jeff316
Active Member
Exactly. If anything the speed limit should be lower on the 400 within some parts of Toronto where the congestion is terrible.
|
|
|
- Thread starter chrison
- Start date
Exactly. If anything the speed limit should be lower on the 400 within some parts of Toronto where the congestion is terrible.
MisterF
Senior Member
I think the idea that people would drive 20-30 over the limit regardless is a very Ontario concept, and it's one we accept becuase of our artificially low speed limits. People don't inherently speed, they drive whatever speed feels comfortable. A wide open, straight road will have higher speeds than a narrow winding road even if the speed limit is the same. People drive 120-130 now because that's what our highways are designed for and that's what the police enforce. A 130 speed limit would be a lot closer to most drivers' comfort zone, which means that driving habits wouldn't change significantly. And if you tell the cops to just keep enforcing the same speeds they do now (getting rid of the 30 km/h grey area) then the limit might actually make sense. Photo radar would help too.
Pretty much every country in the world has higher speed limits than Ontario, often with lower design standards. And that's not just on freeways, it's on two lane rural highways too. 80 km/h is ridiculous, and actual speeds are closer to 100 or even more. Those narrow, twisty roads in the UK with terrible sight lines have a speed limit of 60 mph. I think the difference is that Ontario drivers are used to having all their thinking done for them. Drivers in other parts of the world, even some other parts of Canada, are forced to think for themselves.
Pretty much every country in the world has higher speed limits than Ontario, often with lower design standards. And that's not just on freeways, it's on two lane rural highways too. 80 km/h is ridiculous, and actual speeds are closer to 100 or even more. Those narrow, twisty roads in the UK with terrible sight lines have a speed limit of 60 mph. I think the difference is that Ontario drivers are used to having all their thinking done for them. Drivers in other parts of the world, even some other parts of Canada, are forced to think for themselves.
Arrrgh no offence but drivers like you are so frustrating! The middle lane isn't the default place to drive. If you're getting passed on the right, you're in the wrong lane!
I keep hearing this about McGuinty but what "nanny state" laws has he passed exactly? The most obvious ones I can think of are our speed limits and liquor laws and both of those were around long before McGuinty. He even loosened some of the liquor laws, if only slightly.
MisterF
Senior Member
Apparently the average speed on the German autobahn, where there are no speed limits, is somewhere in the 130-140 range. Not much faster than what we're used to, even though you can go a lot faster. Even on the parts of the autobahn that do have speed limits, it's generally 130.
Somehow we've put ourselves into a situation where this has the same speed limit as this. And people wonder why we speed.
Somehow we've put ourselves into a situation where this has the same speed limit as this. And people wonder why we speed.
jn_12
Senior Member
There are 400-series highways where the current speed limit is satisfactory such as the QEW through St Catharines (and probably Oakville/Burlington as well) and the 406 in Niagara. Raising the limit on the 406 would do absolutely nothing as you can already travel its entire length in around 10 minutes.
It seems to me the current system works fine from my experience. As long as you're going with the flow everyone seems to be happy, no one will get pulled over and it's safe. I think once you start raising the limits you will get into the issue that people just aren't comfortable with those speeds. You can argue that there's a negligible difference between 110 and 125 but to some people there is a difference even just mentally. Currently if someone only feels comfortable going around the speed limit, they can do so and have a legal reason for it. If you bump that up you're driving people out of that comfort zone, and when people are nervous that's when they make mistakes.
It seems to me the current system works fine from my experience. As long as you're going with the flow everyone seems to be happy, no one will get pulled over and it's safe. I think once you start raising the limits you will get into the issue that people just aren't comfortable with those speeds. You can argue that there's a negligible difference between 110 and 125 but to some people there is a difference even just mentally. Currently if someone only feels comfortable going around the speed limit, they can do so and have a legal reason for it. If you bump that up you're driving people out of that comfort zone, and when people are nervous that's when they make mistakes.
