[ARG1]

Via

https://www.reddit.com/r/ontario/comments/tr5ofp

I would change this to:
40 -> 50
50 -> 60
60 -> 75
70 -> 85
80 -> 95
90 -> 115
100 -> 125
110 -> ???? (I have no experience with this)

 

[lenaitch]

I personally feel driver training is very lacking in North America, especially when it comes to highway driving and edict. (Talking just highway driving in this post). Some of it I believe involves new learners in the rural areas not being able to be shown on a 400 series highway since one isn't close enough, to many people I have heard that are scared to drive on the highways, and to add to that feel like the middle and "fast" lane is the safest options, to also being scared of transport trucks. Multiple things that I feel should be addressed earlier on in the training to get your license.

I got my full G license over 20 years ago and didn't have to go on the highway (near Windsor) nor was my G2 test more than going around the block.

I understand backlog recently and maybe the opposite where people get failed on purpose due to some quota. But there are many drivers out there that could use that extra training to be more comfortable.

It is sad the amount of times I have driven to Kitchener from Toronto and have driven in the "slow" lane and been passing everyone in the other two lanes with not one car in front of me for kms. Made me wish I was back in Croatia where everyone moved over (My only European driving experience).

So to your point it would be great to have the higher speeds, but some of the users of the roads would make the bump up more dangerous.

*Rant/comment complete haha.

While I am in general agreement, I wouldn't limit 'freeway fear' or inappropriate lane use solely to rural drivers. The amount of actual 'freeway time a novice driver gets, either in driving school or during examination, is extremely limited. Layer on top of that the number of urban drivers who take their road test and rural test centres.

Much of the 400 series was 70 MPH (113 km/h) when initially built

During the fuel crisis in the 1970s, it was dropped to 60 MPH (96 km/h) to increase efficiency.

Then when we converted to metric, we upped it a bit to 100km/h (62 MPH)

Going to 110 km/h (68 MPH) gets us closer to the original speed limit

BUT- for most vehicles, for every 10km/h you go above 100km/h, you see a 10% dip in fuel economy. With gas prices the way they are, maybe we want to keep them 100 for a while until prices either go down or more people switch to electrics.

Ontario went to 70mph in 1968 then back to 60 in '76. The 401 and the 400 to Barrie were already in place. Which other series highways were built during that eight year period would take some research.

My primary concern with raising the limit to 110 across the board is the speed differentials created, but I suppose reality says they already exist. The issue is primarily with trucks, but you can add in passenger vehicles with trailers, some motorcycles, older drivers, etc., particularly in areas where there is no practical alternative route, such as the proposed test areas on Hwy 400 and Hwy 11.

 

[ARG1]

My primary concern with raising the limit to 110 across the board is the speed differentials created, but I suppose reality says they already exist. The issue is primarily with trucks, but you can add in passenger vehicles with trailers, some motorcycles, older drivers, etc., particularly in areas where there is no practical alternative route, such as the proposed test areas on Hwy 400 and Hwy 11.

My main rebuttal is that people drive at speeds they're comfortable at. People don't drive 15-20 above speed limit for no reason, typically these roads are designed for speeds much greater than what's actually posted. So you have a divide between people following speed limit, and people driving at their comfort speed. Theoretically if we close the gap between the two, we should be reducing the speed differentials, not creating new ones.

 

[tstormers]

While I am in general agreement, I wouldn't limit 'freeway fear' or inappropriate lane use solely to rural drivers. The amount of actual 'freeway time a novice driver gets, either in driving school or during examination, is extremely limited. Layer on top of that the number of urban drivers who take their road test and rural test centres.


Ontario went to 70mph in 1968 then back to 60 in '76. The 401 and the 400 to Barrie were already in place. Which other series highways were built during that eight year period would take some research.

My primary concern with raising the limit to 110 across the board is the speed differentials created, but I suppose reality says they already exist. The issue is primarily with trucks, but you can add in passenger vehicles with trailers, some motorcycles, older drivers, etc., particularly in areas where there is no practical alternative route, such as the proposed test areas on Hwy 400 and Hwy 11.

I meant the Rural drivers only for the driving test portion, because of geography to the 400 series. The fear part is everywhere, not strictly rural. My miscommunication.

I also agree that the trucks max speed at 105kph has to be considered, as that would increase the speed differential (legal speed, not going over the limit)

 

[Haljackey]

I would change this to:
40 -> 50
50 -> 60
60 -> 75
70 -> 85
80 -> 95
90 -> 115
100 -> 125
110 -> ???? (I have no experience with this)

110 doesn't really change anything. If the limit is 110, your 'actual' speed should be 125. You're on freeway standard roads and your car is operating at high revs. No need to push it or else you lose a ton of fuel and wear out your car faster.

I would also keep 40 40. There's a road that's 30 in London now and I think it's actually dangerous. People look at their speed more than at the road. Distracted driving 101.

-----

Even Tim Danter, a driving instructor from Canada's Worst Driver agrees

https://www.facebook.com/tim.danter/posts/10159983610777433

Going with the flow is safest. the 85th percentile of drivers speed but not stupidly. Safest to keep up.

