Radar Identified wrote:

... Also possible secondary factor is maybe since the slowest drivers sped up a bit, other people were passing less or did not feel the need to "make up time" after being "stuck behind" someone.

Don't underestimate the validity of this statement! The most dangerous conditions I encounter are when some yahoo is pegged at the speed limit and there's a long line of cars all crunched up behind him.

Maybe they are all driving properly and it is the "yahoo" that caught up to them

Nope. I checked. lol

Bookm wrote:

Don't underestimate the validity of this statement! The most dangerous conditions I encounter are when some yahoo is pegged at the speed limit and there's a long line of cars all crunched up behind him.

Ya talkin' to me?

Bear has already stated that he'll give 20 over before he pulls in a customer...so don't we already have 120, at least in his area???

But that's less than ideal. You're basically looking the other way while someone breaks the law. Limits should be raised to the design of the road itself, then photo radar brought in with a 10% tolerance for speedometer error. Once the speed limit truly represents a safety ceiling, let drivers judge for themselves what speeds the conditions, their skills, or their comfort calls for. Raise fines to $10,000 for causing an accident, $1000 for antisocial behaviour like tailgating, lack of lane discipline, unsafe lane changes, etc. The poor drivers will pay out of their butt for the enjoyment of the good drivers.

With a bit of driver education and some extended on-ramps, I think some sections of highway can handle 150 km/h. The Fantino Zone.

I found this 2003 report for the BC Ministry of Transportation in regards to changes in the speed limit (mostly increases). It's an interresting read.

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/en ... Report.pdf

While I agree with Squishy in principle, I sure as hell would NOT want to be under constant surveilance. I know that technology is improving to the point where it's cheap to monitor and record a person's actions 24/7, without breaking the bank. However, having the photo radar out there is like assuming that everyone is a potential criminal. In any case, why stop at photo radars? Just lowjack every vehicle on the road and problem solved. The fine system can become automated, so we can dispense with the courts. What about installing cameras in every dwelling? If we're not breaking the law, we have nothing to be concerned about

The bottom line is that just because we abide by the law right now, a stupid bill getting passed can turn a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. Our Charter doesn't have any real bite thanks to Section 1. Yes, the legislators pay it some lip-service, but at the end of the day, stuff like presumption of innocence gets thrown out the window. I don't see anything that prevents our legislators from passing arbitrary laws against public gatherings, imposing curfews or even taking away basic human rights. What's going to stop them? Canadians? I am sorry but we're too spineless as a group. The Charter? Not worth the paper it's written on. The only thing that could really save us is foreign military intervention, but I don't think any of us would like for that to happen.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

. I don't see anything that prevents our legislators from passing arbitrary laws against public gatherings, .

Wish they actually would do this. Just to prevent people from blocking vehicles on highways.

Bear, while I'm sure some people would like to live in a dictatorship, most of us would like to be able to express our views without fear of prosecution.

As for the Tamils... We already have laws against what they've been doing.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

, most of us would like to be able to express our views without fear of prosecution. .

Absolutely agree, there is a proper place and time to do these types of things.

Agreed, but I'm sure there are laws against walking on the highways and they could have been ticketed for that in addition to jaywalking. A couple of c-notes each should make them reconsider the b.s. Also, the ones who took their kids there could get in hot water for child endangerment. So we have laws to cover what they did. We don''t need laws against free speech or peaceful assembly as that was not what the terrorist-supporter scum was doing in the first place.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

A couple of c-notes each should make them reconsider the b.s. Also, the ones who took their kids there could get in hot water for child endangerment. So we have laws to cover what they did. We don''t need laws against free speech or peaceful assembly as that was not what the terrorist-supporter scum was doing in the first place.

Agreed. In addition to numerous HTA offences that were committed, some of their acts also violated the Criminal Code. And who in their right mind would bring their child onto a busy expressway as a pedestrian, and then have the children at the front line facing the public order unit (riot squad)?

ditchMD wrote:

I found this 2003 report for the BC Ministry of Transportation in regards to changes in the speed limit (mostly increases). It's an interresting read.

Definitely an interesting read...

Here's a pilot project Ontario could try: Eventually, the Trans-Canada (hwy 17 here) will be twinned across the province. Outside of the cities, between Pembroke & the Manitoba border, raise the speed limit to 130 daytime, or just cancel it all together. Northern Ontarians have generally shown that they aren't weapons-grade nutcases with their driving, so, perhaps they should be given the opportunity to show that they don't require a numerical speed limit on a controlled-access, multilane rural highway. Then the OPP could focus on other acts of stupidity. Also if you cause a collision on the "no speed limit" road, we'll take Squishy's idea and slap you with a huge fine & licence suspension.

Truthfully I'd expect speeds on the Trans-Canada to go to maybe around the 130 mark with no official speed limit. Approaching cities, put in progressively lowering speed limits and make sure people slow down with enforcement.

Thoughts?

Truthfully I'd expect speeds on the Trans-Canada to go to maybe around the 130 mark with no official speed limit. Approaching cities, put in progressively lowering speed limits and make sure people slow down with enforcement.

It makes sense, the Gov't won't go for it. But, I agree with you.