Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

While drivers are cheering over new speed limiters required in transports and the OPP does its best to get people to slow down, there is someone else who is advocating the opposite. MPP Randy Hillier says he'd like to see the speed limit on the 400 series of highways increased to 110 kilometres an hour and the limiters abolished. The PC party leader hopeful says drivers ignore the current posted speed anyway so raising it isn't an issue. When it comes to the big rigs, Hillier says the drivers know how fast they should be going and the limiters could cause more problems and accidents by limiting drivers choices when they need to pass or get out of the way.

*********************************************

tdrive2 must be as as an police officer in a donut shop

Finally! An MPP who reads the OHTA Forum!!

all depends on the "flavour" of the day who wins the political race or how many people can be baffled by BS (ie gun registry)

Think the Tories previously mused about raising the limit to 120 when Mike Harris was Premier.

raise the speed, but bring back photo radar with zero tolerance!

Radar Identified wrote:

Think the Tories previously mused about raising the limit to 120 when Mike Harris was Premier.

That was our pal Al Paladini when he was the MTO minister filling potholes along the 401.

Oh bear you BET I AM.

Now that thats over.

Ahh finally someone who understands what capping trucks will do.

Oh boy im getting all ancy. Perhaps Fantino out the door soon and now a guy who wants to raise our speed limits on the 400

This is to good to be true!!!

Maybe he will also be clever enough to realize that certain highways depending on the zone we should have higher and or lower speed limits.

Cough cough Hwy 401- Mississauga to London, 407, 400 to Barrie.

And maybee yes bear beleive it or not do not raise the 401 limit from 427 to 400 they have enough volume and problems there.

It's amazing, this guy actually can now see to that speed does not equal the root of all evil and that capping trucks is a bad idea.

I mean i hate politicians and bailouts, but a politician who wants to improve the 400 series.

You know bear i hope you realize i am not some speed freak maniac who want to see every car on the road at 200 km/hr.

But i believe in lane discipline, and i feel we waste alot of time enforcing speed limits that have very little to do with road safety.

Another thing i have never gotten an answer from anyone is why are all our speed limits on the 400 the same.

It makes no sense to have the same speed limit in Urban Centres as in the country. The latter is much less dangerous and can handle higher speeds.

ALot of roads in texas will have posted limits of80-85 mph.

85 mph is almost 137 so to call 150 stunt driving is nuts.

This wont change much though, there is a ton of people today that will go 130-140 already as it is they wont slow down anymore. And all those that go 150 will slow down a bit.

Atleast with a higher limit we might have better flow of traffic and less of those buses and trucks capped at 110 in the middle lane.

Hey maybee he can also get rid of those ending right lanes!!!

Now bear i am serious here. There is definately some places that do NOT need much of an increase in the posted speed limit, but there is some where it is LONG over due. Some sections of our 400 series people do just not listen to the limit at all.

Mind you if they keep 172. You might end up going after the faster ones that go 160. Once you start to get into these kind of speedsgas consumption goes way up.

There is many times i have seen the flow of traffic in the left lane get up to 140-150. I doubt thesepeople will all now cruise at 155 just cause the limit is 110....

Ill aggree with the CAA on this one aswell. I think 110 is suitable for QEW, maybee 403, and ill qoute the CAA president in his suggestion of a posted limit for 130 on sections of the 401 in non-urban areas, volume/road/traffic permiting.

Man what did Fantino say.

He must have said let's tar and feather this guy and he is crazy and raising the limit to 110 is going to cause so many more deaths every year.

I mean all those Germans with no limits on their autobahn, Many other europeans with posted limits of 120-130, the other canadian provinces with max limits of 110, and those terrible southern states with limits of 75-85 mph must all be dead.

I guess they all lived to tell the tale, to. I never knew going fast in a straight line was so dangerous on a 3 or 4 lane highway.

I also like the point he says about the trucks. Just cause you raise the limit, and don't cap trucks dont mean they will all go at 124 now......

I wonder how much extra diesel a big transport would use at that speed to begin with.

Besides they are only raising the MAXIMUM posted speed limit.

I am sure there is many that like to go 100, or 105, there is nothign wrong with this this MP or myself is not criticizing them. You are free to do so just move over to let others pass and drive in the only driving lane (for those unaware this is the right lane on a multi lane controlled access highway).

I am sure the response will be now everyone will start to go 130.

but there is no reason to support this.

And who says transports will go alot faster either?

I find most of those transports are just at about 110 in the middle lane as it is, since they force everyone to get in the left lane to get around them as the right one is wide open. So maybee they can still drive 110, the speed limit in the left and help aid proper lane discipline.

Again a higher limit would also give the cops time to worry about other things.

Now all those crusing at 120-125 would not be such a big deal and the OPP would have more time to go after other bigger problems.

Only way I will vote for him is IF photo radar is back.

Will drivers abide by 110km? or do the usual I can get away with 20over and now drive 130? or will they remain at 119ish?

I know the local council here raised some rural roads from 80km - 90km this spring. However the local police have taken a zero tolerance policy in these areas. I travel on them while working and the speeds are almost all 85-95 and that is it. Prior I would see several over 100km....I really can't understand, higher speed limit, but overall lower speeds.....maybe the known zero tolerance?

