[jwill]

This falls into the category of not taking unnecessary political risks. It doesn't seem like there's a groundswell of support for this, considering we all know 120 is already the unofficial speed limit. The last thing the Liberals need is a couple months of every speed-related crash being blamed on their policies.

 

[Electrify]

Even though it was initially rejected, getting this kind of attention does show it is on the right track. The Liberals are currently against it, but if enough people speak out about it, they have a change of heart (after a face saving "study," of course). Even then, keeping up the noise could have this become an election issue, where an opposition party may take side and use it as a hook to attract voters.

From what I've heard, in most places in the US they tend to start ticketing after going 10mph (16km/h) over. Even here, though you are generally safe from enforcement when driving up to 20 over, at 16km/h is when you become susceptible to demerit points. If the speed limit was raised to 110km/h, with ticketing starting at speeds above 120km/h, the flow of traffic would be safer since there would only be a difference of 10km/h between the fastest and slowest cars compared to 20 like there is today.

Being realistic, while it would be great to see speed limits of 130km/h+, I don't think that is going to happen on the first swing. Let's get it up to 110km/h first, and go from there.

 

[Dan416]

Let's bring it back to 70 mph or whatever it was before and bring back the Imperial system while we're at it. Then I could watch Top Gear (UK or US) and understand their speeds.

 

[spider]

All this chatter about government using speeding tickets as a cash cow prompted me to try to remember the last time I saw a speed trap on a 400 series highway, the answer is never. Yes, I have seen cruisers with lights flashing parked at the road side with their catch but I don't know what the subject miscreant is being charged with and neither do you.

If income opportunities were the reason for what is generally considered a low speed maximum wouldn't the police be reeling us in in droves with a more aggresive program?

I suggest that the government follows a laissez faire approach to speed management because they want you to drive at about 120 without condoning it as long as you otherwise behave yourself because it moves traffic along better and allows them to drop the craphammer on you for exceeding 100 KPH as an add-on charge if you screw up otherwise.

 

[PinkLucy]

There are frequently speed traps on the 401 west of the city. Also on the 400 north of Toronto. Probably other places too but these are ones I have seen regularly

 

[BurlOak]

There are frequently speed traps on the 401 west of the city. Also on the 400 north of Toronto. Probably other places too but these are ones I have seen regularly

They also set up on QEW in Stoney Creek.

Basically, wherever the highway is safe enough to have higher speeds (beyond Toronto where interchanges are 5 km or more apart), they set up. Where traffic is high and there are many on/off ramps merging - they don't (or can't) set up.

 

[spider]

You have actually seen an officer step out on to a 2 or 3 lane 400 series highway to flag down a motorist in response to a radar gun reading?

No one is paid enough to do that, never mind the hazard such action would present to other innocent motorists in the area.

 

[PinkLucy]

I have seen groups of police cars lined up to pull over cars caught by a radar gun set up on an overpass. I have seen officers at the side of highway 11flagging motorists, yes

 

[BurlOak]

I have seen groups of police cars lined up to pull over cars caught by a radar gun set up on an overpass. I have seen officers at the side of highway 11flagging motorists, yes

In construction zones, MTO requires a blocker (crash) truck to be parked infront of the workers. I remember about 10 years ago a police car was parked upstream from the blocker truck with lights flashing to warn traffic to slow. Sadly, someone ran into the officer and it resulted in a fatality. I Think this was in Niagara.

I am amazed at the needless danger they put themselves in. I believe that the police are convinced they are doing great service by pulling over cars going 120, or maybe they feel that the cars driving 120 encourage the few maniacs to got 150. Policing is dangerous enough without the need for additional danger.

You might say that the speed trap slows traffic, but officers walking on the shoulder (or worse, the lane) are just trying to pull over additional cars to increase revenue.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Found this interesting video on Jalopnik:

[video=youtube;2BKdbxX1pDw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw&feature=player_embedded#t=124[/video]

TL;DR: Speed limits are so low that they're killing us. People drive at the limits they feel safe. An example of this would be when drivers are collectively going 120 - 130 kph on a 400 series highway. That one driver who is more concerned with obeying speed laws rather than maintaing a safe driving speed is putting himself and everyone around him in danger. (4:26).

Traffic crashes increased when speed limits were decreased. And traffic crashed decreased when speed limits were increased. In both cases, average speeds didn't change. (12:59).

 

[MisterF]

British Columbia is considering increasing their speed limits, which are already higher than ours.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/ministry-eyes-increase-for-speed-limits-on-b-c-highways-1.1440792

 

[doady]

British Columbia is considering increasing their speed limits, which are already higher than ours.

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/ministry-eyes-increase-for-speed-limits-on-b-c-highways-1.1440792

That's the speel limit slippery slope. Once you raise speed limit, it is never enough. If people drive 110-120 on 100 limit, then they will drive 130-140 on a 120 limit, and so one. Peopel will always drive slightly above the limit. So if you use that as justification for raising speed limits, the speed limit will constantly increase.

 

[BurlOak]

That's the speel limit slippery slope. Once you raise speed limit, it is never enough. If people drive 110-120 on 100 limit, then they will drive 130-140 on a 120 limit, and so one. Peopel will always drive slightly above the limit. So if you use that as justification for raising speed limits, the speed limit will constantly increase.

From the article

“It’s a fallacy that many people hold on to, that when you set a posted limit people will always exceed it. It doesn’t work like that. It’s been proven false time and time again,” he said.

Tootill said there is a safe travel speed that drivers naturally gravitate toward, and most B.C. highways are below that limit.

That safe speed is usually the 85th percentile speed.

 

[gweed123]

That's the speel limit slippery slope. Once you raise speed limit, it is never enough. If people drive 110-120 on 100 limit, then they will drive 130-140 on a 120 limit, and so one. Peopel will always drive slightly above the limit. So if you use that as justification for raising speed limits, the speed limit will constantly increase.

Increase penalties and lower the minimum 'ticketable' speed. For example, right now even though the max speed is 100 km/h, you can do 120 km/h without getting a ticket. Raise the speed limit on 400 series highways to 130, and make the ticketable speed 135.

 

[Haljackey]

Our Neighbour Michigan is also considering increasing the 70MPH (113 km/h) limit to 80MPH (129 km/h): http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/0...limits-on-the-401-are-stuck-in-the-slow-lane/

Ontario has some of the best designed freeways in the world and some of the lowest speed limits in the world. This does not make sense.

Doing 100 pretty makes you a danger to other drivers. That ain't safe. I remember a former transport minister commenting he got the finger, honked at and cut-off several times driving 100 between Toronto and Ottawa.