Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

You don't know that traffic won't flow well at 100 km/h, because traffic never flows at that speed unless forced to by an obstruction ahead. I have been in heavily enforced areas of New York State where interstate traffic flows well at around 110 km/h, including the occasional out-of-state RV doing 90 km/h.

We have no lane discipline because it's not the law. You must keep right when going slower than the flow of traffic, but there's nothing I know of to keep you from going with the "flow" of 120 km/h in the left lane, while someone else behind you wants to pass. As long as you keep them from passing you, you're not breaking the law that states you much turn to the right when overtaken. 'Unnecessary slow driving' doesn't seem like it would apply, either, because you're going with the flow.

Also, speed limits don't always have to be about safety. Drag on a car increases dramatically as you go above 100 km/h. Lots of gas to be saved by having everyone drive slower. If you need to get to your destination at the speed of sound, then you might want to reorganise your life.

And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit!

Squishy wrote:

And no, I'm not a goddamn hippy. I vote Conservative and support the death penalty, goddammit!

Is death penalty a part of Conservative platform? I should re-think whom I'll vote for next election.

Uhhhmmmm yeah.. It's doing a great job of keeping the murder rates down south of the border

Not officially, although Harper did change policy to stop seeking clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty on foreign soil. I think it's still way too much of a touchy subject for them to consider bringing back the death penalty in Canada. Does your post mean you won't be voting Conservative?

I don't support it as some sort of deterrent. I think that there are certain criminal acts that are not worth trying to rehabilitate for. Saves taxpayers the money of feeding them. I mentioned before that I view society as a machine - why keep the broken parts around?

There have been cases where an innocent person was executed. If they're given a life sentence, that can at least be corrected later on.

For me, that's a whole other issue. I don't agree with the system in place in some of the States, because of exactly what you mention. A death penalty should be reserved for cases with irrefutable evidence like the entire act caught on videotape or witnessed by a group of officers. Otherwise, save it for certain offences for repeat offenders (e.g., three armed robberies and we get rid of you). And in those cases, no death row. We schedule you for next friday.

The problem would be defining "irrefutable" and the usual abuses within the system. What if there's only one officer? What if the tape is grainy? Where do you draw the line?

As for killing people over armed robberies that didn't involve any injuries.... I don't think I need to outline the reservations, especially since anything can be called a "weapon." My riding gloves are "weapons" because of the kevlar knuckles.

Not many people agree with my views on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't see the death penalty making a comeback anytime soon, anyways.

I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.

I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.

Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.

Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

just my 2 cents

hwybear wrote:

I do not think Canada should get involved with anything outside our borders involving courts/justice.

I also do not think Canadian should spend a dime outside our borders until every last citizen here has a roof over their head, food, water, treatment facilities for health etc...and finally settle all the land claim issues.

Bring our military back to strengthen our borders too.

Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

just my 2 cents

And the bleeding hearts shall bleed some more......."but we can reform him, we have the ability......".

I hear ya 'bear.

Squishy no.

That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.

A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".

No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.

Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.

Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.

Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.

Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.

No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.

For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.

try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.

hwybear wrote:

Finally start giving people convicted of criminal offences the maximum amounts and no early release.

The way I see it... personally I support capital punishment in certain cases... if someone commits an act of first-degree murder, they shouldn't be given ANY chance of parole. Certain other offences should warrant life in the slammer, none of this 25 years with hope of release after 15, but because you spent a year at the Don Jail we'll release you with time served.

If someone is going to be released out into public again, they should complete a full rehabilitation program before release. Otherwise, if they're a risk to re-offend, the only thing they'll do in the penitentiary is learn more anti-social behaviour (they're surrounded by other criminals) and commit another crime the second they're out. No rehab completion = no release. Also if someone gets into fights or does other stuff while in prison, re-arrest them, try them and extend the sentence!

Oh here's another thing that got me going: While I support presumption of innocence and human rights, etc., giving Kelly Ellard a fourth shot at trial was asinine. Both she and Warren Glowatski should be spending the rest of their life in the Crowbar Hilton. He spent a mere 7 years in jail for killing someone!! That's not even a slap on the wrist. What kind of BS is that?

tdrive2 wrote:

Squishy no.

That 100 km/hr limit is not the most effecient speed for everyone.

A 6 cylinder ford explorer and a v8 corvette will both have a "most effecient speed".

No two engines are the same, neither is the car, the weight, etc.

Regardless of what you guys say we could have no speed limit it wont mean everyone is gonna go wild.

Most people with basic 4 and 6 cylinder cars would keep it to 120-150.

Anything over 150 starts to use a ton of fuel.

Some other guy posted about this, he was on the autobahn flooring it and wondering why everyone else was going so slow until he had to fill up his fuel tank.

No two engines are the same. It really depends on alot of things, speed, wind, drag coeffecient, engine power, how many rpm your engine uses for x speed.