What the MPP fails to address is the inexperienced drivers, and lane etiquette solutions? Maybe our forum could start a new area.....in revising a few HTA sections for him to change/modify to make sense IF he should be the chosen one.

hwybear wrote:

Only way I will vote for him is IF photo radar is back.

Will drivers abide by 110km? or do the usual I can get away with 20over and now drive 130? or will they remain at 119ish?

I know the local council here raised some rural roads from 80km - 90km this spring. However the local police have taken a zero tolerance policy in these areas. I travel on them while working and the speeds are almost all 85-95 and that is it. Prior I would see several over 100km....I really can't understand, higher speed limit, but overall lower speeds.....maybe the known zero tolerance?

What the MPP fails to address is the inexperienced drivers, and lane etiquette solutions? Maybe our forum could start a new area.....in revising a few HTA sections for him to change/modify to make sense IF he should be the chosen one.

Are you gonna bust someone for 95 in a 90??

Reflections wrote:

Are you gonna bust someone for 95 in a 90??

Far as I know the local PS are doing anyone at 6km and over (where the 16 over was).

hwybear wrote:

I know the local council here raised some rural roads from 80km - 90km this spring. However the local police have taken a zero tolerance policy in these areas. I travel on them while working and the speeds are almost all 85-95 and that is it. Prior I would see several over 100km....I really can't understand, higher speed limit, but overall lower speeds.....maybe the known zero tolerance?

There were several studies done in both the US and in Europe that show there is no correlation between an increased speed limit and higher travel speeds. Since most limits are set according to the 85th percentile (which to me sounds like a great revenue generator in itself and defies common sense) as opposed to road design, traffic volume, ect... most drivers will travel at a speed that they feel is both comfortable and safe. Personally, I feel that 120 km/h is appropriate on the 400-series. If the limit were to be raised to 110 km/h or even 120 km/h, I (along with those that feel comfortable at said speed) will continue driving at 120 km/h.

I believe that the speed limit increase would do nothing more than reduce the discrepancy between the posted limit and actual traffic speed.

tdrive2 wrote:

ALot of roads in texas will have posted limits of80-85 mph.

Fastest limit in Texas is 80 mph. Texas DPS (aka the Texas Rangers) and the Sheriff's Deputies don't have much of a tolerance, either. "I cot yew unner dat ovvapass dun 84 mile an awr. I'm goan hafta rat yew a tiggit."

ditchMd wrote:

I believe that the speed limit increase would do nothing more than reduce the discrepancy between the posted limit and actual traffic speed.

Even closer to home, ditch, a study in Saskatchewan showed no marked change in speeds when they raised their limits.

hwybear wrote:

Prior I would see several over 100km....I really can't understand, higher speed limit, but overall lower speeds.....maybe the known zero tolerance?

Definitely possible! Same thing was observed in the US when speed limits were raised on local roads. Speeds did not change by much, but the 99th percentile speed dropped noticeably. Go figure that one. The absolute leadfoots slowed down. 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. Taking a more libertarian argument... also could be maybe since, in their opinion, the law was more reasonable, they felt more inclined to obey it.

hwybear wrote:

What the MPP fails to address is the inexperienced drivers, and lane etiquette solutions? Maybe our forum could start a new area.....in revising a few HTA sections for him to change/modify to make sense IF he should be the chosen one.

That sounds like a good idea. We should have an area of the forum just for that purpose.

Raising the limits would really depend on the highway for me. I've come across very few roads in Ontario where it's unsafe to do 20 over. Even 130 isn't unreasonable on most stretches of the 400 series highways (depending on time/traffic/weather).

We really are a nanny state. Driving in Europe, I've come across some 80km/h limit roads where safety factors (surface and visibility) kept my speed down to 60 in nice weather.

Here we have great roads and great visibility, but still keep our limits unreasonably low.

Bear, I completely disagree with you. The photo radar solution just reinforces the belief that slow=safe and everything else (such as due care+attention and lane discipline be damned). The enforcement community should shift the emphasis on careless and jerkoff drivers.

FiReSTaRT wrote:

Bear, I completely disagree with you. The photo radar solution just reinforces the belief that slow=safe and everything else (such as due care+attention and lane discipline be damned). The enforcement community should shift the emphasis on careless and jerkoff drivers.

I have always wondered why we are fixated on "speed = collision, speed = injuries, speed=death, speed=economic impacts"? Why is it that we dont reflect the reality and drive home the point that inattention, distractions, lack of lane discipline, failure to share the road, not using common sense are what really cause collisions, injuries, deaths, and economic impacts? Speed is merely a factor that determines the severity of the collision. We can all be driving around at 50km/h, but if the above are not addressed, we will still have collisions, injuries, deaths, and socio-economic costs. When, and if, the issue of speed limit increase is ever debated, Id love to be a fly on the wall and find out how many pull the "but well lose speeding ticket revenue" line……

Having the opportunity to drive a large, bulky, vehicle at high speed both in town and on the hwy, Im sure that hwybear can relate when I say that our highways are more than capable of safely handling 110-120km/h traffic.

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.