 

[whydidimakethis]

There's a road that's 30 in London now and I think it's actually dangerous. People look at their speed more than at the road. Distracted driving 101

Part of the problem is when speeds are lowered and the road geometry stays the same. If a road is posted at 30, it should be designed for you to go 30, not just a road which lets you easily go 50 with signs slapped up. Recently I've seen some wider suburban res streets in Toronto that have "30 Zones" that were previously 40, now the signs are just removed replacing them with signs just at the entrances. I'm not so against lowering speed limits in those areas, it just bothers me that if they are going to try to make an effort at least do it properly- install some traffic calming to enforce the speed like curb extensions or raised intersections.

 

[ARG1]

Part of the problem is when speeds are lowered and the road geometry stays the same. If a road is posted at 30, it should be designed for you to go 30, not just a road which lets you easily go 50 with signs slapped up. Recently I've seen some wider suburban res streets in Toronto that have "30 Zones" that were previously 40, now the signs are just removed replacing them with signs just at the entrances. I'm not so against lowering speed limits in those areas, it just bothers me that if they are going to try to make an effort at least do it properly- install some traffic calming to enforce the speed like curb extensions or raised intersections.

Exactly.

In many cul-de-saccy parts of the 905, you can find very windy streets on steep hills that you cannot drive quickly. Ignoring the fact that there are people parking on street - they usually feature sharp curves and reduced visibility. However, the officially posted speed limit is... well there is no officially posted speed limit, which typically defaults to 50km/h. That being said though, nobody in their right mind would drive at 50km/h because most people can realize that going that fast is a death sentence.

Things like speed limits are meant to highlight what speed drivers should drive at where hazardous road conditions aren't obvious, or if its a road well trafficked enough that you need consistency in how people drive. If instead of using it as a guide you begin to try to use it as law of the land to force people to drive a specific way, it isn't going to work, and you're just going to get people mad cough cough Brampton.

 

[Deadpool X]

Exactly.

In many cul-de-saccy parts of the 905, you can find very windy streets on steep hills that you cannot drive quickly. Ignoring the fact that there are people parking on street - they usually feature sharp curves and reduced visibility. However, the officially posted speed limit is... well there is no officially posted speed limit, which typically defaults to 50km/h. That being said though, nobody in their right mind would drive at 50km/h because most people can realize that going that fast is a death sentence.

Interestingly, this narrow street (streetview) with cars parked on the curb, in one of the busier areas of Mississauga (Hurontario and Eglinton) has a speed limit of 50. I don't know what went through their mind when they designated this at 50. I never drive above 40 on that stretch.

This limit is same as this much wider road - streetview

 

[Steve X]

Interestingly, this narrow street (streetview) with cars parked on the curb, in one of the busier areas of Mississauga (Hurontario and Eglinton) has a speed limit of 50. I don't know what went through their mind when they designated this at 50. I never drive above 40 on that stretch.

This limit is same as this much wider road - streetview

Unless there is kids around or during school hours, I don't see a problem with going 50-60 on such road. Toronto roads are much narrower and yet 50 is still possible. It just depends on traffic, condition and time of the day.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Interestingly, this narrow street (streetview) with cars parked on the curb, in one of the busier areas of Mississauga (Hurontario and Eglinton) has a speed limit of 50. I don't know what went through their mind when they designated this at 50. I never drive above 40 on that stretch.

This limit is same as this much wider road - streetview

Lol that may be narrow by Mississauga standards but that’s an insanely wide street. 50 is quite comfortable on a street like that. It’s just not 4 lanes (though it looks wide enough that it could be painted for 4 lanes if they wanted to).

I can’t remember ever seeing a genuinely narrow street in Mississauga. Every road there seems to be over built to 150% of what is needed.

Generally speaking I’m not too upset about lower urban speed limits, lower rural limits are what bother me. That and slapping speed limits on urban roads that are way, way below the design speed (like a 40 limit on a major suburban arterial, or the short lived 50 limit on the Bayview extension).

 

[gweed123]

My main rebuttal is that people drive at speeds they're comfortable at. People don't drive 15-20 above speed limit for no reason, typically these roads are designed for speeds much greater than what's actually posted. So you have a divide between people following speed limit, and people driving at their comfort speed. Theoretically if we close the gap between the two, we should be reducing the speed differentials, not creating new ones.

Exactly. I would argue that the posted speed should be the 85th percentile speed, since that would minimize the gap that you described.

Ontario went to 70mph in 1968 then back to 60 in '76. The 401 and the 400 to Barrie were already in place. Which other series highways were built during that eight year period would take some research.

I would be surprised if MTO modified their design guidelines to lower the design speed.

 

[nfitz]

On grade-separated highways that are properly engineered to handle speeds of 120km/ph or more, 110km/ph is perfectly reasonable.

I haven't looked at the MTO design manual for 400-series highway for quite some time. But last time I looked, the design speed was 130 km/hr - not 120 km/hr. Did they lower it?

 

[Steve X]

I haven't looked at the MTO design manual for 400-series highway for quite some time. But last time I looked, the design speed was 130 km/hr - not 120 km/hr. Did they lower it?

The 407 east extension was claimed to be built for a design speed of 120km/h

 

[nfitz]

The 407 east extension was claimed to be built for a design speed of 120km/h

I recall some fuss when opening, that it had been built to older standards, which were the legal minimum, rather than what MTO actually used on it's own highways.

On the other hand, perhaps after so many years, I've misremembered.

 

[W. K. Lis]

What we really need...