For me my engine will stay low up till 115 km/hr then once i go to 120-130 hardly makes a difference in engine speed.

try any faster then that the amount of time you save is not worth the extra cost in fuel and the ticket.

TDRIVE NO!

No car has a most efficient speed much higher than 100 km/h. Low RPMs do not equal "most efficient" - there is a formula based on piston velocity and stroke length that calculated the most efficient engine speeds. Can't remember it right now, but for most cars it is in the 2200-3000 RPM range.

I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.

Personal experience.. In Europe, where the speed limits are generally more reasonable, I rarely found myself doing more than 5 over the limit. Over here I literally have to force myself not to do more than 20 over on most streets, with 2 exceptions..

1) School/park zones when the kids are out

2) 3-4 streets where the speed limits have been reasonably set for a change.. Actually it's funny.. They lowered the speed limit to 40 on my street recently and nobody goes over 40 anyway.. Talk about a waste of tax dollars.

Now south-western US is pretty sweet. Over there I also rarely find myself doing more than 5 over. We're too nannyish here.

Squishy wrote:

I can't remember if it was the NHTSA or the SAE that did studies on raising speed limits, and concluded that raising limits on city streets had little effect, while raising highway speed limits would raise the speed of traffic flow equally. Based on their studies, raising the limit from 100 km/h to 110 km/h would not result in everyone finally following the speed limit - drivers still drove the same amount over the limit, increasing the normal flow of traffic by roughly 10 km/h.

Actually you're referring to several different studies. The one on surface streets was done for the US FHWA by Parker et al in 1992. Their conclusion, as you said, was that changing speed limits on surface streets by as much as 20 mph had a minimal effect on speed or safety. The one regarding freeways that you're citing was done by the IIHS, which has been historically opposed to speed limit increases. (Gee I wonder if being funded by insurance companies has anything to do with it.) It tried to paint a picture that, if you raise speed limits, people will just go exponentially faster; however, the methods it used were somewhat questionable.

The IIHS study has been disputed. The NHTSA and several other gruops found that raising the speed limit, while it did bring speeds up slightly, it was not by much. It actually promoted greater compliance with the speed limit. In Saskatchewan, for example, a study found that raising the speed limit by 10 km/h resulted in a 4 km/h increase in the average speed. In Michigan and Texas, raising the speed limit by 10 MPH resulted in a 3 MPH increase in the average speed. In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit.

Here's a link to the Saskatchewan study if you want it:

http://www.tac-atc.ca/english/pdf/conf2004/p-hunt.pdf

Interesting study...but they have a one liner in their summary:

"Further studies need to be conducted to analyze the overall effects of speed limit changes on accidents"

Has that further study happened yet? Maybe you can dig that out from where you got the above. Said it would take about 3yrs, study was in 2004.

IIHS! Okay, I'll have to erase that study from my memory banks.

Overall, raising the posted speed limit has had a lesser effect on driver speeds than anticipated.

I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects?

Squishy wrote:

IIHS! Okay, I'll have to erase that study from my memory banks.

Overall, raising the posted speed limit has had a lesser effect on driver speeds than anticipated.

I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects?

Sounds good.....until they throw in that collision stats were not considered

If the average vehicle speed increases by very little, then shouldn't the collision stats be affected by an equally small amount?

It sounds as if going to a 110 km/h had little effect on driving speeds; it just brought more drivers into compliance with the law.

hwybear wrote:

Sounds good.....until they throw in that collision stats were not considered

We were talking average speeds only..........Brainwashed ticket tosser

_____________________________________/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

_____________________________________I bet that gets erased.....!

Radar Identified wrote:

In West Virginia, they raised the limit to 70 MPH and their 85th percentile speed is now 70.2 MPH, whereas before it was just under 68 MPH with a 55 MPH limit. Shocked

Those damn engineering numbers keep getting in the way of some good ole' fashioned ticket tossing......YooooHooooo, Fantino, McGuinty....yep you 2 over here now, I wanna talk to you.

hwybear wrote:

Has that further study happened yet? Maybe you can dig that out from where you got the above.

Not to my knowledge, BUT here's a report showing the collision trends in Saskatchewan, including the period before and after they raised the limits to 110.

http://www.sgicanada.com/sgi_pub/road_s ... on%201.pdf

The key one to look at is figure 1.3 on page 4. Around 2000, before they raised the limits, it seems as though there was a steep upward trend in fatal collisions on Saskatchewan's provincial and rural roads. The limit was raised in 2003. It was trending upwards both before and after the limit was raised. The "rural roads" did not have any speed limit change, so if the speed limit change had an effect, it should've showed the provincial highways with either a spike or a drop versus "rural roads." So I would say that, looking at the trend graph, the speed limit change on the provincial highways did not have any marked effect on fatalities, because there was no change in the year-over-year trend. That's just my opinion though... Overall collisions in Saskatchewan appear to be rising, partly due to the fact that there is an influx of population to the province, and also Saskatchewan has the highest rate of drunk driving in Canada.

