doing what they've been doing for decades safely.
110 would have been safer back in the 60s and 70s because the volume and congestion was lower.
The thing is, you're forced to slow down when you hit congestion at Ford Line and Dixie on the QEW or Mavis on the 403. A person can't blaze through at 120 KM/h when traffic won't allow people to exceed 60.
Comparing driving from the 60's & 70's compared to today is nonsense. Vehicles from the 40's & 50's were still common place on the roads. Standard non-synchronized transmissions, low horsepower, awful brakes were the norm in those big old boats. Anyone with half a brain knew they were putting themselves in jeopardy driving too fast. My pickup truck rides better than any of those old boats did in their prime. -- Some hero's wear capes, mine wear combat boots.
·
·
·