Memph
Active Member
I think there is a risk people will drive faster if you increase the speed limit. Maybe not on the 401 in Toronto, but outside of cities, I could see more people going at 140-160km/h. When I visited Croatia, where the speed limit in 130km/h, a good chunk of drivers were going at 150-160km/h on the new rural highways.
jwill
Active Member
I agree that the mentality of driving 10-20 or more above the speed limit is a result of Ontario's high design standards for roads. Its just as difficult to follow the 50 kph limit on some suburban arterials, or the 80 kph limit on the rural highway 10 to orangeville. The MTO has always been safety conscious, and has adopted a high safety margin for all its road projects as a result. I believe that the insurance companies could embrace an increase to 110 on the 400-series highways. Afterall, everyone will still drive 120, but they can use it as an excuse to raise rates.
Dan416
Senior Member
We should at least bring it back to the previous limit. Not sure if we should go higher though.
Though I tend to agree with those who say our limits are pretty artificial and lead to people ignoring them.
Though I tend to agree with those who say our limits are pretty artificial and lead to people ignoring them.
Electrify
Senior Member
Some comments suggest that Ontario has some of the lowest speed limits in the world, and I think that is stretching it a bit. I believe the only place in Canada which has a limit above 100km/h is Alberta, and that is at 110km/h. In the US while some have very high limits, the vast majority of states are at 65mph, which is 104km/h.
We may be on the low end of speed limits, but it isn't fair to say we are one of the lowest. I believe Hawaii takes that prize with a maximum still at 55mph, 88km/h.
We may be on the low end of speed limits, but it isn't fair to say we are one of the lowest. I believe Hawaii takes that prize with a maximum still at 55mph, 88km/h.
salmonz
New Member
Speed limits across Canada
BC has limits up to 110km/hr in various areas, i.e. Hwy 5, 8, 97, 19
In Alberta 110: Hwy 1, 2,3,4,16,43
In Sask 110: Hwy 1
In Manitoba 110: Hwy 1, 75
BC has limits up to 110km/hr in various areas, i.e. Hwy 5, 8, 97, 19
In Alberta 110: Hwy 1, 2,3,4,16,43
In Sask 110: Hwy 1
In Manitoba 110: Hwy 1, 75
timio
Active Member
New Brunswick: 110 KM/hr on the Trans Canada.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Did you forget about his trial balloon at raising the driving age and imposing significant restrictions on drivers based on age not their type of license? There's a reason he earned the sobriquet of 'Premier Dad'. I didn't give it to him.
I voted for the guy. But he is a tight ass. And there's no way, he'll be the premier to raise the speed limit. He's in the thrall of the insurance industry and groups like MADD (recently pushing zero blood alcohol limits) and environmentalists who will also oppose any increase in the speed limit.
Last edited:
kEiThZ
Superstar
You don't travel much. My military career has taken me all over Canada. The only place with lower limits is the Arctic. And at least they have a good reason. It's not just the 401. Speed limits on main roads are also ridiculous. Who really drives 60 on any Toronto avenue when there's no traffic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Canada
Last edited:
chrison
New Member
Most of the comments here are right on and precisely fit our campaign. We also believe speed limits around the entire province are way too conservative for the quality and characteristics of our roads (mostly straight and flat) but we intend on putting up a fight about the 400-series limit which is a plain ridiculous in most places. And yes, if you read www.stop100.ca, you will also see that we argue this is one of the lowest speed limits in the world - especially given our world-class infrastructure (and it used to be higher 40 years ago!) We want to measure the public opinion on the matter and push it further if the support turns out to be overwhelmingly high (currently about 85% in favour). We know police are usually very understanding and act as if they support our case - but we believe making the law should not be in police officer's hands. Therefore their current tolerance of 20km/h +- 10km/h should be put into the legal limit so the drivers know the clear rules of the "game" (and it makes the cop's job easier too, less discretion, more actual law to enforce). 120km/h limit plus narrower 10-15km/h tolerance is our call. Currently the limit is 100 km/h and tolerance anywhere from 15-30km/h resulting in widespread violations and uncertainty what speed should actually be obeyed not to get ticketed. Please READ A LOT MORE at www.stop100.ca and SUPPORT our case on facebook. Currently most drivers drive at 120-130 and such speeds have proven to be very safe (MTO stats overwhelmingly confirm this).
We propose 120 km/h in such areas as 401 Express which can easily handle way higher speeds given its unique safety-oriented design, 407 (which as some her have mentioned is designed to be more like a professional race track and routinely sees speeds touching the impoundment area (140-145) - which shows EXACTLY why the limit is plain wrong and puts drivers at much higher risk - a LEGAL one to be precise!) and any other areas where appropriate within city limits and 120-130 outside the main metro areas.