Squishy wrote:

I like the sound of that. Has Ontario done any similar studies or pilot projects?

None that I'm aware of. I wish they would, though. Many US states that raised their Interstate speed limits saw a reduction in statewide fatalities, a few stayed the same, some saw an increase (North and South Dakota).

Radar Identified wrote:

Overall collisions in Saskatchewan appear to be rising, partly due to the fact that there is an influx of population to the province,

Influx from GTA drivers moving there

Why are some so worried about raising the limit.

Lots of other countries drive 120-130 on old shitty roads.

Infact the MTO can go put the limit to 180 if they want to.

I wont drive that fast though.

Ill keep it under 140.

So even if they raise the limit to 120 and the flow of traffic in the left lane is 120-130.

Well same again ill just pull over to the right if it doesn't work.

They pay for their gas just like we do.

I wonder if they put the limit to 140 or removed it how fast people would actually drive.

Anyways our low speed limit is making lane discipline hell.

If you crash at 110 or 130 your not anymore or less dead.

The speed isnt the big issue its the large difference's in the speed and the lane discipline.

hwybear wrote:

Radar Identified wrote:

Overall collisions in Saskatchewan appear to be rising, partly due to the fact that there is an influx of population to the province,

Influx from GTA drivers moving there

GTA drivers don't move to Saskatchewan. They just visit for many years!

You can take the driver out of the GTA, but you can't take the GTA out of the driver.

tdrive2 wrote:

Anyways our low speed limit is making lane discipline hell.

Lane discipline has little to do with our speed limit - it's the lack of laws and lack of enforcement, along with a general selfish driving attitude from major urban areas like Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, etc., that is spreading like a cancer. When I first learned to drive (admittedly earlier than 16 ), changing lanes without signalling was an insult meant to tell the driver behind you that they are doing something wrong. Now it's just lazyness. Back then, when you saw a driver after sundown with no taillights on, you flash your highbeams at them and they understood what that meant! Now they slam on the brakes and give you a "How dare you!" look as you pass them. I once followed a Matrix across Toronto (from Greenwood all the way to Islington on Bloor-Danforth) at 4 am, flashing my lights at him at every red light. At least he gave me a wave of apology after it took him driving across an entire city to realise that he had no lights on (and no, he wasn't flipping me off ). Bookm is absolutely right - we don't need more laws, we need to change people's attitudes and their education. If people don't want the government to nanny the heck out of us, stop being douchebags.

tdrive2 wrote:

If you crash at 110 or 130 your not anymore or less dead.

The speed isnt the big issue its the large difference's in the speed and the lane discipline.

The key word is 'if'. As you drive faster, the distance you travel while you react increases, and the rate of information you need to process increases. You make it sound as if there are no disadvantages to an increased speed limit; however, there are both benefits and disadvantages, and that is why a study specific to Ontario is needed.

It's not about a lack of enforcement. It's more about the wrong focus on enforcement. Speeding is easy to prove, "speed kills" brainwashing campaigns have been successful and the revenue generation has been solid. Even big municipalities can make some cash after all the expenses and most of it is from speeding tickets. That's why unsafe drivers these days justify everything with "i'm not a speeding street-racer."

A little bit o/t but have you guys noticed that fewer people turn on their headlights now that just about every car has drl's?

FiReSTaRT wrote:

A little bit o/t but have you guys noticed that fewer people turn on their headlights now that just about every car has drl's?

You would be shocked, maybe not, how many people I stop for not having their headlights on, but parking lights and DRL at the same time. Begin to wonder how these people get their licence when they do not know how to turn on their lights.

Classic example: stop vehicle with daytime running lights. (DRL)

DR - see they are on, point to road in front of car

ME - using flashlight, see my little flashlight on the road which is brighter than your headlights

DR - my lights are not that good

ME - no your lights are not on

DR - no, see, I turn the switch and my brights come on

**walk around to driver side**

ME - ok, turn your lights on

DR - ok, they are on

ME - this symbol here, it is "parking lights"

DR - well if I turn it to here (light symbol), these are my highbeam, see the blue light

ME - yes, now just put your low beams on (they turn the switch back to parking.... ), OK, turn the switch back to the lights

DR - but that's my highbeams

ME - ok watch this (as I move the signal indicator and the highbeams turn off and now with low beams)

DR - how did you do that

I don't find that shocking.. All sorts of "interesting" people are on the roads.. Here are a few examples from my life experience..

1) Old lady, just short of being legally blind, afraid of her own shadow. When she detects a car heading in her direction, she pulls over to the right, waits for the car to pass, merges back onto the road and keeps going at half the speed limit.

2) A "lady" doesn't look while shooting across 2 lanes and side-swipes me badly. Her response was: "How can it be my fault? I signalled!"

3) Ask any random 10 people about what they should do when it starts raining or gets foggy and 7 of them won't mention anything about lighting.

Of course, all of these people will tell you that speed kills.