If you would like to READ MORE and SUPPORT the cause, LIKE our facebook page at www.facebook.com/stop100
Have your voice and vote at www.stop100.ca/choose.html
Also, please read some FAQs about the topic on www.stop100.ca/faq.html
We propose 120 km/h in such areas as 401 Express which can easily handle way higher speeds given its unique safety-oriented design, 407 (which as some her have mentioned is designed to be more like a professional race track and routinely sees speeds touching the impoundment area (140-145) - which shows EXACTLY why the limit is plain wrong and puts drivers at much higher risk - a LEGAL one to be precise!) and any other areas where appropriate within city limits and 120-130 outside the main metro areas.
If you would like to READ MORE and SUPPORT the cause, LIKE our facebook page at www.facebook.com/stop100
Have your voice and vote at www.stop100.ca/choose.html
Also, please read some FAQs about the topic on www.stop100.ca/faq.html
Jonny5
Senior Member
So the case for McGuinty running a nanny state is that he proposed but never implemented restrictions on new drivers? I would genuinely like to know if there is something to this as I can't think of anything either, except for the pitbull ban. Though apparently there are trial balloons going up to remove that. I guess he's now Mr. Libertarian?
Electrify
Senior Member
The three 'nanny state' laws which really bug me about McGuinty:
1. Pitbull ban. I don't think the dog is dangerous enough to ban outright, but licensing would be a good idea.
2. Zero alcohol under 22. While it is arguable of whether it is a good idea or not, I don't think the means justifies the ends. It was put lobbied and put through by an idiot with more money than brains, and because he let his drunk son drive and get himself killed, he wants the government to raise his kid for him. This ignores the fact Darwin cases like this guy's son will continue to still drive drunk regardless of what laws or regulations you put through, and that it is punishing relatively responsible drivers who have passed all their testing and want to have one drink with friends before getting behind the wheel.
3. On to the topic, the 'stunt driving' law where going 50km/h over can get your property seized for 7 days, before you are given a trial and convicted of an offence. If law officials are to seize your property, it should be for a criminal offence, which this is not classified as. Not to mention if convicted, the fine quadruples between going 40km/h (approx $500) and 50km/h over ($2000)! Cruel and unusual punishment perhaps?
Special mention goes to the cell phone law. I absolutely do not condone having the phone to your ear while driving, but in the rare occasion when I am on the phone I have it on speaker and hold it between my fingers with both hands on the wheel. This is still illegal, despite being no more dangerous than talking to your passenger with a candy bar between your fingers.
Back to the topic, something I've thought of is why not have different speed limits for different lanes? The right lane is already considered the "slow" lane anyways, this would just confirm it. Not to mention those who may not feel comfortable driving over 100km/h would not be forced to.
1. Pitbull ban. I don't think the dog is dangerous enough to ban outright, but licensing would be a good idea.
2. Zero alcohol under 22. While it is arguable of whether it is a good idea or not, I don't think the means justifies the ends. It was put lobbied and put through by an idiot with more money than brains, and because he let his drunk son drive and get himself killed, he wants the government to raise his kid for him. This ignores the fact Darwin cases like this guy's son will continue to still drive drunk regardless of what laws or regulations you put through, and that it is punishing relatively responsible drivers who have passed all their testing and want to have one drink with friends before getting behind the wheel.
3. On to the topic, the 'stunt driving' law where going 50km/h over can get your property seized for 7 days, before you are given a trial and convicted of an offence. If law officials are to seize your property, it should be for a criminal offence, which this is not classified as. Not to mention if convicted, the fine quadruples between going 40km/h (approx $500) and 50km/h over ($2000)! Cruel and unusual punishment perhaps?
Special mention goes to the cell phone law. I absolutely do not condone having the phone to your ear while driving, but in the rare occasion when I am on the phone I have it on speaker and hold it between my fingers with both hands on the wheel. This is still illegal, despite being no more dangerous than talking to your passenger with a candy bar between your fingers.
Back to the topic, something I've thought of is why not have different speed limits for different lanes? The right lane is already considered the "slow" lane anyways, this would just confirm it. Not to mention those who may not feel comfortable driving over 100km/h would not be forced to.